THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN WHEN PRODUCTIVITY COST IS CONSIDERED: AN OWNERS PERSPECTIVE

Jonathan Smith, LEED AP University of Southern California

Abstract Sustainable building design has benefits for both occupants and the environment. However, there remains some resistance to adopting sustainable design toward existing buildings in the form of retrofitting and operations. Much of this resistance can be attributed to lack of information. By accurately modeling the return on investment created by the energy efficient benefits of sustainable design, building owners are able to measure the impact on operating budgets and net operating income. Based on current research, there is a correlation between sustainable design standards and productivity in the workplace. By defining and measuring the effect of productivity in the workplace, companies and building owners can take advantage of the return on investment a sustainably designed building provides through increased productivity.

Introduction
In the United States, approximately $260 billion of economic output is lost each year from employee related injury or illness (Davis, Collins, Doty, Ho, & Holmgren, 2005, p. 1). On an annual basis, 68 million workers report missing a total of 407 million days of lost time from work. Another 55 million workers reported time when they were unable to concentrate at work due to illness accounting for an additional 478 million days lost (United States Department of Labor, 2011). With an aging population, increased stress related to workloads, and lower overall health, companies are overwhelmed by the increase of employment costs in an already depressed economic environment. The main cause of higher employment costs is productivity loss in the workplace. The major drivers of productivity loss are absenteeism and presenteeism. In contrast to absenteeism, presenteeism is the health and injury related loss of productivity due to reduced alertness, concentration, and mobility. Until recently, presenteeism was not accurately measured, but with statistical measurement procedures including the Stanford Presenteeism Scale, researchers have been able to accurately measure the productivity cost associated with presenteeism (Koopman, et al., 2002, p. 14). In survey data collected by The Commonwealth Fund, U.S. workers reported 407 million days of lost time due to absenteeism while lost time due to presenteeism totaled a stunning 478 million days with a productivity cost of $27 billion (Davis, Collins, Doty, Ho, & Holmgren, 2005, p. 3) Many of the factors associated with productivity loss are attributed to the built environment. In part, sustainable building design principles are intended to address these issue. According to the Sustainable Building Technical Manual (1996), the main objectives of sustainable design are to reduce energy, operation, and maintenance costs; reduce building-related illnesses; increase the productivity and comfort of building occupants; reduce waste and

pollution; and increase building and component durability and flexibility.(p. 14). If properly measured, these superior standards for building design unlock a hidden competitive edge that can translate into valuable financial return.

Defining Built Environment Productivity Factors

On average, people spend 80 to 90 percent of their time inside a built environment (Ries, Bilec, Gokhan, & Needy, 2006, p. 262). A significant portion of that time is spent at the workplace. The relationship between employee performance and the built environment is substantial and has been corroborated by numerous studies. The health of employees at the workplace is a major factor on productivity. One aspect of health management in the workplace is linked to the conscious and unconscious relationship of the employee to

his or her work environment. The employee is constantly affected by stimuli from the built environment around them. The bodys interaction with the sights, sounds, smells, and touch of the indoor environment drive a strong correlation with the performance of any employee.

Figure 1: Responses by building occupants to environmental complaint survey (Andrejas, 2008, p. 22 fig. 1)

Three aspects measure human job performance: quantity (speed), quality (number of mistakes), and group effect (how well the group works together) (Seppanen & Frisk, 2005, p. 666). The key indicator to effectively impacting productivity is through the measure of performance. The most significant variables of the workplace environment affecting performance are light, indoor air quality, acoustics, workstation ergonomics, and spatial orientation. Lighting Conditions Lighting conditions have been linked to quantity and, quality of work, downtime, absenteeism, and accident rates (Hoffman, et al., 2008, p. 719). Besides the obvious visual effects of light on an employees performance and safety, light has important non-visual biological effects. Various levels of intensity and spectral composition of light affect the light-dark cycles controlled by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), which regulates body temperature, the synthesis of various hormones as well as parameters of the autonomic nervous system (Hoffman, et al., 2008, p. 71920).

The change in attitude affects the employees work performance, which, ultimately, has an effect on productivity (Seppanen & Frisk, 2005, p. 666 Fig. 2).

Figure 2: IAQ Organizational Path (Seppanen & Frisk, 2005, p. 666 fig. 2)

Light, or the absence of light, aids in the regulation of melatonin production in the pineal gland. The intensity and color of light determine how much melatonin gets released into the blood stream. Darkness stimulates the release of melatonin while high intensity light suppresses it. The color temperature of light has been linked to mental activity and autonomic nervous system activity. A higher color temperature has shown to counteract drowsiness, fatigue, and daytime sleepiness (Hoffman, et al., 2008, p. 720). Indoor Air Quality Indoor air quality in the workplace has both a direct and in-direct correlation with employee productivity. According to a model by Seppanen & Fisk, indoor environmental quality (IEQ) conditions stimulate a chain of reactions that affect the productivity of a workplace. First, IEQ conditions affect communication among employees, which creates a change in employee attitude.

