'How can the discipline of Interior Design deliver healthier office environments...'MSc Dissertation by Sara Kliczka

Sara Kliczka s1343000 Master of Science (Advanced Sustainable Design) Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture The University of Edinburgh August 2018

Abstract Health and Wellbeing is an emerging concern through which interior designers can participate in the movement of sustainability and potentially contribute positively to the health and well being of those exposed to building interiors. The discipline’s specific focus on occupants’ experience allows for design solutions that enhance physical health and mental wellbeing within a built environment. Studies demonstrate that office design tailored to its occupants wants and needs stimulate not only health, but also work satisfaction and productivity. Recent and growing interest in how indoor environments impact on people has resulted in the advent of assessment systems certificates, standards and guidelines allowing for the measurement of aspects of the design against set performance benchmarks. WELL, Fitwel and the BCO Roadmap for instance provide a framework, to support interior designers aiming to focus on human health and wellness in their designs. However, it is arguable if these can justify the right to claim whether a building is ‘healthy’ or not. This study demonstrates that there exists awareness of wellness, but also a lack of confidence as to how to fully implement it in interior design. Through analysing the development of the office, interior design discipline and its education, it has been observed that the design of the office is in a transitional stage, one where interior designers are not yet equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to confront these changes. The future may see the office as we know it change or even disappear due to new office typologies, styles of work and workers’ demands. Additionally issues of sustainability and climate change create an obligation more than a voluntary act. This study suggests that Interior designers should lead this change rather than simply keeping pace. As a first step along this road a guide for the ‘Office Wellness Journey’ has been compiled, to potentially help designers consistently implement this philosophy in their profession.

Acknowledgements

To my family - for supporting me in my endeavours throughout all of the long years of studies and challenging me to push to my limits. To my dearest friend Louis - who was by my side even in the moments of resignation. Thank you for inspiring me and enriching this project. To my colleagues and tutors - for your guidance and expertise which was always so inspiring.

Figure made by the author 8

Personal Statement Inspiration for this dissertation stems from years of personal interest in sustainability on a human scale: one tangible through senses, rather than concealed in the building skin. As an interior designer working on a masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in sustainability, my goal is to further develop my knowledge and skills to apply them in my career as an office designer. Prior to the research, I had access to scarce information due to the lack of frameworks available. The lack of coverage at the educational level as well as the realities of professional work in the interior design field, showed the level of neglect which I sought to explore. The first time I became truly aware of the importance of health, wellbeing and sustainability aspects was during my final year of the bachelor course, when I decided to create a gallery/cafe which would promote healthier choices in indoor furniture and that would reconnect its occupants with the natural environments. The interest about indoor air quality grew further after a screening of Underkastelsen (2010), which dealt with the toxins in our blood. This has affected my perception of the daily materials and food choices we are exposed to. The anticipated emergence of fit-out standards primarily focusing on improving office environments is a milestone for the discipline as a whole, but will they be the best and only way of implementing health and wellbeing? In order to answer this question, I have decided to explore this area by learning about the best practices and both benefits and criticisms of these benchmark schemes. In the hope to be able to evaluate how these benchmarks may or may not push the industry forward. I would like to dedicate and offer this work to all interior designers, to unlock their potential and sense of responsibility, to make a change for better solutions, for the planet and for the occupants of our designs.

Figure made by the author

CONTENTS 01

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

15-21

History of Interior Design and Current Regulations 16-17 18 Education 18-21 History of the Office 04

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

23-31

Introduction Current government actions Health and Wellbeing Assessment With or without a certificate

