IEQ performance research

The Center for Disease Control defines Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) as "the quality of a
building’s environment in relation to the health and wellbeing of those who occupy space within it."[41]
The USGBC includes the following considerations for attaining IEQ credits: indoor air quality, the level
of volatile organic compounds, lighting, thermal comfort, and daylighting and views. In consideration of a
building's indoor environmental quality, published studies have also included factors such as: acoustics,
building cleanliness and maintenance, colors and textures, workstation size, ceiling height, window access
and shading, surface finishes, and furniture adjustability and comfort.[35][36]

In 2013, a paper published by S. Schiavon and S. Altomonte studied LEED verses non-LEED buildings in
relation to occupant IEQ satisfaction.[35] Using occupant surveys from the Center for the Built
Environment at Berkeley database,[42] 65 LEED-certified and 79 non-LEED buildings were studied to
provide an analysis of 15 IEQ-related factors in the overall building and specific workspaces. These
factors include the ease of interaction, building cleanliness, the comfort of furnishing, the amount of light,
building maintenance, colors and textures, workplace cleanliness, the amount of space, furniture
adjustability, visual comfort, air quality, visual privacy, noise, temperature, and sound privacy. The
results showed occupants tend to be slightly more satisfied in LEED buildings for the air quality and
slightly more dissatisfied with the amount of light. The overall finding was that there was no significant
influence of LEED certification on occupant satisfaction in consideration of the overall building and
workspace ratings.[35] The "Limitations and Further Studies" section states that the data may not be
representative of the entire building stock and a randomized approach was not used in the data
assessment.

Based on similar dataset (21,477 occupants), in 2013, Schiavon and Altomonte,[43] found that occupants
have equivalent satisfaction levels in LEED and non-LEED buildings when evaluated independently from
the following nine factors: (1) office type, (2) spatial layout, (3) distance from windows, (4) building size,
(5) gender, (6) age, (7) type of work, (8) time at workspace, and (9) weekly working hours. LEED
certified buildings may provide higher satisfaction in open spaces than in enclosed offices, in smaller
buildings than in larger buildings, and to occupants having spent less than one year in their workspaces
rather than to those who have used their workspace longer. The study also points out that the positive
value of LEED certification from the aspect of occupant satisfaction may tend to decrease with time.

In 2015, a study on indoor environmental quality and the potential health benefits of green certified
buildings was developed by Allen et al.[44] showing that green buildings provide better indoor
environmental quality with direct benefits to human health of occupants of those buildings in comparison
to non-green buildings. One of the limitations of the study was the use of subjective health performance
indicators since there is a lack of definition on such indicators by current studies.

G. Newsham et al. published a detailed study on IEQ and LEED buildings in August 2013.[36] Field
studies and Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE) were performed in 12 “green” and 12 “conventional”
buildings across Canada and the northern United States. On-site, 974 workstations were measured for
thermal conditions, air quality, acoustics, lighting, workstation size, ceiling height, window access and
shading, and surface finishes. Responses were positive in the areas of environmental satisfaction,
satisfaction with thermal conditions, satisfaction with view from the outside, aesthetic appearance,
reduced disturbance from heating, ventilation and air-conditioning noise, workplace image, night-time
sleep quality, mood, physical symptoms, and reduced number of airborne particulates. The results showed
green buildings exhibited superior performance compared with similar conventional buildings.[36]

Current latest study published in 2017, by Altomonte, Schiavon, Kent and Brager, specifically
investigated whether a green rating leads to higher occupant satisfaction with IEQ.[45] Based on the
analysis of a subset of the CBE Occupant IEQ including 11,243 responses from 93 LEED-certified office
buildings, this study found that the achievement of a specific IEQ credit did not substantially increase the
satisfaction with the corresponding IEQ factor. In addition, the rating level and version of the certification
has no impact on workplace satisfaction. There are some possible explanations. Many intervening factors
in the time between design and occupancy can alter the existence or performance of the strategies that
LEED awarded. IEQ certification metrics also face the challenges from substantial differences that
characterize the modern workplace in terms of spatial needs, task requirements, users’ characteristics, and
disciplines of product design and marketing, etc. Survey participants may also misinterpret the
satisfaction with an IEQ parameter, or bias with personal attitudes.[45]

The daylight credit was updated in LEED v4 to include a simulation option for daylight analysis that uses
Spatial Daylight Autonomy (SDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) metrics to evaluate daylight
quality in LEED projects. SDA is a metric that measures the annual sufficiency of daylight levels in
interior spaces and ASE describes the potential for visual discomfort by direct sunlight and glare. These
metrics are approved by IES and described at the LM-83-12 standard.[46] LEED recommend a minimum
of 300 lux for at least 50% of total occupied hours of the year for 55% or more square meters (square
feet) of the floor occupied area. The threshold recommended by LEED for ASE is that no more than 10%
of regularly occupied floor area can be exposed to more than 1000 lux of direct sunlight for more than
250 hours per year. Additionally, LEED requires window shades to be closed when more than 2% of a
space is subject to direct sunlight above 1000 lux. According to Reinhart[47] the direct sunlight
requirement is a very stringent approach that can disable good daylight design from achieving this credit.
Reinhart propose the application of the direct sunlight criterion only in spaces that require stringent
control of sunlight (e.g. desks, white boards and etc.).