Figure 4: Melatonin Effect Chart (Boyce 2003 p. 23 fig. 7

The perception of comfort directly relates to the relationship between the employee and the environment. In a recent study researchers concluded that specific thermal conditions in centrally air-conditioned buildings deemed unacceptable by occupants were considered acceptable, if not optimal, in a naturally ventilated building. They further concluded that thermal comfort was indirectly related to the amount of perceived control over the indoor climate. The occupants in centrally airconditioned spaces had minimal control and thus perceived the conditions to be unacceptable. Occupants in the naturally ventilated building had substantially more control of the indoor environment via window operation, shades, and awnings thus their perception of comfort conditions were much more acceptable (Dear, 2004, p. 37). Though naturally ventilated buildings have greater control and higher acceptance among employees, the existence of air pollutants make them less than optimal (Andrejs & Rietschel, 2008, p. 23). Indoor air pollutants are the main causes of short-term absenteeism. Respiratory hospital admissions, asthma, emergency room visits, minor restricted activity days, and work loss days are all examples of productivity loss related to symptoms of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS); one of the main side effects associated with poor indoor air quality (Beko, Clausen, & Weschler, 2008, p. 1649). Causes of SBS such as carbon dioxide, fungus and bacteria, and volatile organic compounds make up a large portion of indoor pollutants. Productivity is impacted through social communication, absences, and individual performance. When communication patterns and performance among employees are affected, the relative consequences have a significant effect on the morale and productivity of an entire workplace. Noise Level The level of noise is another factor affecting the productivity of the workplace. The relationship between noise and productivity is classified as acoustic comfort. Acoustic comfort refers to noise levels that either distract or attract the employees attention from their work. According to The Center for the Built Environment at U.C. Berkley, sixty percent of occupants in cubicles revealed that acoustic interference impacted their performance (Lukens, 2009, p. 9). Some of the most distracting types of noise include traffic outside the building, nearby

mechanical equipment, noise from copiers and phones, and voices from nearby co-workers. The noise cancelling effects of white noise have been utilized in quiet work environments to promote privacy (Abraham, et al., 1996, p.160). Singh and Jain (2003) determined the effect of unwanted noise on worker productivity is directly related to the complexity of the task. Complex tasks are highly affected by lower levels of noise; while simple tasks are less affected by higher levels of noise (p. 120). Workstation Ergonomics With the increased use of computers and time workers are performing static tasks at the workplace, health complaints related to backache, headache, shoulder and neck pain are substantial among employees. Injuries due to overexertion and repetitive strain have become the most common work related injury. In 2009, United States musculoskeletal disorder cases account for 28 percent of all nonfatal injuries reported, while overexertion accounted for an additional 22 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, p. 1). Spatial Orientation The use of space within an indoor environment is of great importance. Besides being a driving factor of productivity by impacting employee communication and downtime associated with equipment location, all the variables previously mentioned are influenced by the effective use of space. For example, the density of the space affects IAQ thereby influencing employee health and comfort. The layout of the space affects lighting conditions, acoustic comfort, and workstation ergonomics, which in turn affect employee health and happiness.

Applying Sustainable Design to Built Environment Productivity Factors

Sustainable design seeks to create the most productive uses of the built environment. Most sustainable principles related to the built environment enhance human performance and ultimately productivity. Each of the five factors of productivity associated with the built environment have been extensively researched and incorporated into a comprehensive set of standards that have proven to increase the productivity of employees in the workplace. Effects of Daylighting and Task Lighting on Productivity The use of daylight to illuminate interior spaces is a chief principle of sustainable design. By harnessing light from the sun, the need for artificial light is reduced, thus substantially impacting energy consumption. Not only can daylight reduce energy consumption, it can also increase human performance. Santamaria and Bennett (1981) constructed an experiment to evaluate performance while proofreading under daylight and, conversely, under cool

white fluorescent lamps. The research found a 5 percent increase in performance under daylight opposed to florescent light (Boyce, Hunter, & Howlett, 2003, p. 18). The comfort responsiveness of daylight over artificial light is highly preferred as well. According to Heerwagen and Heerwagen (1986), daylight was preferred over electrical light in all categories ranging from psychological comfort and general health to work performance and jobs requiring fine observation (Boyce, Hunter, & Howlett, 2003, p. 26-27). These finding are significant because research has suggested that an increase in employee satisfaction of 10 percent will yield a 1 percent increase in productivity (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 76). It should be noted that a change in mood will vary depending on an individuals discomfort, preferences, expectations, and gender, nevertheless with all variables held constant the preference was statistically significant (Boyce, Hunter, & Howlett, 2003, p. 23). Daylighting is measured as a percentage based on the luminance of the clear unobstructed sky. The percentage is expressed as a factor where 2 percent equals a daylighting factor of 2. A survey measuring the daylighting performance of Hong Kong office buildings illustrates an average daylighting factor of 5 at the windows but drops significantly 2m in depth to 2.88, then under .5 at 8m in depth (Li & Tsang, 2008, p. 1453-56). As recommended by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselar Polytechnic Institute, in order to realize the full benefits of daylighting in an office environment a lux level between 323 and 5382 (30-500fc) must be achieved, which translates into a 6.5 to 108 percent daylighting factor (Leslie, Smith, Radetsky, Figueiro, & Yue, 2010, p. 6). Based on the sample survey data from China, the potential benefits from an increase in the daylighting factor between 1.5 and 6, depending on depth, may increase employee performance by 5 percent (Boyce, Hunter, & Howlett, 2003, p. 18) and raise productivity 3 percent by way of a 30 percent increase in satisfaction (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 76). The challenge of delivering natural light to the depths of spaces is the source of many new innovations. Fenestration systems utilize a variety of shades mirrors, and blinds to efficiently redirect natural light and minimize glare, distributing it to areas in need (Tsangrassoulis, 2008, p. 35). The systems can either be manual or automatic, using parabolic mirrors to collect and scatter light over various distances. Bomin Solar Research developed one such system called the Solux system. The Solux system uses special lenses called Frensel lens to capture and transmit natural light via liquid fiber optic to indoor spaces (Tsangrassoulis, 2008, p. 46). Much of the emerging technology in daylighting is inefficient based on the current standards, but with new research on the benefits affecting productivity, a new standard for efficiency could emerge.