25 25-26 26-31 31

QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS

33-37

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

39-51

FUTURE

53-55

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

59-62

APPENDIX

63-75

introduction Health, wellbeing and productivity consideration for offices is not a new trend among designers (Haigh, 2012; Moxon,2012). The effect of the layout on its users, quality of air or access to daylight and nature are known to increase productivity in the workplace (WorldGBC, 2014; HSPH, 2017; Allen, 2016; et al). Nevertheless, these are rarely supported with sufficient evidence and consistency, measured through pre- and post- occupancy evaluations, to be able to claim benefits for health, wellbeing or productivity. Studies show that a holistic approach to office design stimulates mental and physical health among its users, underlining that this can’t be achieved solely through aesthetically pleasing design (BCO, 2018; Moxon, 2012; Sailer, 2010). An emerging interest in office design certificates underpins the concerns of the contemporary practice lacking an expertise and benchmarks in sustaining good levels of outcomes. New building standards like WELL, Fitwel and the BCO Roadmap provide a good framework which can support interior designers in the pursuit of evidence-based strategies for their designs. However, it is also emphasised that relying solely on these accreditation schemes to accomplish desirable effects is not necessarily the only way. This study examines how interior designer can decide whether the purchase of a certificate is the best option for a project or if it is better to work with similar guidelines but without a certificate and how results can vary. These findings were used to create a ‘wellness journey’ to be offered to all interior designers. This has now been adopted in a professional practice as their guide for implementing wellness in one of their projects. Due to the client’s reservations concerning the cost involved in health and wellbeing certificates, the design practice was interested in non-certificatable ways of implementing wellness in one of the office designs. Support was offered based on the compiled research and created guidance. This resulted in early engagement of the client on health and wellbeing for their future office. With the project being in its early stages the Journey can not be evaluated in this work and could be assessed in more depth in future publications.

Figure made by the author

INTRODUCTION

Personal interest Consultations with colleagues

Problem definition

Data Collection Exploratory Research

Observations in the profession Observations on the sustainability course

Literature Review

Analysis

Figure made by the author 14

Interviews

Questionnaire

METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methods through which this study has been carried out. Initial research involved familiarising with the current discussion, reading available written works and consulting with practitioners. The prevalent issue identified by Creswell, is that research lacks an understanding of how to use appropriate methodology to answer the thesis. The most comprehensive analysis are a result of interwoven use of research methods like literature review, qualitative and quantitative modes in investigating the subject (2003). Quantitative study targeted the insights of British commercial interior designers. The sample was approached via calls as well as ‘word of mouth’ between colleagues. It consisted of multiple choice, ordinal and Likert-scale questions. There were 18 responses, gathered in July 2018. Qualitative study involved two different interviews. One was a face to face, 40 minutes long with the owner of an office design firm. The second, with the university programme leader of an interior design course, was carried out via email. The British Council for Offices in their newest report ‘Wellness Matters’ gives cautionary advice to those researching health and wellbeing. In the search for salience in this field it is easy to fall victim of ‘wellness washing’ through ‘sensationalist’ tabloid coverage (BCO, 2018). Thus a wary research, questioning the evidence for potential bias, sample size and relevant academic references was compiled. Following the literature review, questionnaires have been designed following these guidelines (Adams, Cox, 2008; McMillan, 2007; Leeuw, 2007). The key words for this research were: ‘health, wellbeing, office design, wellness, sustainability’. Initial findings show an increased amount of works on these subjects published in the last decade. However there was a limited number of publications which focus specifically on interior designer’s role in the sustainability movement. During the study, the structure has been amended due to certain limitations and in an attempt to concisely show what would be relevant to interior designers. One of the biggest constraints, was not being able to access more participants, to support a case study comparing satisfaction between employees certified with building accreditation and noncertified workplaces. Weeks of attempting to gain access were unsuccessful, it was refused and the prepared survey could not be sent (refer to the appendix). This limitation meant focus was shifted to a more comprehensive research and attempt to create a guideline for interior designers. Suggestions for further research: Owing to an unsuccessful Post Occupancy Evaluation of an un-certified workplace, an attempt to compare the productivity and satisfaction of an accredited office was not possible. Due to the lack of common practice among interior designers in recording their findings by Pre and Post Occupancy Evaluation it is impossible to compare projects otherwise. This might be an area which requires more research in further publications. METHODOLOGY

