14


ceilings


The business case for occupant well-being


John Spicer, technical sales manager for Armstrong Ceilings, discusses the market drivers for a new focus on how building design and construction impacts on the health, wellbeing and productivity of occupants.


a year through lost production, recruitment and absence1 Research carried out in Australia1


. found the aggregate cost to


business of ill-health and absenteeism is estimated at more than £3.5bn per year, while presenteeism (not fully functioning at work because of medical conditions) costs over £13bn. A 2014 study by the British Council of Offices (BCO),


Making the Business Case for Wellbeing, identified nine key bugbears from office workers about their workplace conditions as being acoustics, lighting, sedentary working, decor, air quality, temperature, social areas, privacy and cleanliness. Main obstacles to wellbeing were identified as follows: • buildings that were open plan and too noisy • a lack of natural light, fresh air and colour • awkward design • no control over temperature • no relaxation or meditation areas • too many people walking past • office clutter Factors comprising good indoor environments are indoor


Good floor-to-ceiling heights can help to improve air quality


terminals, and are centres of healing, education, justice and community, buildings are expensive to build and difficult to maintain effectively over their lifecycle. Yet the business case for getting it wrong, in terms of a


T


building being designed or performing so badly that it impacts on the health of the people who work in it, is obvious. Some 90 per cent of a typical business’ running costs are staff,


so it makes sense to look after the health and well-being of employees; but an influential study by the World Green Building Council into health, well-being and productivity in offices shows the impact of not looking after employees’ health and well-being. For instance, poor mental health costs UK employers £30bn


he economics of the built environment have become as complex as building design itself. While they provide shelter, act as communication and data


air quality, thermal comfort, lighting/daylighting, and noise/acoustics – failures on these can result in physical problems leading to lack of productivity. The repercussions of a poor indoor environment include headaches, breathing disorders, fatigue, discomfort, eye strain, poor concentration, and all contribute to lower productivity. Seminal research in 2003 into indoor air quality identified


15 studies linking improved ventilation with up to 11 per cent gains in productivity as a result of increased external air rates, dedicated delivery of fresh air to the workstation, and reduced levels of pollutants. Similarly, in a 2011 lab test1


which mimicked an office, a


range of tasks were carried out with the presence of airborne volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Increasing ventilation from 5 l/s to 20 l/s improved performance by up to eight per


cent. High CO2 levels, which can also occur as a result of poor ventilation, have been found to increase tiredness and negatively impact decision-making. Good floor-to-ceiling heights not only feel like large spaces but also help to improve air quality, as air combined with good


ventilation allows air to mix well and reduces CO2 build up. Appropriate ceiling materials include low-VOC tiles.


www.architectsdatafile.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36