Based on the challenges faced with delivering the high levels of daylighting needed to impact productivity and the various responses to the effects of light, task lighting becomes an important aspect of employee productivity. The Sustainable Building Technical Manual (1996) recommended illumination levels are outlined by type of activity. Noninvasive activities in casual settings, like public places with dark surroundings, are given a low recommended level of light between 23-54 lux (2-5fc) (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 92 tbl. 1). Conversely, activities described as very special visual tasks of extremely low contrast and small size have recommended levels between 10,764 and 21,528 lux (1000-2000fc) (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 92 tbl. 1). The variation in recommended illumination levels is attributed to the weighting principles and their influence on the given task. Weighting is based on task and worker characteristics. Each characteristic is given a weight of -1, 0, or +1 relative to their respective range.

p. 39). The result of the study demonstrated a 4.5 percent increase in productivity compared to the control group (Juslen, Wouters, & Tenner, 2007, p. 43). Sustainable Indoor Air Quality Standards Design & Implementation: A Productivity Perspective The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) oversees the majority of indoor air quality (IAQ) standards. Many of the green building rating systems, as well as government agencies, adopt and use the recommendations set forth by the ASHRAE. Much of the documented research regarding IAQ and the subsequent effect on occupants of interior spaces has been conducted in the last 15 to 20 years. During this time, huge strides have been made to improve the atmosphere of the built environment for the benefit of the health and performance of occupants. According to the Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences, the most important objectives of a sustainable IAQ system are as follows: 1. Providing superior ventilation 2. Controlling sources of indoor air contamination 3. Preventing unwanted moisture accumulation 4. Maintaining optimal thermal comfort Depending on the status quo, either new construction or the upgrade of an existing facility, the implementation of a sustainable IAQ system will vary in complexity and, ultimately, cost. Nevertheless, the design principles and objectives remain the same. Furthermore, each objective has a measurable influence on employee productivity. Indoor air quality design is most effective through an integrated approach. The four principles of indoor air quality design are: 1. Source Control 2. Ventilation Control 3. Occupant Activity Control 4. Building Maintenance These principles operate together to accomplish the IAQ objectives listed above (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 145). Source & Ventilation Control Source control refers to the reduction of potential air pollutants through the use of building materials, products, equipment, and furniture that are low in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and microbial volatile organic compounds (mVOCS). VOCs and mVOCs emit odors, release irritating and toxic chemicals into the air, and are susceptible to microbial growth (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 145). At levels below 1 mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3 these compounds contribute to employee sensory irritations including dryness and weak inflammatory irritation in eyes, nose, airways, and skin (Molhave, et al., 1997, p. 227). These symptoms contribute to nausea, fatigue, dizziness, difficulty breathing, and headaches. At levels in excess of 25 mg/m3, much more serious health effects may occur such as cancer, pneumonia, asthma, infections, and

The characteristics used to determine the correct illumination level for any given task are worker age, speed and/or accuracy (as it relates to the intricacy of the task), and reflectance of the background surface. The recommended lux output is dependent on the determination of each characteristic and can vary up to 150 percent within a given task (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 92 tbl. 1). Considering the discrepancy in lighting levels and the many factors that influence the suitability for each individual worker and task, the ability of an employee to customize the intensity and spectrum of light to the benefit of the employees performance based on task, age, and reflectance of background will increase mood, performance, and productivity. In a field study conducted at a luminaire factory in Finland, ten individual workstations were fitted with controllable task lighting and monitored for 16 weeks (Juslen, Wouters, & Tenner, 2007,

Table 2: Recommended Illumination Levels Table (Abrahams 1996 p. 92 tab. 1)

damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010,

Figure 7:VOC emission chart (Abrahams 1996 p. 147 fig. 4)