BACKGROUND and CONTEXT 17

BACKGROUND AND cONTEXT HISTORY OF INTERIOR DESIGN AND REGULATIONS When analysing commercial interior design, it is essential to examine the development of offices and retail in the last century. Prior to this, interior designers mostly worked on residential projects where no specialist knowledge was required; academical studies for interior design have not existed until the mid 1960s’ when the first interior design programmes opened in schools (Baxter, 1991). Before it relied on the whim and fashion implemented by amateurs, architects and the craftsmen of the time. The lack of specific records for interior design is another obstacle in fully understanding the discipline (Lees-Maffei, 2008, Tucker, 2015). This is the consequence of the short lifespan for these projects due to wear and tear, change of fashion and insufficient ways in which to preserve them - especially before the invention of photography which proved to be a huge asset for showcasing interior designs. Post war rise in consumerism resulted in professional and scholar recognition for interior design in the mid-1920s, with the first standards, organisations, books and periodicals appearing (Baxter, 1991). As argued by Paula Baxter (1991), 1961 became a new threshold in interior design, marking the beginnings of greater sophistication, with reference works like ‘The Concise Dictionary of Interior Decorating’ (L. Weiss, 1973) or ‘Human Dimensions and Interior Space; a Source Book of Design Reference Standards’ (J. Panero, 1979). There has since been a major advancement of awareness about ergonomics of the design, with a growing understanding on its effect on the user backed up with new theories and manuals (Baxter, 1991). Notably with titles like “Interior Design with Feng Shui: a Practical Application for Ancient Chinese Wisdom (S. Rossbach,1987), “A Philosophy of Interior Design (S. Abercrombie, 1990), or ‘Colour in Interior design in Architecture (J. Place, 1989). The 1980s’ established a higher role for the interior designer in the mass media as an exclusive discipline and popularised some interior designers to the rank of celebrities. The field’s close relation to other areas of design such as architecture, engineering has an adverse effect on attempts to professionalise the discipline. Its non-exclusivity means that, as suggested by Grace Lees-Maffei (2008): ‘Interior design historically occupied a marginal place within the cultural hierarchy, as a feminized sphere of activity, playing a secondary role in relation to architecture’. As a result it could be argued that the historical conditioning affects the way the industry is perceived contemporarily. Figure made by the author

The report by the Members State (2014) states that regarding this field there is hitherto a disagreement if there is a need to regulate the profession as it is ‘relating to tradition and there is any overriding reason in the general interest’. As a result there is no statutory regulator in many countries including the UK for calling oneself as an interior designer regardless of education, or training (BIID, 2016). In the absence of any unitary bodies in the UK, the only institution that represents designers from 110 countries is the International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers (IFI). The definition used by the IFI of an Interior Architect/Interior Designer (note that the term ‘Interior Architect’ is commonly used, but illegal in the UK under the 1997 Architects Act) is: Definition: “Qualified by education, experience and applied skills, the professional Interior Architect/Designer accepts the following responsibilities: Identify, research and creatively solve problems pertaining to the function and quality of the interior environment; Perform services relating to interior spaces including programming, design analysis, space planning, aesthetics and inspection of work on site, using specialized knowledge of interior construction, building systems and components, building regulations, equipment, materials and furnishings; Prepare schematics, drawings and documents relating to the design of interior space, in order to enhance the quality of life and protect the health, safety, welfare and environment of the public” (BIID, 2016). Paradoxically the definition itself contains health and wellbeing stated as one of the responsibilities, through ‘protecting health’ and ‘ensuring quality of indoor environment’ and still so often discussed in this dissertation aspect of health and wellbeing are omitted. The lack of standards lead to misconceptions over what services can (or should) be expected from interior designers by its potential clients. The ‘prerequisites for the establishment of a profession’ would allow the discipline to create a framework which would unify skill and knowledge, and help create a common goal for the field (Lees-Maffei, 2008). To meet these challenges collaborating with IFI regional institutions, The British Institute of Interior Design (BIID) launched a new registered title that could be recognised in the built environment, called: BIID Registered Interior Designer®.

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

In order to join this group designers must (BIID, 2016): • • • •

Have 6 years of education and work experience Hold current professional indemnity insurance Provide 2 professional references Complete a face to face Registration Assessment where extensive professional practice knowledge must be evidenced through presentation of a completed design project

The title was acclaimed by the British Architects (RIBA) by saying that ‘it will provide a useful benchmark for other professionals in the built environment sector to understand that an interior designer has met robust professional standards of practice’ . This and other similar reactions prove that this field of design has been neglected and requires more consideration (BIID, 2016). Although the initiative is very reassuring, with the added badge of professionalism and giving access to the broader network, some requirements are less accessible for every designer. Costly membership, lack of perceived immediate reward and annual fees can unfortunately preclude some from joining it. EDUCATION There is already substantial academic research with insights from academia and the industry on the role of a sustainable educational curriculum in the field of interior design. Most of the literature found on library and scholar portals with keywords: ‘sustainable interior design, education, wellbeing’ show ample quantity of works (Stieg, 2006; Garip, 2012; Afacan, 2013; Crane, 2008; Beecher, 2011). The researched material proves there exists recognition for sustainability and wellbeing as part of the teaching agenda in education (Stieg, 2006; Bonda, 2007; Templeton, 2011). Some even state that the presence of wellbeing matters, should go beyond supplementary choice in the course programme and become the responsibility, obliging designers to recognise the long-term effects of their designs (Bonda, 2007). Thus, the only area of disagreement is how to address this topic in education. Stieg (2006) suggests following a guideline of an interdisciplinary projects approach, aiming to share the knowledge between students and professionals, for example by a collaboration between students of engineering, architecture, planning and interior design. This kind of exercise would help students understand the role of interior designers in an overall sustainability efforts (Solovyova et al, 2010).

