Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la
première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=983b1f30-9e67-4636-ad76-935a47da7369 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=983b1f30-9e67-4636-ad76-935a47da7369
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Sustainability: healthful buildings, healthy environment
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/irc
Sust a ina bilit y: he a lt hful buildings, he a lt hy e nvironm e nt
O R A L - 1 0 6 5
V e i t c h , J . A .
J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 1
A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:
University of Toronto Building Ecology, Science, and Technology Lecture
Series, Toronto, ON, January 26, 2011, pp. 1-26
The material in this document is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. For more information visit http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-42
Les renseignements dans ce document sont protégés par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, par les lois, les politiques et les règlements du Canada et des accords internationaux. Ces dispositions permettent d'identifier la source de l'information et, dans certains cas, d'interdire la copie de documents sans permission écrite. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/showtdm/cs/C-42
Canadians, like others in the industrialized world, spend approximately 90% of their time indoors, making these environmental conditions important determinants of our health and well-being. Building construction and operation consumes on the order of 30% of our national energy use, which also makes them important determinants of ecological well-being. Examples of the influences of buildings on our well-being include the adverse effect of noise exposure in the home and classroom on children’s’ acquisition of reading skills and the effect of views of nature on speedier recovery from surgery. Conversely, buildings designed to reduce energy use are sometimes less successful than expected because of an inadequate understanding of occupant needs successful than expected because of an inadequate understanding of occupant needs and habits. Definitions of sustainability incorporate both immediate needs (achieving the well-being of current inhabitants) and longer-term needs (while preserving the ability of future generations to met their own needs). In the built environment, this means providing conditions that support current occupants in a manner than consumes or pollutes as little as possible. Achieving these goals will require more knowledge than is currently available, and better cooperation between professions than currently occurs. This presentation will briefly summarize current research, and make the case for an urgent need for broadly-based interdisciplinary research to provide a basis for practical interventions.
NRC Institute for Research in Construction Established 1947
Guided by industry advisory board & 2 independent commissions Facilities in Ottawa, Mississippi Mills, London, Regina
~$30 million annual budget
~250 employees + ~15-20 visiting workers
Producing:
Technical knowledge - journal and conference papers Decision tools - software and design guidance Technology - patents and licenses
Research into health and well-being is centered in the Indoor Environment Research Program, which has three sub-programs. The subprogram staff also work together on multidisciplinary projects. Sustainability research occurs across the institute.
Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality: Acoustics:
Lighting:
This definition is the generally cited one, although it doesn't satisfy everyone because it opens lots of questions about what our needs really are, and what the needs of the future might be.
Consider this photo of Terminal 3 at Heathrow. It has lots of great daylight and is a fairly pleasant place to be. As you can see, it looks in some directions on some nice green space. The team worked hard to make it a reasonable building, and if you visit the BAA website you can read about their plans for the redevelopent of Terminal 2: "… we are investing in energy efficient technology and renewable energy.
This will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from Heathrow’s redeveloped Terminal 2 by over 40% compared to the minimum specified for a new building.
With over £60 million spent on energy to run Heathrow every year, this will also help to reduce operating costs."
These are admirable goals but hard to achieve and we can still debate the "need" for These are admirable goals, but hard to achieve, and we can still debate the "need" for air travel.
Still, it's the best definition we've got in that it does require us to think not only about today, but about what we will leave behind for future generations.
In our group, we define health according to the WHO definition.
This definition of health dates from 1948, and provides the basis of the WHO mandate. Although some have argued that it's too broad, it has the merit of being both negative (not a disease state) and positive (a state of complete fitness and content).
Well-being: "A good or satisfactory condition of existence." (Random House) OED: a. The state of being or doing well in life; happy, healthy, or prosperous condition; moral or physical welfare (of a person or community).
b. Satisfactory condition (of a thing).
So, what kinds of elements in a building might influence the health of the people in it? Everything from where the building is located through how it is constructed to how it is maintained and operated influences the conditions to which we are exposed. These series of choices and actions interact, too, for example:
- The construction details (how the structure is put together) and the external noise together influence the acoustic conditions inside.
The colour of interior walls influences how much light exposure occupants receive - The colour of interior walls influences how much light exposure occupants receive, whether from daylight or electric light. A dark wall absorbs light.
- People tend to close the blinds when the direct sun is bothersome; but they tend not to open them again later in the day even after the sun has moved on. Thus, they can get less benefit from daylight or a view of outdoors than the building design might provide.