VOC section). VOCs and mVOCs are believed to be one of the main causes of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS). According to the United States EPA, Sick Building Syndrome is described as, [] situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified. [] symptoms associated with acute discomfort, e.g., headache; eye, nose, or throat irritation; dry cough; dry or itchy skin; dizziness and nausea; difficulty concentrating; fatigue; and sensitivity to odors. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, SBS section). Frisk & Rosenfeld (1997) determined SBS symptoms were the cause of a 1 to 4 percent loss in productivity (Beko, Clausen, & Weschler, 2008, p. 1653). Thus, the elimination of existing SBS symptoms could yield the same gains. With VOCs & mVOCs being a major contributor to SBS, it is important to avoid materials and equipment that contain or enhance these pollutants. These compounds are used in building materials such as paint, flooring, drywall, and acoustic ceiling tiles as well as office equipment including desks, chairs, and printers. According to the European Committee for Standardization, materials should be selected based on a recommended sensory pollution load of 0.1 olf/m2 or 0.2 olf/m2 of floor area (ClementsCroome, 2008, p. 71). Because of the awareness stimulated from the Green Movement, not for profit organizations like Green Seal have emerged to aid in distinguishing products that are concurrently healthy for people and the environment. Many products for a variety of uses can be found through their website at www.greenseal.org. In the case of existing buildings, when materials with VOCs and/or mVOCs are already present, it is important to identify and abate them as

needed. For example, exposed fibrous acoustical insulation in air handlers, ducts, and VAV boxes may attract microbes thus should be encapsulated (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 150) Not all air pollutants can be effectively controlled at the source, even when care is used to choose the right equipment and materials to promote a healthy indoor environment, there are variables that can contribute to indoor pollutants. The variables with the highest risk include those brought into the indoor environment in the form of biological contaminants and particulates. A variety of particles, gases, and particulate matter make up the composition of the outside air including potential indoor pollutants such as, dust, debris, nitrogen, electrical particles, and water vapor. Also, gases like carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and VOCs are often common in workspaces, as well as biological contaminants including viruses, bacteria, and fungi. With the majority of these pollutants being smaller than 10m, they have been classified as PM10 and are found to have a strong correlation with adverse health effects including morbidity and mortality. In North America and Western Europe the urban annual average outdoor concentration of particles smaller than 10m diameter (PM10) is between 30 and 60 g/m3 (Beko, Clausen, & Weschler, 2008, p. 1649). Unfiltered particle concentrations of indoor spaces are estimated at 65 to 95 percent of outdoor concentrations (Beko, Clausen, & Weschler, 2008, p. 1649). Carbon dioxide build up in the interior environment can have significant health effects that impact worker performance. CO2 concentrations in excess of 7.5 percent in the atmosphere of an indoor environment cause headache, dizziness, restlessness, breathlessness, sweating, malaise, increased heart rate, and increased blood pressure (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 72). A study conducted in the Netherlands on student health at various carbon dioxide levels concluded that for every 1000 parts per million (ppm) variation of carbon dioxide concentration there was a 10 to 20 percent increase of absences among students (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 75). Carbon dioxide levels below 800 parts per million (ppm) are preferable for interior conditions. Ventilation is a critical control measure to reduce the risks associated with indoor air pollutants. The effect on the indoor environment is attributable to three factors: air filtration, circulation, and regulation of temperature & humidity. Each of these factors has a distinct influence on employee productivity. In order to properly filter the air, an adequate level of circulation is needed. According to a variety of studies, ventilation rates below 10 liters per second (l/s) per person results in lower air quality and worsening health problems (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 73). Employee comfort and health depend on the circulation of fresh air. According to Jaakkola and Miettinen (1995), each l/s per person change in the ventilation rate is coupled with a 1.1 relative risk

factor for experiencing symptoms within the range of 0 to 30 l/s. This means an increase in the ventilation rate equal to 5 l/s per person would decrease the percentage of occupants with frequent upper respiratory and eye irritation symptoms from 40 to 25 percent (ClementsCroome, 2008, p. 73). In an effort to minimize these risks, ASHRAE standard 62.1 recommends a ventilation rate of 10 liters of fresh air per second per person in a nonsmoking office building (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 73). To attain the recommended carbon dioxide levels of less than 800 ppm, ASTM D 6245-98 recommends at least 11.6 l/s per person fresh air ventilation rate (ClementsCroome, 2008, p. 73). Based on the research provided, the relationship between ventilation and employee health is substantially connected. Furthermore, the relationship between employee health and incidence of productivity can be effectively measured as well. At low ventilation rates, under 10 l/s, levels of carbon dioxide can exceed 1000 ppm and can contribute to a 10-20 percent increase in the absentee rate (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 75). By doubling the ventilation rate of an indoor environment up to 30 l/s (Saari, Tissari, Valkama, & Seppanen, 2006, p. 1966), SBS symptoms can be reduced by 10 percent (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 76) thereby potentially reducing sick leave by 2 percent (Milton, Glenross, & Walters, 2000) and increasing productivity by 1.5 percent (Clements-Croome, 2008, p 76). The major innovations in sustainable HVAC systems continue to revolve around energy efficiency. With regard to improving the indoor air quality at a sustainable level, controls are the leading technology available. The most effective HVAC systems are those that utilize variable air volume (VAV) diffusers. VAV diffusers allow variable control of airflow to multiple locations. Sensors detecting temperature, humidity, and pollutant levels control the distribution of air. A computer gathers the information sent from the sensors and adjusts air volume to those locations accordingly. When properly designed based on space volume, occupancy, and envelope insulation factors, VAV systems can effectively and efficiently control indoor air quality and thermal comfort. Thermal Comfort Thermal comfort is the measure of temperature, air velocity, and humidity on the comfort of building occupants. Studies based on the correlation between office comfort and productivity demonstrates a 10 percent