20 BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

The priorities in the taught programme are not standardised in the UK, chiefly for the same reasons why interior design as a profession is not regulated, which allows the programme leaders to decide upon the priorities without any fixed prerequisite skills needed from the students. An example of environmental literacy can be found in the US with The Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) regulations, which sets standards every year for the accredited interior design programs. The latest (2018) have a strong focus on wellbeing and sustainability. Particularly through the teaching of current regulations like WELL, LEED, etc (refer to the standard: 16), environmental impact of construction (15), thermal comfort and environmental systems (14), influence of the products and materials (13). The terms ‘sustainability’, ‘wellbeing’, ‘healthy environments’ are already known among students - a phenomenon attributed to a much increased exposure to these concepts within education (Templeton, 2011). Unfortunately there exists no research proving that this motivation is followed through in their projects. Teachers show complacency with the way courses are designed, justifying that in the future the students will acquire that knowledge themselves, or they could choose specialisation. Indifferent student’s often false believes that the technology would help to solve any environmental damages and that the environment is capable to withstand human interference (Templeton, 2011). HISTORY OF THE OFFICE The workplace design is a constantly evolving realm in which political, social, economic and technological developments and conditions influenced the office throughout the decades and centuries. Office has its origins in evolving organisations like governments (administrative work), trading (accounting) or of religious orders (rewriting scripts) - as ingeniously summed up by G. Haigh (2012) the concept of office work was ‘an activity long before it was a place’. Recent years have seen significant changes in the workplace. Due to the rapid technological development, the style of work could become more flexible and collaborative than ever before (Simonetti, 2017). This history illustrates the changes in physical space, organisation and theories that influenced the present office. In order to better understand the changes of what is an ubiquitous feature of our lives in 21st century, this section will examine the history of different typologies, work cultures and the development of the office design branch within the interior design discipline.

Ancient Times - Industrial Revolution The history of an office stems back to the ancient times. The term ‘officium’ has been used in the Ancient Rome mostly to describe administrative staff rather than a place which was mostly situated in the palace complex. To describe a location of one’s duty term ‘uffizi’ was used for the first time in 1560 (Hascher et al, 2002), when Giorgio Vasari designed a three-storey gallery which accommodated co-existing offices for magistrates. This part of history falls beyond the scope of this research, but it is worth mentioning some findings about the very early era of office design in order to see the overall sense of the topic (Eickhoff, 2009). The author of the ‘Workplace Environmental Design in Architecture for Public Health’ (Rassia, 2017) noticed that some of the contemporary ideas like ‘hot-desking’ (nonpersonalised desk) might see its foundations even in the ancient world to host work of clerks and scribes, who freely used various spaces, chosen to suit their task. The 17th century in many respects represented a turning point: offices became spaces with long rows of desks which greatly influenced later development of the sedentary office lifestyle composition (Rassia, 2017). The emergence of complex organisations administering colonial possessions required headquarters and for this purpose The East India House was built in 1729 in London, preceded by The Old Admiralty Office (1726) which was one of the first purpose-built office building in Britain. The Industrial Revolution highly influenced the further office planing of the 19th century, with its rectilinear offices divided into two main parts: large open rooms with cellular desking for the staff and separated rooms for the the managing personnel (Hascher et al, 2002). Early Decades of The 20th century The early industrial society of 1880s-1920s with its growing administration and bureaucracy, developed the term ‘white-collar’ to distinguish administrative staff from manual labour. These were clearly segregated and their work spaces highlighted the privileges of each strata (Rassia, 2017). Simone Jeska described it in his book ‘From Ancient Times to the Twentieth Century’ (2002) as “specialization and standardization of tasks, the systemization of work processes and the optimization of workforce to increase efficiency” (Eickhoff, 2009).

