Comparison of Health and Well-Being Aspects in Building Certification Schemes
2. Comparison of Building Certification Schemes (BCS)
2.2. Health Aspects Assessed in the Study
2.3. Comparison of Different Areas
Conflicts of Interest
- Mahesh Ramanujam Healthy Buildings and Healthy People: The Next Generation of Green Building. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/healthy-buildings-and-healthy-people-next-generation-green-building (accessed on 3 November 2017).
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Indoor Air Facts No. 4 (Revised). Sick Building Syndrome. Air and Radiation; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1991. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/sick_building_factsheet.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2019).
- Kukec, A.; Dovjak, M. Prevention and control of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS). Part 1: Identification of risk factors. Int. J. Sanit. Eng. 2014, 8, 16–40. [Google Scholar]
- Fisk, W.J. Health and productivity gains form better indoor environments and their relationships with building energy efficiency. Annu. Rev. Energy Env. 2000, 537–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Syal, M. Effects of Green Buildings on Employee Health and Productivity. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1665–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xue, F.; Gou, Z.; Siu, S.; Lau, Y. Human Factors in Green Office Building Design: The Impact of Workplace Green Features on Health Perceptions in High-Rise High-Density Asian Cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denac, M.; Obrecht, M.; Radonjič, G. Current and potential ecodesign integration in small and medium enterprises: Construction and related industries. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2018, 27, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roh, S. Developing a Green Building Index (GBI) Certification System to Effectively Reduce Carbon Emissions in South Korea’s Building Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krainer, A. Passivhaus contra bioclimatic design. Bauphysik 2008, 30, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dovjak, M.; Shukuya, M.; Krainer, A. User-Centred Healing-Oriented Conditions in the Design of Hospital Environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council; European Union Law: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011R0305 (accessed on 3 May 2019).
- Park, M.; Tae, S. Suggestions of Policy Direction to Improve the Housing Quality in South Korea. Sustainability 2016, 8, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, K. Beyond the Certification Badge—How Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tools Impact on Individual, Organizational, and Industry Practice. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, M.H.; Kim, H.Y.; Gu, D.; Kim, H. LEED, Its Efficacy and Fallacy in a Regional Context—An Urban Heat Island Case in California. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsberg, A.; von Malmborg, F. Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WELL. Available online: https://www.wellcertified.com/ (accessed on 4 November 2016).
- Living Builing Challenge. Available online: http://living-future.org/lbc (accessed on 4 November 2016).
- Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in Offices. Available online: http://www.worldgbc.org/files/9714/3401/7431/WorldGBC_Health_Wellbeing__Productivity_Full_Report_Dbl_Med_Res_Feb_2015.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2016).
- Fitwel. Available online: https://fitwel.org/assets/pdf/brochure.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2016).
- LEED O+M. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-building-operations-and-maintenance-current-version (accessed on 10 January 2019).
- BREEAM In-Use. Available online: https://www.breeam.com/discover/technical-standards/breeam-in-use/ (accessed on 10 January 2019).
- DGNB In-Use. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/schemes/scheme-overview/buildings_in_use.php (accessed on 10 January 2019).
- Market Study for a Voluntary Common European Union Certification Scheme for the Energy Performance of Nonresidential Buildings. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final report - Building Certification Schemes - FINAL 26112014.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2017).
- Bernardi, E.; Carlucci, S.; Cornaro, C.; Bohne, R. An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Health and Wellness Rating System Comparison. Available online: https://www.buildinggreen.com/infographic/health-and-wellness-rating-system-comparison (accessed on 6 March 2018).
- Allen, J.G.; Macnaughton, P.; Guillermo, J.; Laurent, C.; Flanigan, S.S.; Eitland, E.S.; Spengler, J.D.; Allen, J.G. Green Buildings and Health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2015, 2, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- World Health Organization (WHO). Air Quality Guidelines; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Shekarrizfard, M.; Faghih-Imani, A.; Tétreault, L.F.; Yasmin, S.; Reynaud, F.; Morency, P.; Plante, C.; Drouin, L.; Smargiassi, A.; Eluru, N.; et al. Regional assessment of exposure to traffic-related air pollution: Impacts of individual mobility and transit investment scenarios. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 29, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, W.; Ramalho, O.; Mandin, C. Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Flores, T.; Kalbusch, A.; Henning, E. Factors in fluencing water consumption in buildings in southern Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.T.Ã.; Mui, K.W. Epistemic water consumption benchmarks for residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1031–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rover, O.J.; De Gennaro, B.C.; Roselli, L. Social Innovation and Sustainable Rural Development: The Case of a Brazilian Agroecology Network. Sustainability 2016, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, J. Ecological Footprints and Lifestyle Archetypes: Exploring Dimensions of Consumption and the Transformation Needed to Achieve Urban Sustainability. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4747–4763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Llorach-massana, P.; Nadal, A.; Sanjuan-delm, D.; Ignacio, J.; Josa, A.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell, X. Environmental assessment of an integrated rooftop greenhouse for food production in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 326–337. [Google Scholar]
- Webb, A.R. Considerations for lighting in the built environment: Non-visual effects of light. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellia, L.; Bisegna, F.; Spada, G. Lighting in indoor environments: Visual and non-visual effects of light sources with different spectral power distributions. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1984–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galasiu, A.D.; Veitch, J.A. Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: A literature review. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 728–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WHO Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. Available online: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44399/1/9789241599979_eng.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2016).