increase in employee satisfaction improves performance by 1 percent (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 76). Researchers have found a direct link between temperature and the performance of certain tasks carried out by employees. Just a few degrees difference in temperature can influence speed and accuracy by 2 to 20 percent in tasks like typewriting, learning performance, reading speed, multiplication speed, and word memory (Frisk, 2002, p. 59). Another study concluded that an increase of 1C above an indoor air temperature of 22C could decrease the productivity in an office by 1 percent (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 76). Supplying the appropriate air temperature at the optimum velocity is the ultimate goal for thermal comfort (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 76). Due to the varied responses people have to air movement, comfort becomes increasingly unpredictable as air speed increases and the atmosphere becomes drafty. The lower the temperature the greater the response to air velocity. Velocities of .35 m/s, 1 m/s, and 2.5 m/s have been found to be acceptable relative to temperatures of 25C, 28C, and 29C respectively (Clements-Croome, 2008, p. 70). The effect of humidity on comfort is directly related to the bodys responses to different levels of moisture in the air. Dr. Clements-Croome (2008) documented humidity and comfort findings suggesting levels below 40 percent can increase the occurrence of dry throat, while decreased levels below 20 percent contribute to dry eyes and increase the rate of blinking (p. 75-76). High levels of humidity may have even more serious effects on occupant health. Bacteria and fungi thrive in high moisture atmospheres and are the cause of many respiratory illnesses (Frisk, 2002, p. 57). Based on these findings, humidity levels between 40 to 60 percent are considered acceptable (ClementsCroome, 2008, p. 76). Optimal Acoustic Design & Implementation Comfort is the objective when designing for optimal acoustic conditions in sustainable buildings. Some sounds soothe and promote wellbeing, while others have negative effects on health and comfort. To a certain degree, distinguishing the difference between a positive and negative response is largely a subjective matter. To understand and harness the effect of sound on worker performance can significantly impact the productivity of a workplace.

Figure 10: Relationship between ventilation rate and absence rate (Saari 2006, p. 1966 fig. 9)

A variety of research has shown that the impact of noise on worker performance is correlated to the complexity of the task, the higher the complexity the greater the effect and vise versa (Singh & Jain, 2003, p. 1). In one researchers survey, noise complaints were recorded among 90% of respondents at levels in excess of 73 dB (Andrejs & Rietschel, 2008, p. 22). Background noise at levels of 30-45 dB is recommended in offices (Andrejs & Rietschel, 2008, p. 22). While a study conducted used fuzzy modeling to measure work efficiency in noisy environments concluded real work efficiency was not significantly impacted until around 80 dB for the most complex tasks (Singh & Jain, 2003, p. 122 fig. 5[c]). Creating an effective strategy to control noise is essential to producing high levels of productivity. Different spaces have different needs for acoustic levels. Sustainable design and building practices that impact noise levels should be evaluated and implemented as needed. Some of these practices include, location of noise sensitive areas, evaluating the sound absorbing capability of floors and walls; using acoustic absorbing building materials like drywall, insulation, ceiling tiles, partitions, and furniture; and considering white noise to maintain a constant level of speech privacy (Abraham, et al., 1996, p. 157-60).

Figure 13: Real work efficiency in noisy environments (Singh 2003 p. 122 fig. 5 a,b,c)

Effects of Workstation Ergonomics in Practice The science of ergonomics in the workplace has drastically changed the thought process behind employee health. Employers mindful of the costs associated with work related injuries have been open to incorporating new technologies to improve the risks caused by overexertion and repetitive strain. Sustainable, ergonomic workstation design is at the forefront of the battle with work related injury and productivity. Shikdar et al. (2008) measured the effect of ergonomic workstation design on employee health complaints (p. 1968). They reviewed four groups of employees over six months. Three groups where given a variation of ergonomic aid, either training, facilities, or both. Over the six month period

Figure 14: Ergonomic Study Results (Shikdar, 2008, p. 1968 fig. 1)

employees given ergonomic training complained of less headache, backache, neck pain, and wrist pain by an average of 35 percent (Shikdar, Khadem, & AlHarthy, 2008, p. 1968). A group provided with ergonomic facilities including back support, space saver copyholders, footrest, gel mouse pad support, arm support, and antiglare filter, reported an average of 50 percent less complaints of pain symptoms. The last group was given both ergonomic training and workstation ergonomic facilities. On average this group reported a 60 percent reduction in pain symptom complaints (Shikdar, Khadem, & AlHarthy, 2008, p. 1968-69). All of the groups given a form of ergonomic aid showed significant improvement, while the control group showed an average 2.5% increase in complaints overall (Shikdar, Khadem, & Al-Harthy, 2008, p. 1968-69). The results of the study make a strong argument for greater attention to performance enhancing measures. According to Seven Key Factors for Ergonomic Workstation Design, published in Manufacturing Engineering by Karl Wojcikiewicz, the seven principles important to a workstation are size of workers, area of reach, optimizing container layout, circulation, field of vision, lighting, and correct adjustment of working aids. Most workstations are designed to fit 90% of employees. When the workers arms are resting the elbow should be about 50mm above the work surface. A minimum work surface of 1 meter is necessary. For seated workstations the clear area below the work surface should be at least 550mm deep and 350mm high to provide adequate foot and leg space (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, p. 4546). The area of reach should be divided into three zones: maximum area of reach, optimum area of reach, and area of reach with both hands. The objects should be organized in proximity to the worker based on the frequency of use. Objects that are frequently used should be located in the area accessible with both hands (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, 47-48). Container layout should be organized to maximize utility while
Table 6: Recommended background noise levels

