Guest lecture on the importance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) as part of a sustainable building fundamentals class, with a focus on the occupant.

1. GENUINE | PROGRESSIVE | ADVOCATES
IEQ: INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CET 160; Fall 2014
Sustainable Building Fundamentals
Guest Speaker: Marcel Harmon, PhD, PE, LEED‐AP O+M

2. Interior Environmental Quality Impacts
• Why IEQ is Important
• Personal Environmental Control
• Temperature / RH / Thermal Comfort
• Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
• Acoustics
• Lighting / Views
TOPICS COVERED

3. New Mexico Elementary School
WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
Poor IEQ Negatively Impacts Energy Performance
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Design Energy
Model
Actual Energy
Usage
Target Finder
Average Building
Target Finder 75
Rating
Peer Group
Baseline Low
Peer Group
Baseline High
44.1
54.1
73.0
57.1
41.5
48.1
EUI

4. WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
IEQ Impacts Productivity/Performance and Health
• A study of Chicago and Washington, DC schools found that better school
facilities can add 3 to 4 percentage points to a school’s standardized test
scores, even after controlling for demographic factors.
Schneider, Mark. “Public School Facilities and Teaching: Washington, DC and Chicago,”
November 2002. A Report Prepared for the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group (NCBG).
Available at: http://www.ncbg.org/press/press111302.htm.
Kats, G. 2006 Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits. Capital E. www.cap‐e.com.
• Based on actual improvements in design in green schools and based on a very
substantial data set on productivity and test performance of healthier, more
comfortable study and learning environments, a 3‐5% improvement in learning
ability and test scores in green schools appears reasonable and conservative.

5. View Access vs. No View Access
• Up to 25%
Good Quality Daylighting vs. No
Daylighting
• Up to 20%: math
• Up to 26%: reading
Reducing Background Noise
• Up to 10% (memory; accuracy)
Reducing Thermal Discomfort
• Up to 10%
IAQ Improvements
• 5%+ Reduction in Sick Days
Personal Environmental Control
• 7.1% Lighting
• 1.8% Ventilation
• 1.2% Temperature
WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
Sources
Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. (2003). Windows and offices: a study of student
performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission:
Sacramento, California.
Heschong Mahone Group. 1999. Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into
the Relationship Between Daylight and Human Performance. Report submitted
to Pacific Gas and Electric. http://www.h‐m‐g.com.
Sykes, D. M. (2004). Productivity: How Acoustics Affect Workers’ Performance In
Offices & Open Areas. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from Office Sound Masking
Solutions, by Speech Privacy Systems.
www.speechprivacysystems.com/files/Productivity.pdf.
Seppänen, O., W. J. Fisk, and Q. H. Lei. 2006. Effect of Temperature on Task
Performance in Office Environment. Publication No. LBNL‐60946. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory , Berkeley, CA.
Wargocki, P. and O. Seppänen, editors. 2006. Indoor Climate and Productivity
in Offices, Guidebook No. 6. Rehva (Federation of European Heating and Air‐
Conditioning Associations), Brussels, Belgium.
Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign, “Apparently Size Doesn’t Matter: Two Illinois
School Districts Show Successful IAQ Management.” School Health Watch,
Summer 2003. http://healthyschoolscampaign.org/news/newsletter/2003‐
summer_HSC‐newsletter.pdf. Also see: US Environmental Protection Agency.
“IAQ Tools for Schools,” December 2000 (Second Edition). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/.
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman, 2003. The Costs and
Financial Benefits of Green Building: A Report to California’s Sustainable
Building Task Force.
IEQ Impacts Productivity/Performance and Health

6. Modern Global Village
90%+ of our time spent indoors
100 yrs ago:
HVAC, Lighting,
Materials, etc.
400 generations ago:
Agriculture &
Urbanism
Hunter/Gatherer
Ancestors
Image Source: humanpast.net
WHY IEQ IS
IMPORTANT

7. WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
We spend the vast majority of our time indoors
• We spend over 90% of our time indoors.
• Children spend 30‐50 hours per week in and around school
facilities, on the bus, after school programs/events, etc. The
majority of that time is spent indoors.
• In drastically different
environments compared to
what we evolved in.
• Exposed to chemicals,
materials, HVAC, lighting,
etc. whose effects aren’t
thoroughly understood.