up in high-rise developments. The first country to advance these highly efficient structures were the United States mostly in Chicago and New York by architects like Louis Sullivan (Wainwright State Office Building, 1891) and his apprentice Frank Lloyd Wright (Larkin Building, 1906). As marked by R. Hascher these buildings in spite of being very innovative from an architectural point of view and cost effective in land use, did not provide sophisticated internal conditions, suffering from poor ventilation and limited daylight. As L. Sullivan used to say “form follows function”, these offices served their main function - productivity and efficiency, with little to no focus on staff wellbeing (Hascher et al, 2002). This led directly into a first modern theory of the office, applying systematisation and rationalisation of office tasks in the ‘Taylorian vision’, introduced by F. W. Taylor in 1911 in his “ Principles of Scientific Management”. The novelty and scope of this new typology of work, required new strategies in the design and management. Even though the Taylorian theory was designed and aimed at labour workers, it became highly influential in the contemporary office (Jeacle, Parker, 2013). Highly influential to William Leffingwell, whose parallels between factory and office work resulted in several books like: ‘Making the office pay’ (1918), ‘Scientific Office Management’ (1917), providing interesting insights into the active, science driven management of the early 20th. Similar views published by A. W. Shaw Company: ‘114 proved plans to save a busy man time’ (1918). Surprisingly many of the advices in these manuals are still applicable after 100 years of advancement. The authors of these guidebooks not only find solutions for improving office functionality but also the workers’ status, with guides on how to improve health in offices. As an example, chapter ‘Welfare work’ in ‘Office Organization and Management’ (1917) C. C. Parsons devotes a part of it to ‘Health’. In this part of the book the author states that ‘to secure the good health of his workers the employer has long appreciated the advantages of correct sanitation, proper lighting facilities, and comfortable conditions of heating and ventilation’ (note: both natural and mechanical, with the first air conditioning designed by W. Carrier in 1902). Additionally, he states that to work efficiently an ‘untold consideration for the pressing necessity for the physical well being of the workers’ have to be developed, treatments preventing illnesses at their root. These words have a startling similarity to today’s concerns. The differences only come in its advancement, for example part like organising ‘courses on hygiene’, ‘physical examinations of employees’, providing ‘restrooms if there are women employed’ (Parsons, 1917).

The shape and envelope of the building was highly influenced by the technological development which allowed for the introduction of repetitive plan offices to be piled BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

The practical examples of these first efficiency principles summarised by I. Jeacle and L. Parker (2013) are: • ‘Mapping efficient office space’ - accessible location of an office. The internal layout integral with duties in an open-plan to facilitate easier movement, continuous flow of documents and naturally to supervise the staff. The spaces were scientifically analysed for efficient position of desks and amenities. • ‘Selecting efficient office furniture’ - rationalised office choice was viewed as very important in providing space to promote efficiency. ‘In the war on waste’ the desk should be simple and without superfluous embellishments and designed to allow for a staff to access items quickly. The pursuit of efficiency also was expressed in experimenting with the chair design (height, form, footrest) to ‘prevent fatigue’ ‘Let there be light: eye efficiency and the office’ - aspects of light, heat and ventilation. Cited authors like Leffingwell, Sharles, Dicksee L., H. Blain, V. Jackson from early 20th were all concerned about the ‘eye efficiency’ lowering in inappropriate lighting conditions and recognised staff’s improvement in better lighting and ventilation conditions. • ‘Telephone tips for efficiency’ - it was advised to place telephone in a separate room or enclose it for the privacy and to avoid noise. For hygienic and efficiency speaking-tubes were dissuaded (Parsons, 1917). ‘Automation as an aid to efficiency’ - The beginning of 20th century was a time of invention with many tasks replaced by machinery. As stated by Jackson: ‘wasteful and inefficient to employ an office worker on labour that can be performed by machinery’ like dictagraphs, telautograph, typewriters, phonographs, hectographs etc. • ‘The efficient typist’ - Typewriter was one of the most important innovation for the office. To ensure the efficiency in writing the posture and movement was very carefully observed to achieve machine like movement. This ‘scientific management’ has detractors however, especially among those who believe in the intuitive ‘ based on luck and ‘hunch’’ approach (Jeacle, Parker, 2013). Described by Lenin as “a scientific system of swelling more from laborers” or “man’s enslavement by the machine”. The strict implementation of the concept in various workplaces had led to waves of strikes, for instance in Vancouver (1918-1919) or in The Watertown Arsenal, Massachusetts (1913) (Bailes, 1977). A study by Gilbreth into productivity, recommends not to totally adhere to ‘machine’ like working but for better observations from management and providing support to employees to improve morale and in turn, productivity (Taylor, 1911). In the beginning of 20th century when there was no sensors and technology to measure performance by, it was checked by