minimizing movement. This principle is most effective when applied to industrial and manufacturing operations. The heaviest and most frequently used items should be located in containers nearest the worker in order to minimize strain and movement (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, p. 48). Due to the risk of decreased circulation, work surfaces must never be higher than the workers heart. Low rates of circulation will result in a rapid drop in employee performance. Stagnant tasks should also be avoided if possible to prevent reduced blood flow to the muscles thereby causing fatigue. Lastly, having the worker perform various tasks as opposed to one repetitive task will lessen fatigue and reduce the risk of repetitive motion injury (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, p. 49). Objects used by the worker should never be outside the maximum field of vision, which is defined as the area within a 90 arc, either side of the workers centerline. To avoid unnecessary head and eye movement, frequently used objects should be located within the optimum field of vision. The optimum field of vision is located about 381mm on either side of the workers centerline. Ideally, all containers should be equidistance from the worker. These strategies minimize strain by relieving the stress of frequent refocusing of the eyes. Lastly, workstation height should take into account the natural head position, 15 and 25 the horizontal for standing and sitting respectively (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, p. 49-50). The proper lighting intensity is important for each particular task. Workstation lighting systems should be customizable to fit the needs of the worker. Lower precision tasks need less light while high precision tasks require much higher intensity light (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, p. 50). The proper adjustment of workstation ergonomic faculties is critical to their effectiveness. Adjustments should be easily functional and accessible by workers. Without the worker making the proper custom adjustment to desks, chairs, foot support, and other aids, the ergonomic and proper posture properties are rendered useless (Wojcikiewicz, 2003, p. 50). Ergonomic improvements to workstations have proven to substantially increase employee performance and overall productivity. In a (2000) case study of three
Figure 16: Ergonomic Optimum Work Area (Wojcikiewics, 2003, p. 46)

companies, workstations were customized to the specifications previously described. Employees demonstrated a 15 percent increase in productivity conducting fine assembly (Ebben, 2000, p. 95). The incidence of work loss due to injury is another substantial benefit to ergonomic workstation design. Based on the results of injury cases reported, an 8.6 percent drop in claims was realized after the ergonomic implementation (Ebben, 2000, p. 94). This translates into a reduction of 89 lost workdays. Spatial Efficiency as a Sustainable Design Principle Sustainable design seeks to create the most efficient and productive workplaces. One of the most overlooked factors in employee productivity is the spatial efficiency of the workplace. Effective spatial efficiency encompasses three characteristics: spatial equity, flexibility, and connectivity (Lukens, 2009, 29). The productivity gains created by spatial efficiency are attributable to employee satisfaction with the facility. The respondents of the U.S. Genslar Survey (2006) reported that a better workplace design would increase their work performance by 21 percent and even persuade them to stay extra hours at work (Schneider, 2007, p. 35). The chart from Oseland (2004) shows that employee satisfaction with the facility has an even greater effect on productivity than indoor environment satisfaction (Haynes, 2008, p. 42). According to the chart, an 11 percent increase in employee satisfaction with their workplace could increase productivity 9 percent. Spatial equity is the necessary allocation of space for an employee to complete their respective tasks while providing adequate privacy, daylight, and view (Lukens, 2009, p. 29). Besides the increase in employee comfort and overall happiness, the density of employees in a work environment has been linked to the incidence of respiratory diseases, which can contribute to a substantial portion of employee absenteeism and presenteeism. Flexibility refers to the potential of a workspace to adapt to changing dynamics for both the individual and the group as a whole (Lukens, 2009, p. 30). Well conceived layouts of workstations, collaboration areas, conference rooms, and office utilities increase performance and minimize downtime associated with

Figure 18: Facility Satisfaction & Productivity (Haynes, 2008, p.42 fig. 1)

changing work situations like meetings, training, and group projects. ! Connectivity is the ability to foster open communication and social interactions through workplace design. According to Genslers U.S. 2008 Workplace Survey, Innovation, speed and economic value in a knowledge economy are derived more and more from collective intelligence-the open sharing, connecting and building on ideas through a group process. Teams have the potential to offer greater breadth and creativity than any one individual can offer, resulting in innovative and comprehensive solutions and ideas.(p. 6)