8. Exterior Connections, Health & Performance
Study of Taiwanese 8th graders found
that the addition of visible, leafy
plants at the back of the classroom
(6% of floorplan area) resulted in:
• significantly stronger self reported
feelings of preference, comfort,
and friendliness; and
• significantly fewer hours of sick
leave and punishment records
(+50% less)
Han, K. T. 2008. Influence of Limitedly Visible Leafy Indoor
Plants on the Psychology, Behavior, and Health of Students
at a Junior High School in Taiwan. Environment and
Behavior 41(5): 658‐692
WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT

9. WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
Sources: Cotts, D.G., The Facility Management Handbook, Second Edition, 1999
Sapp, D. Facilities Operations & Maintenance. Updated by the Facilities O&M
Committee. Last updated: 11‐09‐2011. http://www.wbdg.org/om/om.php.
92%
6%2%
Life Cycle Costs of a Facility
Salaries of Occupants
Costs of O&M
Original Design & Construction

10. WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
$300‐$600/sf: Average annual cost for
personnel
$20/sf: Average annual cost for
facilities
$2.50/sf: Average annual cost for
energy
Source: Hodges, C. P. IFMA’s How‐To Guide Highlight: Getting Started on the Path to Sustainable
Facility Management. IFMA’s World Workplace 2010 Conference & Expo. http://feapc.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/09/IFMAs‐How‐To‐Guide‐Highlight‐Getting‐Started‐on‐the‐Path‐to‐
Sustainable‐Facility‐Management.pdf.

11. WHY IEQ IS IMPORTANT
ECM Estimated
Total
Implementation
Costs
$9,167,000
ECM Estimated
Annual Energy
Savings
$872,000
ECM Estimated
Annual
Productivity
Savings
$3,570,000
Simple Payback
(Energy Only)
10.5 yrs
Simple Payback
(Energy +
Productivity)
2.1 yrs
Conrad Duberstein U.S.
Courthouse and Post Office’s
Energy Conservation
Measure (ECM) Total Cost
and Estimated Payback
Photo Rights: Cervin Robinson, Richard McElhiney
Architects LLC

12. Direct Estimate
• Multivariate Regression
Analysis
• Looking for Correlations
• Looking for Average
Impacts
Indirect Estimate
• Using previous research
informed by ethnography
• Wasted Time
• IEQ Impacts
Direct Measure
• Field Setting
• Lab Setting
Quantified Productivity/ Performance & Health Impacts
QUANTIFYING THE SOCIAL

13. PERSONAL CONTROL

14. PERSONAL CONTROL
Increased tenant environmental control have been found to
provide average measured workforce productivity gains of:
• 7.1% with lighting control
• 1.8% with ventilation control
• 1.2% with thermal control
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman, 2003.
The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building: A Report to
California’s Sustainable Building Task Force.
Productivity Impacts

15. Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post Office & Courthouse
50%+ of courthouse
side occupants
experienced occupancy
sensor problems & lack
personal lighting control
Spending an average of
5 minutes per day
dealing with occupancy
sensor issues
Wasted Time: Costing
$120,000+
Lack of Personal
Control: Costing
$900,000+
PERSONAL CONTROL
Occupancy Sensors / Lighting Control

16. PERSONAL CONTROL
Lighting Control
Edward Gonzales Elementary School
Classroom
Communication, Education & Buy‐In
Edward Gonzales Elementary
School, Albuquerque, NM

17. New Mexico
Elementary School
Personal Control, Occupant Inertia &
Ease of Blind Control Access
PERSONAL CONTROL

18. New Mexico Elementary School
Ghost in the Machine
Technology’s Perspective
From a Child
PERSONAL
CONTROL

19. PERSONAL CONTROL
Temperature Control & Thermal Comfort
V. Sue Cleveland Benefits of Personal Control
• Surveys, focus groups and interviews: Expressed strong
appreciation of and desire for local temperature control .
• Productivity increases with increasing personal control over
temperature and ventilation.
• Having control mitigates some of the negative perceptions
associated with non‐optimal HVAC system performance
• “being able to monitor my own classroom temperature
… is GREAT!!!”

20. PERSONAL CONTROL
Temperature Control & Thermal Comfort
V. Sue Cleveland Correlation Between Temperature Control and
Thermal Comfort Ratings
• Spearman’s Rho test: found a positive correlation between adult
temperature control effectiveness ratings and their thermal
comfort ratings.
• Contributing factor for the more positive adult thermal comfort
ratings.

21. TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT

22. TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Impacts of Thermal Discomfort
• Energy Performance
• Productivity / Performance and Health
• Direct temperature impacts
• Thermal Comfort – Discomfort represented by non‐
optimal temperature ranges have been shown to
decrease occupant performance / productivity on either
side of the optimal temperature range (68OF – 72OF) by
up to 9%.
• Wasted time contacting O&M
• Thermal comfort disputes
Source: Seppänen, O., W. J. Fisk, and Q. H. Lei. 2006. Effect of Temperature on Task Performance in Office Environment. Publication
No. LBNL‐60946. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory , Berkeley, CA.
Source: Wargocki, P. and O. Seppänen, editors. 2006. Indoor Climate and Productivity in Offices, Guidebook No. 6. Rehva (Federation
of European Heating and Air‐Conditioning Associations), Brussels, Belgium.

23. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of Responses
Building Floor/Area
Hot & Cold Variations
Ground Floor South
1st Floor North
1st Floor South
2nd Floor North
2nd Floor South
3rd Floor North
3rd Floor South
4th Floor North
4th Floor South
5th Floor North
6th Floor North
7th Floor North
8th Floor North
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of Responses
Building Floor/Area
Generally Cool/Cold
Ground Floor South
1st Floor North
1st Floor South
2nd Floor North
2nd Floor South
3rd Floor North
3rd Floor South
4th Floor North
4th Floor South
5th Floor North
6th Floor North
7th Floor North
8th Floor North
Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post
Office & Courthouse
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Impacts of Thermal Discomfort

24. • Productivity/performance loss due to temperature
variability: $67,500 annually.
• Productivity loss from contacting O&M: $825,000 annually.
Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post
Office & Courthouse
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Impacts of Thermal Discomfort

25. • Thermal comfort conflicts: Estimated to equate to an
annual loss of $69,000 in productivity.
Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post
Office & Courthouse
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Impacts of Thermal Discomfort

26. • Being cold is the # 1 complaint.
• Personal space heaters used to gain
control over space temperature.
• Additional electrical load estimated at
$14,000 ‐ $26,600 annually.
Space Heater
Conrad Duberstein U.S. Post
Office & Courthouse
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Impacts of Thermal Discomfort

27. TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Frequency of Thermal Discomfort
Percent of teachers/staff rating
their primary spaces as a)
thermally comfortable (blue
bar) and b) thermally
comfortable, slightly cool or
slightly warm (green bar). The
red dashed line represents the
ASHRAE threshold of percent
responses to be classified as a
thermally acceptable
environment.

28. TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Frequency of Thermal Discomfort
Percent of students rating their primary
spaces as a) thermally comfortable (red bar)
and b) thermally comfortable, slightly cool or
slightly warm (brown bar). The red dashed
line represents the ASHRAE threshold of
percent responses to be classified as a
thermally acceptable environment.

29. TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
V. Sue Cleveland HS Thermal Comfort Ratings
• Teachers, Staff and Administrators: Spaces are only
thermally acceptable (ASHRAE definition) during
the fall (ranges from 66% - 75% for other three
seasons)
• Students: Not thermally acceptable during any
season (ranges from 32% - 51% for all four seasons).
Thermal Discomfort

30. • Air Temperature
• Mean Radiant
Temperature
• Relative Humidity
• Air Movement/Velocity
• Activity Levels
• Clothing Insulative
Properties
Social/Cultural Influences on Thermal Comfort
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT

31. Clothing Variability
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT

32. Adapting to and Using Clothing Variability
Clothing Variability Signage
Computers
Flat
Screens
Smart Phones
T‐Shirt Logos
Messages using images,
graphics, text, student
generated videos displaying /
promoting desired behavior
Spread using existing school
means or others – be
creative and relevant to your
audience
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT

33. Clothing Layering as a Strategy for Achieving
Thermal Comfort
• Was a district‐wide approach; part of their norms.
• But low SES families own less clothing, limiting
their ability to layer.
• Source of inequity in achieving thermal comfort
• Can focus unwanted attention on low SES students
• Negative impact on student performance and well‐
being.
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT
Teacher/Staff: “When students have to
wear jackets/sweaters etc., many students
only have one coat. That is it. They can't or
don't bring layers. It is hard to teach in a
cold classroom with students in coats.”
Economic Status, Clothing Variability and Thermal Comfort

34. Heat from copier next to thermostat
may be creating “false” call for
cooling.
Plug Load Equipment & Thermostats
TEMPERATURE/THERMAL COMFORT

35. INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)

36. U.S. Business IAQ Improvements:
• save up to $58 billion in lost sick time
• save additional $200 billion in worker
performance.
- Fisk, W. G. 2000, Health and Productivity Gains from
Better Indoor Environments and Their Relationship
with Building Energy Efficiency. Annual Review of
Energy and Environment 25(1):537‐566. Later
updated for 2002 dollars.
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)
Savings to U.S. Businesses

37. Impacts
• Schools with high IAQ total scores and a high Healthy Greenness School
Index (GSI) were more likely to have high student attendance rates (36% and
22% respectively).
• Schools with well maintained air filters were also 42% more likely to have
good 4th grade academic performance.
Lin, S., C. Kielb, A. Orsini & N. Muscatiello The Evaluation of Green School Building
Attributes and Their Effect on the Health and Performance of Students and Teachers in
New York State. Final Project Report ‐ Proposal Number: #147 funded by the US Green
Building Council. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8627.
Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign, “Apparently Size Doesn’t Matter: Two Illinois School
Districts Show Successful IAQ Management.” School Health Watch, Summer 2003.
http://healthyschoolscampaign.org/news/newsletter/2003‐summer_HSC‐newsletter.pdf.
Also see: US Environmental Protection Agency. “IAQ Tools for Schools,” December 2000
(Second Edition). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/.
• An analysis of two school districts in Illinois found that student attendance
rose by 5% after incorporating cost effective indoor air quality improvements.
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)

38. Landscaping Impacts on IAQ
VE/Defer Landscaping
Increased Cleaning & Poorer IAQ
V. Sue Cleveland High School,
Rio Rancho, NM
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)

39. Classroom Teacher: the trains leave their engines
[idling] and the smoke enters the classroom
Fall Winter Spring Summer
Teachers & Staff 3.30 3.22 3.67 3.63
Standard Deviation 1.42 1.39 0.87 1.06
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Teachers/Admin/Staff average ratings of IAQ
in their primary classroom or work area
(standard deviation also shown)
Gap between screen frame and window
frame
Construction Impacts on IAQ
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)

40. Lawrence, KS School District
3.75 3.72 3.76
4.67
4.43 4.43
3.97
5.25
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Cordley Hillcrest Kennedy New York Pinckney Sunset Hill Group 1 Langston
Hughes
Q 17: Average Air Quality Rating
Mean
Variability of IAQ w/in Same Organization
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)

41. • CO2 maximum of 1,000 ppm, and not exceeding the outdoor concentration
by more than about 650 ppm when the exterior outdoor CO2
concentration is 380 ppm.
• Based on studies linking CO2 levels above these limits to drowsiness,
lethargy, poor concentration, respiratory ailments, headaches, and other
negative health impacts.
• These negative impacts are not necessarily a direct result of the CO2 levels
found indoors (typically less than 5000 ppm), but the higher pollution rates
in general that occur as a result of not having enough outside air, or
adequate ventilation.
• ASHRAE ventilation requirements are intended to provide enough fresh air
to dilute interior pollutants, and the CO2 levels end up being a good way to
measure if you have adequate ventilation inside your buildings.
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)
ASHRAE Design Standards for Schools

42. 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
CO2PPM
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
CO2PPM
Kennedy Langston Hughes
Variability of IAQ w/in Same Organization
INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)

43. ACOUSTICS

44. ACOUSTICS
Impacts of Noise and Inaudibility
• Center for the Built Environment’s survey of 23,450 respondents
from 142 buildings found over 50% of cubicle occupants (30% of
private office occupants) expressed that acoustics impact their work.
Jensen, K. L., Arens, E., & Zagreus, L. (2005). Acoustical Quality in Office Workstations,
as Assessed by Occupant Surveys. Indoor Air, (pp. 2401‐2405).
• When conversational noise was reduced and speech privacy
increased,
• the ability of office workers to focus on tasks improved by 48%,
• performance of tasks relating to accuracy and memory
improved by 10% and
• the physical symptoms of stress such as high blood pressure and
increased heart rate were reduced by 27%
Sykes, D. M. (2004). Productivity: How Acoustics Affect Workers’ Performance In Offices
& Open Areas. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from Office Sound Masking Solutions, by
Speech Privacy Systems. www.speechprivacysystems.com/files/Productivity.pdf.