22 BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

‘suddenly ask[ing] for an eraser or a ruler or some other smaller item that is not in constant use and see how long it takes to locate it’ (Jeacle, Parker, 2013). This concept was criticised for dehumanising the work with no focus on employee wellbeing, but in practice its principles are still being used through quantifying productivity and extensive monitoring (Antaya, 2015). The advancement of American office design in the early 20th century was a pivotal point in the history of office design which must be considered, especially for its influence on European design. As observed by Jeacle and Parker (2013), despite the importance of the subject, there is relatively little academic research for this period. It primarily focuses on ‘mechanisation’ and exploitation (Jeacle, Parker. 2013), diminishing the importance of the period’s concepts. New Workplace Opposing Taylor’s dogma of scientific principles adopted directly from the factory office design, the 1950s Office Landscape (in german ‘Bürolandschaft’) concept of natural and organic layout emerged. Developed by the Quickborner group to promote informal interactions between staff, it created a non-hierarchical setup. Freely positioned desks and various collaboration points were encouraged without full height partitions but with file cabinets and plants instead. The design proved popular for being space efficient, as it was using large open floor plans, while permitting for a higher degree of communication and flexibility in the office space (Hascher et al, 2002). The layout eliminates the approach in which productivity is the key driver, but instead focuses on social and mental wellbeing. The Hertzberger office, Centraal Beheer (1974) sacrificed economic efficiency for staff wellbeing. This building was made of blocks, with extensive amount of circulation between 13 workstation cubes. Aside from innovative architectural concept, this office was one of the first workspaces that offered staff a ‘family-like’ personalised workplace with home furniture and photos of their family (Rassia, 2017). The main criticism for this layout were similar to its its precursor: the acclaimed Agile Working. It was argued that the layout prevented privacy and suffered from noise nuisance. The design choices have varied between the continents, however after the fall of the Office Landscape, the most common layout was equipping it with cellular offices and ‘combi-rooms’ popularised in 1988 (Rassia, 2017) which offered more privacy and silence. The growing flexibility within offices led to the creation of new away from the desk spaces like cafes, breakout areas or touchdowns. The 1980s’ and 1990s’ were dominated by the open plan and deep-planned offices in which lessened productivity and increased absenteeism led to the coining of the terms ‘Sick Building Syndrome’

(SBS) and ‘Building Related Illness’ (BRI) (Jafari, 2015; Meixner, 1995). Organisations such as WHO (World Health Organisation), linked symptoms like dizziness, skin rashes, allergic rhinitis and other conditions of health deteriorating with poor building design (2005). Another example of an office design that strongly influenced the workplace is the invention of semi enclosed desks with low partitions to fight what Robert Propst - its inventor- considered the office “wasteland.” which“saps vitality, blocks talent, frustrates accomplishment.” Originating from his design in 1964 for the Herman Miller, system of modular office furniture, the ‘Action Office’ I and II were created. The patent is still in use more that 50 years after it was designed, made of components which could be moved and reconfigured. The invention however found another purpose, with Propst witnessing his liberating design turned by some avaricious managers into the ‘cubicles’, called by Propst ‘rat-hole places’. The office design of the past two decades is in a transitional stage, where ideas like ‘hoteling’, ‘hot desking’, ‘agile working’, ‘co-working’ are becoming a common consideration by the clients and designers. The growing pressure for evidence based designs and demand from younger generations (Millennials), is pushing office design into finding new solutions. Furthermore, the inter-disciplinary research encouraged by rating systems and various other initiatives transforms workplace design from designer’s intuition and experience to scientifically rigorous design (Sailer, 2010).