Noise exposure has been the focus of research attention for forty years, since the classic work by Glass and Singer (1972). This experimental work found that although people could maintain their performance while working in a noisy place, their
subsequent tolerance for frustration was lower. If they had the opportunity to control the noise (even if they didn't use it) then the effect disappeared,
Several studies have documented adverse effects of chronic noise exposure on children, including disrupted reading acquisition (Bronzaft & McCarthy, 1975; Evans & Maxwell, 1997; Maxwell & Evans, 2000), memory impairment (Hygge, Evans, & Bullinger, 2002), and physiological stress responses (Evans, Hygge, & Bullinger, 1995).
Fortunately, these effects appear to be reversible: The introduction of noise attenuation strategies resolved reading problems in elementary school children (Bronzaft, 1981), and the end of chronic noise exposure (because of the closing of a nearby airport) reversed the adverse effects on memory (Hygge et al., 2002). Research into the effects on adults shows that chronic noise exposure has adverse effects on cardiovascular health (e.g., Ising & Kruppa, 2004), leading the WHO to formulate guidelines for urban noise levels (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2007). Health Canada is also studying the issue but is not as far along as the Europeans.
In parallel to understanding environmental stressors and their health consequences, researchers have sought to understand conditions that assist in restoration (e.g., Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Natural settings are particularly associated with restoration: Ulrich (1984) found that hospital patients in rooms with windows that looked onto a nature view recovered more quickly from surgery than those with windows overlooking a brick wall. Further investigation has found that images of nature are more restorative than images of urban settings (Ulrich, Simons, Losito, Fiorito et al., 1991), that time spent in nature is more restorative than time spent in built settings (Hartig Mang & spent in nature is more restorative than time spent in built settings (Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991), and that natural settings are more likely than built settings to be named by students as favourite places (Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001). Homes with views of nature from their windows, as opposed to views of other buildings or urban scenes, have been associated with greater resident well-being (Kaplan, 2001), and children’s’ cognitive function and ability to cope with stressful life experiences are improved by having access to green space near their homes (Wells, 2000; Wells & Evans, 2003). Stephen Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (1995, 2001) is a , ) p p y ( , ) framework for understanding the beneficial effects of restorative environments that takes into account both cognitive and physiological outcomes.
Intervention studies in the USA have found several related findings that apply to the environments where children play. Some of these are really good studies, with independent ratings of the children's behaviour by people who are not aware of the study's hypotheses.
For instance, the study of reduced life stress came from looking at kids prospectively, both before and after a change in housing.
The role of light as an influence on health is the hot new topic in lighting research, marked by three international symposia (CIE, 2004b; CIE, 2006; McGowan, 2004). Some writers are enthusiastic about the possibilities for immediate changes to lighting design and practice (Bommel & Beld, 2004; Bommel, 2005). Others are more circumspect, recommending more thorough investigation (Boyce, 2006; DiLaura, 2005; Veitch, 2005; Veitch, 2006).
In addition to the visual pathway, there exists a separate sensory system in the retina that transduces information about light and dark, with afferents leading, among other brain structures to the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus and from there to brain structures, to the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus and from there to the pineal gland (Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE), 2004a). The
connection to the pineal gland is important for the regulation of the hormone melatonin, which regulates many circadian rhythms (CIE, 2004a). Research into melatonin and circadian rhythms has led to the development of light treatments to assist in shift work adjustment and to treat sleep disorders (CIE, 2004a).
Separate lines of research suggest that people in industrialized countries may not experience sufficient daily light exposure for optimal health (Espiritu et al 1994; experience sufficient daily light exposure for optimal health (Espiritu et al., 1994; Jean-Louis, Kripke, Cohen, Zizi, & Wolintz, 2005).
Small increases in light exposure have been found to improve feelings of vitality in healthy people (Leppämäki, Partonen, & Lönnqvist, 2002; Partonen, Leppämäki, Hurme, & Lönnqvist, 1998; Partonen & Lönnqvist, 2000). Being in a sunny hospital room has been associated with lower mortality rates among cardiac patients (Beauchemin & Hays, 1998) and with faster symptom remission for depressive patients (Beauchemin & Hays, 1996).
Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, and Lawrence (1998) found that greater sunlight penetration into an office was associated with better general well-being, and to better job
satisfaction and lower intention to quit.
Beauchemin and Hays, researchers in Edmonton, conducted two investigations of the effects of sun exposure in hospital rooms on patient outcomes. Overall mortality was higher for cardiovascular intensive care unit patients in a dull space than in a sunny space; for women, the time to discharge was shorter if they had been in a sunny space (Beauchemin & Hays, 1996). For patients hospitalized for depression, the hospital stay was 15% shorter if their rooms were sunny that if they lacked sunlight (Beauchemin & Hays, 1998).