45. ACOUSTICS
Julian Treasure: Why architects need to use their ears
• http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_why_architects_need_to_use_th
eir_ears.html

46. Standards / Recommendations & Impacts
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.60‐2002, Acoustical Performance Criteria,
Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools standard
• Unoccupied classroom levels must not exceed 35 dBA
• The signal‐to‐noise ratio (the difference between the teacher's voice and the background
noise) should be at least +15 dB at the child's ears.
• Unoccupied classroom reverberation must not surpass 0.6 seconds in smaller classrooms
or 0.7 seconds in larger rooms.
World Health Organization (WHO, 1980)
• recommends a background noise level lower than 45 db(A) for good speech intelligibility
‐‐the ability to understand others.
ASHRAE
• suggests a noise level less than 45db(A) for open plan offices
Impacts
• Intelligibility, understanding and learning
• Focus and concentration
• Stress
• Voice strain
• Privacy
ACOUSTICS

47. Relationships with Building System Performance
ANSI/ASA S12.60‐
2010 Sound
Measurements
Analysis: ANSI/ASA S12.60‐2010 PERMITS GREATEST WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL OF 35 DB FOR CORE LEARNING SPACES LESS
THAN 10,000 GSF AND 40 DB FOR CORE LEARNING SPACES GREATER THAN 10,000 GSF . THE LARGE CORE LEARNING AREAS
ARE SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE PERMITTED TOLERANCES, AND THE HVAC IS SPECIFICALLY SCHEDULED “OFF” WHEN THESE
CLASSROOMS ARE OCCUPIED.
V. Sue Cleveland
High School, Rio
Rancho, NM
ACOUSTICS

48. Relationships to building system performance
High ceiling spaces without lay‐in ceilings
• Described as noisy, with decreased audibility
• Supported by instantaneous sound level
measurements
• Some of these spaces set to “unoccupied” in BAS
system during class periods to minimize
distracting noise
• But data loggers demonstrated that this could
result in a less thermally comfortable space
• These spaces may require:
• Addition of sound absorbing surfaces
• T&B
• Duct acoustic liners or other HVAC sound
control methods
V. Sue Cleveland High School, Rio Rancho, NM
ACOUSTICS

49. Relationships with Building System Performance
4.75
5.36 5.36
5.17
5.36
3.86
5.17 5.17
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Cordley Hillcrest Kennedy New York Pinckney Sunset Hill Group 1 Langston
Hughes
Q19: Average Intelligibility Rating
Mean
Lawrence, KS School District
ACOUSTICS

50. ACOUSTICS
Relationships with spatial restrictions
Survey Quotes:
• Kennedy (Early Childhood Special Ed): “There are four of us
sharing ‘office’ space which we make phone calls and also
connected to a therapy space ‐‐ it can be very overwhelming at
times and difficult to concentrate on all of the paperwork that we
are required to do.”
• New York (Resource Room): “I share a resource room and at times
we have four different groups being taught in this space. It gets
distracting for all students and staff at times like this.”
Lawrence, KS School District

51. Relationships with Spatial Restrictions
Sunset Hill 5th Grade Classroom
•This 5th grade classroom has 28 desks. Provides example of the crowding that occurs in the
district’s elementary schools, particularly the upper grades.
• Desks end up taking up the vast majority of the floor area and t makes it difficult to find
enough space to work in small groups (and still maintain some level of separation between
the small groups).
•Exacerbates noise and thermal comfort issues, negatively impacting focus/concentration.
# Approximate location of
small group activities plus
the # of students engaged
in those activities.
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Lawrence, KS School
District
ACOUSTICS

52. LIGHTING/VIEWS

53. LIGHTING/VIEWS
Daylighting Impacts
Compared to little or no daylighting,
classrooms with appropriate
daylighting may increase the rate of
student learning by:
• 20% in math
• 26% in reading
Heschong Mahone Group. 1999. Daylighting in Schools:
An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylight
and Human Performance. Report submitted to Pacific Gas
and Electric. http://www.h‐m‐g.com.

54. LIGHTING/VIEWS
View Impacts
28% of U.S. workers say they can’t see the outdoors from their work
space; they’re also 86% more likely to be actively disengaged than
those who have a view of the outside from their desk or station
Gallup
Workers in a Call Center were found to process calls 6% to 12% faster
when they had the best possible view versus those with no view.
Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. (2003). Windows and offices: a study of student
performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission:
Sacramento, California.
Office workers were found to perform 10% to 25% better on tests of
mental function and memory recall when they had the best possible
view versus those with no view.
Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. (2003). Windows and offices: a study of student
performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission:
Sacramento, California.