The Effect of Sustainable Design on Productivity Cost: A Financial Analysis

The financial benefits of sustainable design are inherent in the ability of the building to produce a higher rate of return by way of energy, maintenance, and employee cost savings than a building designed below sustainable standards. Even though sustainable buildings produce a higher return on investment than the status quo, there is resistance to building them. According to a 2007 Building Design & Construction survey, 78 percent of architectural, engineering, and construction respondents indicated that sustainable building practices added significantly to first costs (Kapelina, 2010, p. 4). In actuality, sustainable design is usually less than 1 percent higher on average, while some cases have proven less costly (Kapelina, 2010, p. 5). Any additional costs are quickly countered by the benefits of lower energy bills, maintenance costs, and higher productivity. The financial impact of lower energy and maintenance costs has been well documented. According to a Booz Allen study, the energy and maintenance cost in an average sustainable building creates a savings of $0.32 per square foot over the life of the building compared to similar buildings (Kapelina, 2010, p. 6). Utility companies, energy service companies, and consulting firms have created accurate models to determine these savings giving clients a precise return on their investment. The ability to underwrite the real cost savings attributed to energy and maintenance in sustainable buildings has created interest among tenants thus attracting capital and adding value. Though the research demonstrates a strong correlation between sustainable design and productivity gains, there is much less acceptance of the financial benefits. Due to the lack of agreement, many companies and building owners fail to realize the exceptional returns associated with

productivity. This void presents a great opportunity for investment that will increase profits and cash flow. Employee costs are the largest percent of an employers operating budget. In U.S. office buildings, employee costs are estimated to be an average of $318 per square foot per year (Kapelina, 2010, p. 6). At approximately 90 percent of the operating budget, they far out weigh property costs, which contribute to about 6 percent of the budget (Ries, Bilec, Gokhan, & Needy, 2006, p. 261). Based on this ratio, a 1 percent variation in employee costs would be equal to a 15 percent variation in property costs. Furthermore, if an increase in productivity due to the effects of sustainable design yields a reduction of 1 percent in employee costs, an increase or investment of 15 percent of the property cost is equitably justifiable over the same period.
Figure 19: Typical Office Operating Budget Pie Chart

Figure 20: Employee and Property Cost Relationship

The benefits of measuring the productivity cost to building owners, whether owner-occupier or ownerinvestor, are significant. For an owner-occupier, the benefit is much more effective because the benefit may be utilized to reduce employment cost and increase output, which translates into higher profits, increased revenue, and improved return on capital investment. The ownerinvestor benefits by leveraging the reduced employee cost to tenants by increasing rent and offsetting tenant improvement allowances thereby increasing net operating income.

Discussion
For owner-operators the benefits of higher productivity and lower absenteeism in sustainably designed buildings can be staggering. A case study evaluating the investment return of daylighting, advanced energy technologies, and personal workstation controls for West Bend Mutual Insurance resulted in a 16 percent increase in productivity freeing $2.08 million per year of capital (Kapelina, 2010, p. 16). A research partnership between CB Richard Ellis and the University of San Diego suggested that in the case of owner-operated,

sustainably designed buildings, the increase in worker productivity equates to a net present value of $100 per square foot (Kapelina, 2010, p. 16). As an owner-investor the benefits of sustainable design come in the form of increased rents, reduced vacancies, and, ultimately, higher property values. Sustainable buildings have a 3.5 percent rent premium compared to identical non-sustainably designed buildings (Eichholtz, Kok, & Quigley, 2010, p. 2500). While effective rents are even higher around 7 percent (Eichholtz, Kok, & Quigley, 2010, p. 2494). Also, selling prices of sustainable buildings are 16 percent higher than other identical buildings with every other factor held constant (Eichholtz, Kok, & Quigley, 2010, p. 2494). The precise impact of increased productivity on any particular firm and/or building must be assessed to determine the monetary benefit of any sustainable design implementation. Variables like salary rate and heterogeneousness of the workforce as well as market conditions, occupancy rates, property values, and location will have a substantial impact on the feasibility of any sustainable design implementation. Nevertheless, with employee costs being such a substantial percentage of companies operating budgets in comparison to energy, maintenance, and property costs, the value created by capturing the benefits of productivity can vastly surpass any value added by energy efficiency savings.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge the University of Southern California for providing an endless amount of research resources. Also, I would like to thank Professor Dana Sherman, Nadine Afari, Jeffery Smith, and Jenne Smith for their contribution to this paper. 14.

References

15. 16. 17. 18.

1.

2. 3.

4.

Abraham, L. E., Angnello, S., Ashkin, S. P., Athens, L., Bernheim, A., Bisel, C. C., et al. (1996). Sustainable Building Technical Manual: Green Building Design, Construction, and Operations. (F. Haselsteiner, K. Lundy, & S. Tageldin, Eds.) Washington D.C.: Public Technology, Inc. Andrejs, B., & Rietschel, P. (2008). Multifunctional analysis of health problems in office spaces. SJWEH Suppl (4), 21-24. Beko, G., Clausen, G., & Weschler, C. J. (2008). Is the use of particle air filtration justified? Costs and benefits of filtration with regard to health effects, building cleaning and occupant productivity. Building and Environment (43), 1647-1657. Boyce, P., Hunter, C., & Howlett, O. (2003). The Beneift of Daylight through Windows. Rensselaer

19.

20.

