Benchmarking the Indoor Environment in Office Buildings: Characterisiation, Synthesis and Practical Application

Today, the majority of the global workforce spends a significant proportion of their daily lives indoors. In countries supporting work-life balance, a usual work week often constitutes 30-40 hours, corresponding to 18-24% of a week; yet, in many countries, a work week of 45-50 hours, corresponding to 27-29%, is not uncommon. Indoor environmental quality has been recognised as fundamental for occupant health, well-being, comfort a performance. The significance of indoor environmental quality in offices extends beyond comfort – it directly influences employees’ health, performance and job satisfaction, ultimately affecting a business’s overall efficiency, productivity and profitability. Benchmarking can serve
as an impactful resource for driving improvement, and within indoor environmental quality it can focus specifically on assessing and improving the indoor environment within buildings.

This study presents a comprehensive investigation of indoor environmental quality and its impact on occupant health, well-being, and productivity in office buildings across Denmark and Greenland. Through the establishment of a robust database and the development of a novel benchmarking tool, the research aims to facilitate the evaluation of building and workplace performance, while estimating potential value gains from improving indoor conditions.

The experimental design was informed by a literature review on post occupancy evaluation in office buildings, and included registrations of building and offices through checklists, indoor environmental quality measurements and occupant questionnaires. A pilot study allowed for adjustment and refinement before full-scale implementation.

The execution of the field survey involved 48 office buildings including 153 offices in Greenland and Denmark. The field survey revealed striking similarities in indoor environments despite climatic and structural differences between the two countries. CO2 concentration, temperature, relative humidity, and illuminance showed little disparity. However, the Danish office buildings performed slightly better in all aspects, including occupant responses regarding conditions and symptoms. Self-reported work performance in relation to the indoor environment was very similar between the two regions. Investigations of indoor air quality parameters in (only) the Danish office buildings revealed that around 40-50% of the measurements exceeded guidelines, potentially due to various outdoor sources.

The field survey underscored the necessity of context-specific research in Greenland due to the lack of baseline data, while comparisons with past surveys in Denmark highlighted that the indoor environmental quality in the office buildings in general is similar to that surveyed around 40 years ago, and that it has not improved much.

A novel benchmarking tool, named the Building Office Benchmark (BOB) tool, was developed utilising data from the field survey. The tool incorporated the building properties, the indoor environmental quality measurements and the occupant responses, estimating potential value gains through occupant performance improvements. Its simplicity in economic analyses allows for easy comprehension by building owners and tenants, emphasising the potential economic benefits of investing in indoor environmental quality improvements. Overall, the BOB tool presents a framework for evaluating and improving indoor environmental quality in office environments, with potential for ongoing refinement
to meet evolving needs.

Ultimately, this research advanced our understanding of indoor environmental quality and provided practical insights and tools that industry professionals may utilise in the future to enhance building performance and occupant well-being. It provided new and valuable information on the state-of-the-art indoor environment and occupant perceptions in Danish and Greenlandic office buildings.