55. New Mexico Elementary School
Views and Unintended Consequences Impacting the Social
LIGHTING/VIEWS

56. New Mexico High School
Views and Unintended
Consequences Impacting
the Social
LIGHTING/VIEWS

57. New Mexico High School
Visibility Issues;
Lack of Daylight
Control
Ad Hoc Solutions
Teacher/Staff
Annual Productivity
Impact:
‐$169,000
Math Scores:
‐1.5%
Reading Scores:
‐0.9%
LIGHTING/VIEWS
Impacts of Value Engineering

58. Kansas School
District
(2) 1970’s/Early 1980’s
Elementary Schools
(8) Pre‐1970’s
Elementary Schools
(4) Post Mid‐1980’s
Elementary Schools
Potential 20% delta in math scores
Potential 26% delta in reading scores
LIGHTING/VIEWS
Inequity

59. University of Missouri, Kansas City
0
‘
3
‘
8
‘
11
‘
Option 1: Frit Glazing
Option 2: LightLouver
+ Blinds/Shades
LIGHTING/VIEWS
Evaluation of Design Daylighting Options Using Productivity Impacts
Option 2
3% ‐6% increase
in performance
(math & reading
tasks) over Option 1
Photo Rights: BNIM Architects

60. Solar tube dome
Solar tube diffuser in classroom with dampers
closed. All others in classroom were open.
New Mexico Elementary
School
System complexity misaligned w/ owner capabilities, resources
& training + Commission, commission, commission
LIGHTING/VIEWS
Teacher: “One of
my lights [Solar
tubes] keep[s]
rotating and that is
a big distraction in
the classroom.”

61. REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.60‐2002, Acoustical Performance Criteria,
Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools standard
http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/American‐National‐Standard‐on‐Classroom‐Acoustics/
http://acousticalsociety.org/about_acoustics/acoustics_of_classrooms
Committee to Review and Assess the Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Schools
(National Research Council, 2006:65‐66).
Heschong Mahone Group. 1999. Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship
Between Daylight and Human Performance. Report submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric.
http://www.h‐m‐g.com.
Illinois Healthy Schools Campaign, “Apparently Size Doesn’t Matter: Two Illinois School Districts
Show Successful IAQ Management.” School Health Watch, Summer 2003.
http://healthyschoolscampaign.org/news/newsletter/2003‐summer_HSC‐newsletter.pdf.
Also see: US Environmental Protection Agency. “IAQ Tools for Schools,” December 2000
(Second Edition). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/.
Kanarek, R. (1997) Psychological Effects of Snacks and Altered Meal Frequency. British Journal
of Nutrition 77, Suppl. 1:S105‐S120.
Kats, G. 2006 Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits. Capital E. www.cap‐e.com.
Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman, 2003. The Costs and Financial
Benefits of Green Building: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force.

62. Lin, S., C. Kielb, A. Orsini & N. Muscatiello The Evaluation of Green School Building Attributes
and Their Effect on the Health and Performance of Students and Teachers in New York State.
Final Project Report ‐ Proposal Number: #147 funded by the US Green Building Council.
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8627.
Schneider, Mark. “Public School Facilities and Teaching: Washington, DC and Chicago,”
November 2002. A Report Prepared for the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group (NCBG).
Available at: http://www.ncbg.org/press/press111302.htm.
Smith, A. and A. Maben (1992) Effects of Sleep Deprivation, Lunch, and Personality on
Performance, Mood, and Cardiovascular Function. Physiology & Behavior 54:967‐972
Treasure, J. Why architects need to use their ears. TED Talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_why_architects_need_to_use_their_ears.html
USA Today Special Report: The Smokestack Effect ‐ Toxicity and America’s Schools
http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index
Why Environmental Health Matters in Schools ‐ EPA Webinar: 10/17/2012 ‐
https://esbuildings.webex.com/mw0307l/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=esbuildings.
Wilson, D. S. (2011) The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block
at a Time. Hachette Book Group, New York, NY.
Wilson, D. S., D. Tumminelli O'Briena and A. Sesmac (2009) Human Prosociality From an
Evolutionary Perspective: Variation and Correlations at a City‐Wide Scale. Evolution and
Human Behavior 30:190–200.
REFERENCES