Show simple record

dc.contributor.authorByrd, Hugh
dc.contributor.authorRasheed, E.O.
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-19T03:19:09Z
dc.date.available2016-10-19T03:19:09Z
dc.date.issued2016-04-08
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10652/3580
dc.description.abstractIn this paper we challenge the notion that “green” buildings can achieve greater productivity than buildings that are not accredited as “green”. For nearly two decades, research has produced apparent evidence which indicates that the design of a “green” building can enhance the productivity of its occupants. This relationship between building design and productivity is claimed to be achieved through compliance with internal environmental quality (IEQ) criteria of Green rating tools. This paper reviews methods of measuring productivity and the appropriateness of the metrics used for measuring IEQ in office environments. This review is supported by the results of a survey of office building users which identifies social factors to be significantly more important than environmental factors in trying to correlate productivity and IEQ. It also presents the findings of observations that were discretely carried out on user-response in green buildings. These findings demonstrate that, despite a building’s compliance with IEQ criteria, occupants still resort to exceptional measures to alter their working environment in a bid to achieve comfort. The work has been carried out on “green” buildings in New Zealand. These buildings are rated based on the NZ “Green Star” system which has adopted the Australian “green star” system with its roots in BREEAM. Despite this, the results of this research are applicable to many other “green” rating systems. The paper concludes that methods of measuring productivity are flawed, that IEQ criteria for building design is unrepresentative of how occupants perceive the environment and that this can lead to an architecture that has few of the inherent characteristics of good environmental design.en_NZ
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.publisherMDPI - Open Access Publishingen_NZ
dc.rights© 2016 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/en_NZ
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 New Zealand*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/nz/*
dc.subjectgreen buildingsen_NZ
dc.subjectproductivityen_NZ
dc.subjectpost occupancy evaluationen_NZ
dc.subjectinternal environmental quality (IEQ)en_NZ
dc.subjectofficesen_NZ
dc.subjectoffice workersen_NZ
dc.subjectworkplace designen_NZ
dc.subjectwork performanceen_NZ
dc.subjectsurveysen_NZ
dc.titleThe productivity paradox in green buildingsen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.rights.holderAuthorsen_NZ
dc.identifier.doiDOI: 10.3390/su8040347en_NZ
dc.subject.marsden120101 Architectural Designen_NZ
dc.subject.marsden150311 Organisational Behaviouren_NZ
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationByrd, H., & Rasheed, E. (2016). The productivity paradox in green buildings. Sustainability, 8(4), pp.347. doi:DOI: 10.3390/su8040347en_NZ
unitec.institutionUnitec Institute of Technologyen_NZ
unitec.institutionUniversity of Lincoln (Lincoln, U.K.)en_NZ
unitec.institutionMassey Universityen_NZ
unitec.publication.spage347en_NZ
unitec.publication.volume8(4)en_NZ
unitec.publication.titleSustainabilityen_NZ
unitec.peerreviewedyesen_NZ
unitec.identifier.roms59098en_NZ


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in

Show simple record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 New Zealand
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 New Zealand