- Bullock, C.; Brereton, F.; Bailey, S. The economic contribution of public bike-share to the sustainability and efficient functioning of cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, I.Y.S.; Liu, A.M.M. Effects of neighborhood building density, height, greenspace, and cleanliness on indoor environment and health of building occupants. Build. Environ. 2018, 145, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.; Chen, C.; Hwang, R.; Shih, W.; Lo, S. Satisfaction of occupants toward indoor environment quality of certified green office buildings in Taiwan. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patiño, E.D.L.; Vakalis, D.; Touchie, M.; Tzekova, E.; Siegel, J.A. Thermal comfort in multi-unit social housing buildings. Build. Environ. 2018, 144, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Cao, B.; Zhu, Y. Indoor environment and sleep quality: A research based on online survey and field study. Build. Environ. 2018, 137, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|WELL ||Air quality standards,|
Smoking ban, Ventilation effectiveness, Volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction
Air filtration, Microbe and mold control, Construction pollution management, Healthy entrance
Cleaning protocol, Pesticide management, Fundamental material safety, Moisture management, Air flush, Air infiltration management, Increased ventilation, Humidity control, Direct source ventilation, Air quality monitoring and feedback, Operable windows, Outdoor air systems, Displacement ventilation, Pest control, Advanced air purification, Combustion minimization, Toxic material reduction, Enhanced material safety, Antimicrobial activity for surfaces, Cleanable environment, Cleaning equipment
|ASHRAE 62.1-2013, standards for states||Formaldehyde < 27 ppb,|
Total volatile organic compounds < 500 μg/m3, Carbon < 9 ppm.
PM₂.₅ < 15 μg/m3.
PM₁₀ < 50 μg/m3.
Ozone < 51 ppb.
carbon dioxide levels < 800 ppm,
Radon < 4 pCi/L in the lowest occupied level of the project, asbestos, lead and polychlorinated biphenyl abatement, mercury limitation,
|LEED O+M ||Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control, Green Cleaning Policy, Indoor Air Quality Management Program, Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies.||ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 or CEN Standards EN 15251–2007 and EN 13779–2007|
|BREEAM In-Use ||Fresh air rates|
Internal environment: CO2 monitoring
Internal environment: CO monitoring
Internal environment: NOx monitoring
Volatile organic compounds
Control of chemicals
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||Guidelines for sustainable cleaning||/||/|
|WELL ||Fundamental water quality|
Public water additives
Periodic water quality testing
Drinking water promotion
|Turbidity < 1.0 NTU.|
E. coli not detected,
Lead < 0.01 mg/L.
Arsenic < 0.01 mg/L.
Antimony < 0.006 mg/L.
Mercury < 0.002 mg/L.
Nickel < 0.012 mg/L.
Copper < 1.0 mg/L.
Styrene < 0.0005 mg/L
Benzene < 0.001 mg/L.
Ethylbenzene < 0.3 mg/L.
Polychlorinated biphenyls < 0.0005 mg/L.
Vinyl chloride < 0.002 mg/L.
Toluene < 0.15 mg/L.
Xylenes (total: m, p and o) < 0.5 mg/L.
Tetrachloroethylene < 0.005 mg/L.
Atrazine < 0.001 mg/L.
Simazine < 0.002 mg/L.
Glyphosate < 0.70 mg/L.
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid < 0.07 mg/L.
Nitrate < 10 mg/L nitrogen.
Residual chlorine < 0.6 mg/L.
Residual chloramine < 4 mg/L.