Polytechnic Institute, Lighting Research Center. Troy: U.S. Department of Energy. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010 !"# 9-November). Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illness Requiring Days Away from Work, 2009. Retrieved 2011 !"# 22February from Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh2.pdf Clements-Croome, P. D. (2008). Work Performance, productivity and indoor air. SJWEH Suppl. (4), 69-78. Davis, K., Collins, S. R., Doty, M. M., Ho, A., & Holmgren, A. L. (2005). Health and Productivity Among U.S. Workers. The Common Wealth Fund. Commonwealth Fund. Dear, D. R. (2004). Thermal comfort in practice. Indoor Air (14), 32-39. Ebben, J. (2000). Ergonomics: It's Worth It. Material Handling Management , 55 (8), 91-96. Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing Well By Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review , 100, 2494-2511. Frisk, W. J. (2002). How IEQ Affects Health, Productivity. ASHRAE Journal , 44 (5), 56-60. Haynes, B. P. (2008). The impact of office comfort on productivity. Journal of Facilities Managament , 6 (1), 37-51. Hoffman, G., Gulfer, V., Griesmacher, A., Bartenbach, C., Canazei, M., Staggl, S., et al. (2008). Effects of variable lighting intensities and colour temperatures on sulphatoxymelatonin and subjective mood in an experimental office workplace. Applied Ergonomics (39), 719-728. Juslen, H., Wouters, M., & Tenner, A. (2007). The influence of controllable task-lighting on productivity: a field study in a factory. Applied Ergonomics (38), 39-44. Kapelina, D. D. (2010, Spring). The Business Case for Sustainable Buildings. Real Estate Review , 3-22. Keranen, J., Virjonen, P., Elorza, D. O., & Hongisto, V. (2008). Design of room acoustics for open offices. SJWEH Suppl (4), 46-49. Kirsten, W. (2010). Making the Link between Health and Productivity at the Workplace -A Global Perspective. Industrial Health (48). Koopman, C., Pellettrier, K., Murray, J. F., Sharda, C. E., Berger, M. L., Turpin, R. S., et al. (2002). Stanford Presenteeism Scale: Health Status and Employee Productivity. Journal of Occupational Environment Medicine , 44 (1), 14-20. Lukens, G. L. (2009). Office Design: Designing for Productivity in the Workplace. Southern Illinois University, Department of Architecture. Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC. Milton, K., Glenross, P., & Walters, M. (2000). Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidification, and occupant complaint. International

21.

22.

23.

24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Journal of Indoor Air Quality and Climate , 10, 211221. Molhave, L., Clausen, G., Berglund, B., De Ceaurriz, J., Kettrup, A., Lindvall, T., et al. (1997). Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOC) in Indoor Air Quality Investigations. Indoor Air (7), 225-240. Ries, R., Bilec, M. M., Gokhan, N. M., & Needy, K. L. (2006). The Economic Benefit of Green Buildings A Comprehensive Case Study. The Engineering Economist , 51 (3), 259-295. Saari, A., Tissari, T., Valkama, E., & Seppanen, O. (2006). The Effect of a Redesigned Floor Plan, Occupant Density and the Quality in Indoor Climate on the Cost of Space, Productivity and Sick Leave in an Office Building - A case study. Building and Environment , 41, 1961-1972. Schneider, J. (2007). Focus on Workplace Design. Building Design-Construction , 48 (3), 33-35. Seppanen, O., & Frisk, W. (2005). A Model to Estimate the Cost-Effectiveness of Improving Office Work through Indoor Environmental Control. ASHRAE Transactions , III, 663-672. Shikdar, A., Khadem, M., & Al-Harthy, S. (2008). An Ergonomics Intervention Study of Reducing Health Complaints among Office Employees. Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE IEEM , 1966-1970. Singh, G. V., & Jain, V. K. (2003). Fuzzy Modelling of Human Work Efficiency in Noisy Environment. The IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems , 120-124. Tsangrassoulis, A. (2008). A Review of Innovative Daylighting Systems. Advances in Building Energy Research (2), 33-56. United States Department of Labor . (2010 !"# 9November). Injuries, Illness & Fatalities. Retrieved 2011 !"# 9-February from Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov United States Department of Labor. (2011 !"# 04February). Employment Situation Summary. Retrieved 2011 !"# 9-February from Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010 !"# 30-September). Indoor Air Facts No. 4 (revised) Sick Building Syndrome. Retrieved 2011 !"# 23-February from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/iag/pubs/sbs.html United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010 !"# 29-November). Introduction to Indoor Air Quality (IAQ): Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Retrieved 2011 !"# 23-February from EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc Wojcikiewicz, K. (2003). Seven key factors for Ergonomic Workstation Design. Manufacturing Engineering , 131 (1), 45-50.

Biographical Sketch
Jonathan Smith is a senior at the University of Southern California from the School of Policy, Planning, and Development. He is majoring in Real Estate Development with a minor in Construction Management from the Viterbi School of Engineering. Jonathan has five years experience as a commercial construction project manager. He has led design/build project teams all over the country successfully completing projects for companies including Sears, Cort Furniture, KMart and Taylor Corporation. In 2010, Jonathan earned his LEED AP certification and his California general contractors license. With these achievements, he started New Vision Company, a construction management and consulting business. After graduation, Jonathan plans to continue growing his young business and begin preparing for graduate school. Jonathan aspires to be a leader in the real estate development field. Contact Information: (310) 684-3140 jonathds@usc.edu