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

HEALTH AND WELLBEING 25

Figure made by the author 26

HEALTH AND WELLBEING Introduction WELL-BEING ‘is the subjective state of being healthy, happy, contented, comfortable and satisfied with one’s quality of life. It includes physical, material, social, emotional (‘happiness’), and development & activity dimensions’ (Waddell, Burton, 2006). Delivering healthier office environments is a potent agenda which can improve people’s lives. This might sound like a truism, but it is important to emphasise, as it is evident from the research that design decisions impact not only aesthetic perception but also on the health, wellbeing and productivity of occupants. Developing awareness among various stakeholders, including interior designers and engaging them from the earliest stages the project, can promote healthy and efficient workplaces (WorldGBC, 2014; BCO, 2018). Health and Wellbeing, or simply wellness, is an emerging concern via which interior designers can participate in the movement of sustainability. In the built environment sustainable and regenerative designs focused on delivering energy efficient, resource responsible, power saving buildings are already common and regulated by climate change legislations. Designing with the user’s experience at its core is the essence of the interior design discipline and only by looking at a space from that perspective, health and wellbeing can be successfully addressed (Berens, 2017). It also shows that the sustainable approach does not entirely resolve issues in productivity, wellness and pro-environmental decisions of the users (Tucker, 2015). The impact buildings have on their occupants has historically been underestimated. The misconceptions about this topic may be a part of so called ‘wellness washing’ specifically describing false advertising about the designing concepts and interior products (BCO, 2018). The term derives from: ‘greenwash’ which defines a broader notion of “disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image” (Oxford Dictionary). It is one of the factors that makes both clients and designers skeptical about alleged sustainable features. Reports on the ‘greenwashing’ are alarming: an identified 2,219 various products making green claims; an increase of 79% over the company’s first report two years earlier; 98% of those were ‘guilty’ of greenwashing (TerraChoice, 2010).

Wellness comes as a result of research which substantiates the current knowledge and findings about ways in which indoor space can positively affect physical and mental wellbeing. As a consequence it is an interdisciplinary subject which connects professionals from fields such as design, science, medicine, psychology, social sciences and by that a more holistic approach to office design is developing. The knowledge and research has been present for many decades but has not been properly integrated, resulting in one third of renovated buildings still suffering from Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) (WHO, 2005). A well considered and comprehensive renovation of existing buildings will rely on interior design skills and knowledge. The relationship between air quality and productivity has been investigated by Allen et al (2016). In the study of participants who employ ‘knowledge’ positions, i.e. administrative, technical and managerial, were exposed to different air quality conditions. Staff that worked for 5 days in green certified buildings scored 26.4% higher on tests and presented 30% fewer SBS symptoms. Another study undertaken by Allen at al (2015) proves that benefits from enhanced ventilation far outweigh the energy costs per person. This research included different climatic zones and doubled the standard air supply rate to 40 cfm/person (18 l/s/p), costing the company $14-40, while HVAC with ERV (Energy recovery ventilation) cost $1-18 per person per year. It demonstrates that by increasing the ventilation rates and for a small cost per person, companies can enhance productivity, with minimal environmental impact, equivalent to an increase of 0.03 additional cars on the road per building per year. As summarized by the author: ‘It is time we move away from ventilation designed for merely acceptable indoor air quality and move towards design for optimal indoor air quality’. Current government actions Information on health and wellbeing for UK designers is still sparse and difficult to access. Many of the references that BCO, WELL, Fitwel rely on are not available for free. Dispersion of the material is the main raison d’etre for the Wellness Matters report, which unifies available knowledge in the UK and globally. Growing interest from the government stems from reports which highlight days lost due to the sickness, decreased productivity and the costs these incur (Shanbhag, 2010). Statistics show that estimated working days lost in the UK in 2016 was 137.3 million which is equivalent to 4.3 days per worker (ONS, 2016). An interesting comparison done by The Work HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Foundation shows the combined costs of sickness absence, lost productivity and health care costs amount to £100bn, equivalent to the entire GDP of Portugal (WF, 2018). The Office of National Statistics surveyed the most common reasons for absence in the UK in 2016, these comprise of minor illnesses (24.8% of all the days lost - 34mln), musculoskeletal (22.4% - 30.8mln) and mental health issues (11.5% - 15.8mln). For the purpose of preventing illness and promotion of well-being Government related bodies issued initiatives and reports i.e. ‘Workplace Health Connect’ (HSE, 2009) a consultancy for small and medium businesses and ‘Working for a healthier tomorrow’ (GOV, 2008). Health and Safety Executive (HSE) points out that ‘employers have a legal duty to protect employees from stress at work by doing a risk assessment and acting on it’ (HSE, 2018), additionally the UK Government states (2018) that ‘employment is a primary determinant of health’. Both institutions admit that the office space is the key for better health. The biggest challenge in addressing these issues are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in which the third of the workforce is employed. It is harder to guide those firms to implement the proposed initiatives due to their size and spread, but also for the lack of tax incentives. Another challenge noted is the lack of research especially from the NHS on the health outcomes in relation to employment (GOV.UK, 2018; HSE, 2018). HSE provides free to download information, which could aid in designing healthy offices. Legislations include handling employee’s sickness problems, office task-related ergonomics, guidance for noise reduction, musculoskeletal disorders or hazardous off gassing. However the guidance is mostly dated, based on research on from two decades ago. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides various guidelines to improve health through guidance like Managing long-term sickness and incapacity for work (PH19), Physical activity (NG13), Promoting physical and mental wellbeing at work (QS149), Smoking (PH5), Workplace health: policy and management practices (NG13) which are constantly being updated with new evidence (NICE, n.d.). To conclude, wellbeing is present as a topic in various national organisations’ studies, however there is currently no emphasis on the importance of interior design intervention as a key driver for change, the focus being on engineering and successful management through outdated resources (CIPD, NICE, HSE, Gov.uk). Health and wellbeing as a topics among those institutions has become popular mainly due to visible impact on government finances (health care costs, death rate, sick days) (Berens, 2017; Shanbhag, 2010).

