Is a green building really better for building occupants? A longitudinal evaluation

- Green buildings are a necessary component of securing sustainability.
- Health, wellbeing, and effectiveness in green buildings is an important motivator.
- Findings from studies of green buildings are inconsistent.
- Results are reported from a longitudinal study with contrast groups.
- More robust results for air quality, productivity, and wellbeing are reported.

Commercial organisations who have invested in “greening” their buildings are not only concerned about reducing the negative impact of their buildings on the environment, but also on the potential positive impact green buildings can have on their employees and therefore also on the financial sustainability of the organisation. To date, the research evidence on the effect of green buildings on employees is equivocal. Widely varying research designs and measures, and differing research foci have resulted in a fragmented and contradictory body of knowledge. In this study, we attempt to bring some order to this field by first, providing a framework for reviewing and evaluating the extant research evidence and second, by starting to address some of the research design flaws identified in the previous research through a longitudinal, empirical investigation of the impact of green building on employees. In the empirical study, three green buildings were evaluated using a pre-test, post test design, repeated-measures design with a contrast group for two of the buildings (Total N = 280). Statistical analyses of the data established that there were significant improvements in perceived air quality across all three buildings, significant improvements in self-report productivity in two of the buildings and a significant improvement in physical wellbeing in one building. However, no significant differences were found for psychological wellbeing, job satisfaction, propensity to leave the organisation, and organisational image. We consider these results to be methodologically robust but suggest caution in interpreting the results due to poor response rates and possible volunteer bias. The results are discussed in relation to the design features of each building.