Total trihalomethanes < 0.08 mg/L
Total haloacetic acids < 0.06 mg/L
Fluoride < 4.0 mg/L.
|LEED O+M ||/||/||/|
|BREEAM In-Use ||Microbial contamination|
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||/||/||/|
|WELL ||Fruits and vegetables|
Safe food preparation materials
Responsible food production
|LEED O+M ||/||/||/|
|BREEAM In-Use ||/||/||/|
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||/||/||/|
|WELL ||Visual lighting design|
Circadian lighting design
Electric light glare control
Solar glare control
Low-glare workstation design
Automated shading and dimming controls
Right to light
|Average light intensity 215 lux|
<250 equivalent melanotopic lux present at 75% or more workstations
Shielding angles for lights at certain luminance
Color Rendering Index 80 or higher
Ceiling Light Reflectance Values (LRV) > 0.8
Wall LRV > 0.7
Furniture LRV 0.5
75% occupied spaces within 7.5 m of view window
Window-to-wall ratio between 20 and 60%
Visible Transmittance < 60%
|LEED O+M ||Interior Lightning|
Daylight and Quality Views
|Luminance of > 2500 cd/m2 between 45 and 90 degrees nadir|
CRI of 80 and higher
75% of the total connected load have a rated life of at least 24,000 hours
average surface reflectance: 85% for ceilings, 60% for walls, and 25% for floors 45% for work surfaces and 50% for movable partitions
75% of the regularly occupied floor area, meet a ratio of average wall/celling surface illuminance (excluding fenestration) to average work surface illuminance that does not exceed 1:10
Achieve illuminance between 300 lux and 3000 lux for at least 50% of regularly occupied floor area
50% of all regularly occupied floor area achieves a direct line to the outdoors view- vision glazing
|BREEAM In-Use ||Glazing|
Illuminance levels (Lux)
Internal lighting types
Automatic lightning control
12464-1 Light and lighting—Lighting of workspaces
EN 12464-2 Lighting of work
places—Part 2: Outdoor work places, 2007
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||/||/||/|
|WELL ||Interior fitness circulation|
Activity incentive programs
Structured fitness opportunities
Exterior active design
Physical activity spaces
Active transport support
|LEED O+M ||Alternative transportation||/||/|
|BREEAM In-Use ||Cyclist facilities |
Proximity to public transport
Proximity to amenities
Pedestrian and cyclist safety
Transport management arrangements
Local public transport
Transport impact of commuting
Transport impact of business travel
Transport impact of goods delivery
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||Mobility provisions||/||/|
|WELL ||ADA Accessible design standards|
Ergonomics: Visual and Physical
Exterior noise intrusion
Internally generated noise
Sound reducing surfaces
Individual thermal control
Radiant thermal control
|ADA Standards for accessible design|
HFES 100 standard
ASHRAE Standard 55-2013
|Air sound pressure < 50 dBA|
Maximum noise criteria: (NC) 40 for open spaces, 35 for enclosed office, 30 for conference rooms, 20 for teleconference rooms
Maximum reverberation time (RT 60) 0.6 seconds for conference rooms, 0.5 for open workspaces
Sound masking levels should fall within the range 45–48 for open workspaces and 40–42 for enclosed offices
Minimum noise reduction coefficients 0.9 or 0.8 for the ceiling and 0.8 for walls
Noise Isolation Class 35 for enclosed offices
|LEED O+M ||EQ Credit: Thermal comfort||ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 or ISO 7730:2005 or CEN Standard EN 15251:2007|
|BREEAM In-Use ||Thermal control |
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||/||/||/|
|WELL ||Health and wellness awareness|
Beauty and design
Healthy sleep policy
Building health policy
Workplace family support
Stress and addiction treatment
|LEED O+M ||EQ Credit: Occupant Comfort Survey||/||/|
|BREEAM In-Use ||Condition survey|
Intruder alert system
Alarm system monitoring
Designing for robustness
Building user education
Building user information
Occupant satisfaction- feedback
Health and well-being management targets
Health and well-being management objectives
|DGNB BUILDINGS In-Use ||Sociocultural provisions|
Safety and operator obligations
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Potrč Obrecht, T.; Kunič, R.; Jordan, S.; Dovjak, M. Comparison of Health and Well-Being Aspects in Building Certification Schemes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092616
Potrč Obrecht T, Kunič R, Jordan S, Dovjak M. Comparison of Health and Well-Being Aspects in Building Certification Schemes. Sustainability. 2019; 11(9):2616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092616Chicago/Turabian Style
Potrč Obrecht, Tajda, Roman Kunič, Sabina Jordan, and Mateja Dovjak. 2019. "Comparison of Health and Well-Being Aspects in Building Certification Schemes" Sustainability 11, no. 9: 2616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092616