The adverse effects of childhood exposure to lead and mercury — developmental disabilities and cognitive malfunctions —are well-known (Graff, Murphy, Ekvall, & Gagnon, 2006; Grandjean & Landrigan, 2006; Mendola, Selevan, Gutter, & Rice, 2002), and this knowledge has led to policy changes aimed at limiting exposure, such as the banning of lead additives in gasoline and interior paints and recommendations for expectant mothers to limit fish consumption as a means to avoid excessive prenatal methylmercury exposure. Many other chemicals remain
unregulated because, despite suspicion that they may cause neurotoxic effects, the evidence is not strong enough to convince policy-makers (Grandjean & Landrigan evidence is not strong enough to convince policy makers (Grandjean & Landrigan, 2006). Moreover, environmental exposures occur simultaneously to many chemicals at once, rather than to the single compounds that are the focus of most investigations, and the consequences of the combinations are unknown (Bellinger, 2007).
Some authors believe that exposure to certain compounds contributes to the development of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism (Colborn, 2004; Windham, Zhang, Gunier, Croen, & Grether, 2006), although others disagree (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Compounds currently under scrutiny are used in household items
( p , ) p y y
and in building materials, and include various chemicals used in plastics (e.g.,
phalates, bisphenol A), flame retardants (e.g., polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)), pigments used in paints (e.g., cadmium, chromium), and pesticides.
Children from poor families are disproportionally likely to be exposed to neurotoxins (Evans, 2004; Evans & Kantrowitz, 2002). Ongoing research into these issues recognizes these broad contextual environmental issues, as well as genetic, chemical, and biological variables that are potential moderators (Dietrich et al., 2005;
14 Hertz-Picciotto et al., 2006).
Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have found that objectively assessed housing quality influences mental health. Evans, Wells, Chan, and Saltzman (2000) developed and validated an objective housing quality rating scale. In a prospective longitudinal study, they found that improvements to housing quality reduced mothers’ psychological distress; in a cross-sectional sample, housing quality predicted mothers’ mental health after controlling for income. Gifford and Lacombe (2006) studied two Canadian samples (one in Quebec and one in British Columbia) using an adaptation of the Evans et al. housing quality scale, and found that the quality of the home's interior exterior and neighbourhood predicted children’s’ the quality of the home s interior, exterior, and neighbourhood predicted children s socioemotional health as rated by their parents, after controlling for parental income, parental education, parental mental health status, the child's sex, and the family's tenure in the house. Evans, Wells, and Moch (2003) reviewed the literature on housing and mental health and provided an excellent methodological critique of issues in this area.
Although the demonstration that housing quality influences health independently of socioeconomic status (SES) is compelling, the use of statistical p y ( ) p g, controls for SES can obscure an important relationship (Evans, 2004). Children of low socioeconomic status are more likely to experience various physical and social environmental stressors (Evans & Kantrowitz, 2002). Moreover, children’s' cumulative exposures to potential stressors predict physiological stress responses, emotional regulation, heightened cardiovascular and neuroendocrine parameters, increased deposition of body fat, and result in a higher summary index of total allostatic load
…some assumptions made at design time can make for great calculations of predicted energy savings, but are not borne out after occupancy
- an anecdote: Our team visited a highly-praised LEED Gold rated building. It had been designed with an expectation that the overnight setback in winter would be from 22 deg C to 18 deg C, with the system coming on at 6 am. In operation there were so many complaints about it still being cold when people arrived in the morning at work, that the building operator reprogrammed it to stay at 22 deg 24 hours a day.
So, we know a bunch of things about how buildings influence health. Why don't we do more to ensure that our buildings are healthy?
- First, we don't really know enough
- Second, we haven't studied how to integrate that knowledge with the technology developments that aim at energy-efficiency
- Third, we haven't the experience to know how buildable these things are, in terms of combining various construction details AND (importantly) in terms of what is cost-effective. I'll return to this point in a few minutes.
Researchers face many barriers to generate suitable knowledge. The academic disciplines involved are many; each has its own way of approaching problems and its own tools, and little understanding of how others approach their areas. There may be language barriers between disciplines and there are differences in what each one values. Some universities and some disciplines reward academics for publication in journals with high impact factors (a measure of how often a paper is cited by others). This can limit the number of places where work gets published. The best journals in field X probably don't publish work that has application in field Y. Some disciplines value conference presentations rather than journals; and others reward
value conference presentations, rather than journals; and others reward
demonstrations or actual buildings. This makes it very difficult for people from differing units to decide to work together.
The result is that we lack the specific information needed to know how to design, build, operate and inhabit buildings to make best use of what health knowledge we do have.
