Health in the Office
Studies show that the proper use of daylighting decreases the occurrence of headaches, andeyestrain(FrantaκαιAnstead 1994). Headaches are related to insufficient light levels.
These ailments are reduced when the lighting level is improved by using proper spectral light.
However, the number one health problem in offices is eyestrain(OttBiolight Systems, Inc 1997a) refocus. The proper integration and management of daylighting in an office building provides thebest spectrum of light for the eye. Eyestrain is diminished with landscape views throughwindows because the combination of short- and long-range views allows the eye to refocus.(FrantaκαιAnstead 1994).
Another important yet simple effect from daylighting could be a more positive mood foremployees. Increased job satisfaction, work involvement, motivation, organizational attachment,and lowered absenteeism could result from an improved mood. (Heerwagen, et al. 1998).
The importance of natural daylight to the prosperity of employees in office environments us so big that in many European countries it is required by regulation to have a maximum distance of 27 feet between the workstation and the closest window (Frantaκαι Anstead1994).
Productivity in the Office
In 1983, Lockheed Martin designers successfully increased interaction among the engineers byusing an open office layout with integrated daylighting in their offices in Sunnyvale, California(Romm and Browning 1994). This increase helped boost contract productivity by 15%.Lockheed officials believe that the higher productivity levels pertaining to daylighting helpedthem win a $1.5 billion contract (Pierson 1995).
Employees of West Bend Mutual Insurance moved into a new building that gave them personalcontrol over their workstation (temperature, task lighting) in the early 1990s. This building hasartificial lighting on at all times, but the building is designed so that more employees will beclose to windows.
From the old building to the new one, the number of employees having aperimeter workstation with a window view increased from 30% to 96%(Heerwagen, et al. 1998).
West Bend has determined that they had a 16% increase in claims processing productivityin the new building compared to the old building (Romm and Browning 1994). Having employees closer to windows may have contributed to the productivity increase.
Absenteeism in the office
TheInternational Netherlands Group (ING) had no desk farther from23 metersfromawindow in its building constructed in 1987. ING reporteda 15% decrease in absenteeism (Rommκαι Browning 1994) compared to its old building, and a dramatic growth in business (Browning 1992). Also, asaresultofthenewbuildinga “progressive, creative bank image” was created.(Browning 1992).
Η ING reportedthata 15%decreaseinabsenteeism(Rommκαι Browning 1994) compared to its old building, and a dramatic growth in business (Browning 1992).
Also, as a result of the new building a “progressive, creative bank image” was created» (Browning 1992)
CASE STUDIES
- Studies show that windows are highly valued by office workers in the workplace. A survey ofoffice workers (Collins 1975) found that 35% of employees responded instantly that the lack ofwindows was their biggest difficulty with their office space. The specific reasons given for thedislike of the windowless offices were: “no daylight, poor ventilation, inability to know about the weather, inability to see out and have a view, feelings of being cooped-up, feelings of isolationand claustrophobia, and feelings of depression and tension.” Another study on the affects ofwindowless offices supports the findings of the Collins study
- Wotton and Barkow (1983) found that employees highly value any size of window that they canhave access to and value it more than privacy in their office. Thisstudyalsofoundthat 74% ofthe surveyed employees prefer having a window close to their workspace. If offered a window,57% of surveyed employees would like the window to be beside their workspace rather than infront or behind their workspace. by stating that employees in windowless buildings had much less job satisfaction and were Substantially less positive(Finnegan και Solomon 1981).
- Markus (1967) used a questionnaire to determine how satisfied office workers were with theirworkspaces. Ten environmental factors, including sunshine and view, were presented toemployees for a satisfaction analysis. The survey lacked the ability to portray how strongly eachemployee felt about issues, but it did provide an understanding of their overall satisfaction. Fromthe questionnaire, approximately 96% of respondents preferred to work under natural light asopposed to electric lighting(Markus 1967). Furthermore, approximately 86% of the respondentspreferred having sunshine in their office year round as opposed to only one season of the year ornot at all. Also noted by the study was that employees sitting near windows were more content,whereas those sitting further away from the windows complained more. Therefore, workers withdaylight and a view may suggest having a window is not important, but workers without eitherbelieve having more light and a view is very important.
- In a 1983 study, Kit Cuttle examined England and New Zealand office workers on their attitudestoward their workplaces. Cuttle concluded that office workers believe large windows areimportant for an office environment. The workers preferred sitting close to a window, althoughin many office environments people of lower status are denied this privilege. Also, four out offive office workers preferred working in natural light because they believe working by electriclighting caused discomfort(Cuttle 1983). The employees believed that short-term discomfortfrom the electric lighting was more of a concern than the long-term deleterious effects. The integration of a central atrium giving natural light within a building may influence the behavior of office employees.
The 3M Austin Center used a daylit atrium as the central point of its building complex. David Wilson (2001), Director of Human Relations and Head of Corporate Servicesfor the 3M Austin Center, said, “Visitors comment on how nice it is to have natural sunlight and they find the building bright, airy, open, and spacious”.
Mail sorters at the main U.S. Post Office in Reno, Nev., became the most productive and error-free in thewestern U.S. after a retrofit to include natural light. In five months, productivity on the machines underthe new lighting shot up almost 10%, leveling off to about 6% after one year. Working in a more naturallylit environment resulted in employees who did their jobs better and faster. While combined energy savingsand maintenance savings came to about $50,000 per year, the improvements in employee productivity ($400,000to $500,000) dwarfed the energy savings, resulting in a payback of less than 12 months.
(Journal of Property Management, January 2000) (The non-profit Center for Energy & Climate Solutions Cool Companies website, www.cool-companies.org, 2002)
According to betterbricks.com, “The initial costs of improvinga facility through better lighting, heating and cooling systems can be offset exponentially by the productivitygains of a more productive workforce. In a typical office, energy costs run $2 per square foot, whileemployee salaries and benefits are $130 per square foot or more.
(Journal of Property Management, September 2001)
Pennsylvania Power & Light reported that after completing building upgrades to use more daylight, absenteeismrates dropped 25%, productivity increased 13.2% and energy costs declined 69%. The original energypayback was calculated to be a 24% annual return on investment. Once the employee productivity andreduced absenteeism were factored in, however, the actual return on investment was approximately 1,000%per year. Inotherterms, itwasestimatedthatthelightingretrofitpaidforitselfnotinthe 4.1 yearsestimated,but in just 69 days.
(Seattle Times, January 18, 2000) (Architecture Week, July 2000) (The non-profit Center for Energy & Climate Solutions Cool Companies website, www.cool-companies.org, 2002)
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, productivity gains of 6% to 16%, including decreased absenteeismand improved quality of work, have been reported from energy-efficient building design. Sincecompanies spend an average of 70 times as much money (per square foot per year) on employee salaries ason energy, an increase of just 1% in productivity can result in savings that exceed the company’s entireenergy bill.
(Journal of Property Management, Jan 2000)