And yet, to get to the point of being able to DO anything about any building-related exposures, we need just such multi-disciplinary teams. We need to be able to test models like the one shown here. The black areas are fairly well-supported
relationships drawn from social and health psychology. The blue areas are where building scientists come in: and the links from noise exposure to communication and strain are the interface between the two. If we could engage the building scientists and the psychologists and medical community to work together, we could understand the relationships with sufficient specificity to describe specific changes to building design and construction or to make recommendations about controlling or abating community and construction, or to make recommendations about controlling or abating community noise, that would reduce the noise exposure sufficiently to avoid any adverse effects. You'll note also this "SES" bubble. The ability to implement the solution depends on your economic status. Some people won't be able to afford the best solution, unless it's subsidized or regulated. There is a social and public policy aspect to these issues that can't be ignored.
Even if we had all this knowledge, the question will remain, whose responsibility is it to deliver healthy buildings?
At some level, it's a design issue. You have collectively the knowledge, the technical expertise, and the opportunity to design and specify healthier buildings.
But, some designers will say "We are only designing what the client asks for." These folks will say that healthy buildings won't become common until clients and the general public demand them in the same way they expect quality health care and education. This would require getting past what one architect I know calls the Canadian attitude to design: "Can I have a little less, if it's cheaper?"
Some argue that builders and the manufacturers of products hold the responsibility. I think these folks agree with this to a point; they are already getting the question from some clients, and they want to have a response. However, they don't generally know the answer and they don't have the funds individually to do all of the research that might be needed even on all of the components in their one product or project. They come to places like NRC for answers, or they look to the other group…
Regulators. Some things are already codified or are in standards, like life safety requirements in building codes. For all its failings, Canada has a well-developed system of development for the national model codes, with many opportunities for involvement and comment. As knowledge about health effects builds, there are lots of ways for researchers and individuals to put forward proposals for code changes. This is not a rapid system of change, but it does mean that new buildings (or changes of use) will have the best change of being healthy, regardless of one's spot on the SES continuum
continuum.
People in their buildings bear some of the responsibility, too. They can take the best building and bring into it sources of pollution that can have adverse effects on themselves and others; orthey can operate the building in ways that defeat the best equipment and design.
Canada's National Building Codes, published by NRC for the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. NBC is an objective-based code, which aims to achieve safety, health, accessibility, fire & structural protection. Anyone may propose a code change. Changes also undergo public review. Codes if adopted by appropriate legislative body (e.g., province) have force of law.
Standards, developed by independent bodies, define safety requirements,
performance requirements, social or environmental concerns. These have force when referenced in legislation.
Regulations, developed by government agencies www.regulation.gc.ca, are made under authority of legislation. They define the application and enforcement of the issue identified in the legislation. Agencies have mechanisms for public comment &
The sites above are designed for homeowners. I'm not familiar with similar information for occupants of workplaces or schools, etc. In general we don't do a very good job of making it possible for people to make their environments healthier OR more
sustainable:
We would still need more:
"Consider that learning how to drive a car is a highly regulated activity. A car could potentially be a lethal weapon. When you buy a car it comes with a large manual to potentially be a lethal weapon. When you buy a car it comes with a large manual to inform the owner about its operation and maintenance, and then we teach people how to drive. Drivers have to learn how to not only drive but how to keep the car functional. Then we build houses, the most expensive purchase that a family will ever make, and we provide absolutely no information. People will move into the house, but even if it has super duper fancy control systems, nobody will know how to use them." (Karen Bartlett, UBC, Nov. 2008)
And don't forget the social justice element…some people would find it very hard to understand HOW to operate a building; others would be unable to afford the right equipment, tools, etc. to make their homes healthful — and this includes social housing agencies and institutions. Canada's North and First Nations are the extreme example of where this is breaking down.
Even if we knew how best to detail a construction to limit unwanted noise exposure we still might have a problem. Some aspects of the building design will interact in
unwanted ways. The windows that admit daylight and view could increase noise exposure, might be more costly, will influence energy use both positively and negatively….so how are we to choose? There are no simple answers, it's all about choosing based on one's values, within the range of options available.
Our Vision:
We see a Canada in which buildings promote human health, and in which those who are involved in all aspects of the built environment and its regulation are supported in their work by credible research evidence on which to base their decisions.
Objectives
To support Canadians, and their government agencies, in achieving a healthful built environment, through:
National Network: Creating a national network of building scientists, health scientists, and allied practitioners to inform regulations, guidelines, and recommendations for healthful built environment design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Capacity-Building: Increasing Canadian capacity for interdisciplinary research on buildings and health through improved communication across disciplines and between researchers and prospective students;
Knowledge Translation: Translating research results into evidence-based guidance for practitioners and policy-makers.
Dissemination and Engagement: Disseminating findings and engaging relevant national, provincial, professional and consumer groups to promote the adoption of guidance on healthful built environments.