28 HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Health and Wellbeing Assessment Assessment and certification schemes such as WELL, Fitwel, BREEAM, LEED help set a consistent and relevant standard (Moxon, 2012). It is argued by Sialer et al (2010) that design can not only be driven by intuition and experience but also by verified sources of data to assess the improvements, for instance questionnaires, interviews and space analysis (Sailer, 2010). To ensure that these action do take place, accreditation ratings prove to be a good framework. However these do not always offer all of the required benchmarks, thus additional research and Evidence-Based Design (EBD): ‘basing design decisions on credible research’ might be needed to assess some of the projects (Bauer, 2017). The process of EBD as Sailer (2010) suggests has to be supported with Pre-Design Analysis (PDA) and Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) which enable interior designers to acquire greater understanding of the space, user needs and to later evaluate solutions (Sailer, 2010). The use of assessment schemes is voluntary and could be implemented in initial brief-setting stages with the client. It can be a very valuable tool in ascertaining whether project met expected goals, but also can be a an excellent marketing tool for developers, building owners and individual companies to attract future staff. Many of the best known and used fit-out ratings are predominantly architectural certificates such as BREEAM (1990) and LEED (1994). Issues of indoor air quality and the impact it has on the occupants always was an integral part of the certificate systems but it was often not mandatory (being an addition rather than a requirement). These criteria have proved not to be inclusive to the field of interior design for their focus on energy saving, which are construction and architectural concerns, whilst the biggest consideration for interior designers is to improve comfort in existing buildings in CAT A and CAT B refurbishment of office spaces. Growing numbers of refurbishments on existing buildings require new certificates, therefore Ska Rating by RICS has been developed in the UK. During the fit-out assessment only certain applicable categories are measured: Energy & CO2, Materials, Pollution, Project Delivery, Transport, Waste, Water, Wellbeing. BCO Roadmap (2018) has been developed in response to the confusion around health and wellbeing and the growing number of certificates. It provides a compendium of detailed information about ways in which all the stakeholders engaged in a project can contribute. As a resource used across the office lifecycle, it provides a useful resource as it divides the ‘journey’ of a project into 55 outcomes with a responsibility factor for each stakeholder. The Roadmap invites to collaboration and discussion of priorities

and actions in numerous workshops prior to the design. The 55 issues split into 10 categories, with some of them divided into subcategories when the subject is more expansive. Next to the outcome, an example of exposure is briefly described and a way of measuring it. The next part of the report is a framework helping different groups to, as a team, produce integrated health and wellbeing responses. These are allocated into 6 groups (Client, Project, Specialist, Product, Operations, Occupant) which the report encourages in ‘better decision making, prioritisation or outcomes and the creation of a robust decision-trail’ (BCO,2018). Additionally, all of the actions proposed vary depending on the type of project (New Construction, Refurbishment or Fit-Out, Design+Construction: New Construction+Major Refurbishment). The ‘strategy’ shown in this report explains ways in which stakeholders of a project can build their team prior to the start of the project. BCO stresses that the initial team building and development stages in any project is crucial for its success. Their case studies highlight this: for the question ‘What would you do differently?’ answers were: • choosing site location specifically best for WELL (Arup, Boston), • consider creating co-working spaces instead of a fixed office (The Colmore Building), • involve building management from the beginning (Bupa), • more time spent on building relationship with stakeholders (Deloitte), • not collecting baseline data on the building performance and questionnaires with the staff (Elementa Consulting), The Roadmap also discusses importance of post-evaluation through ‘outcomes to influence’ and ‘Occupation’ section. The Healing Offices concept has been developed in 2013 in the Netherlands by D/Dock in which employees are encouraged to ‘bring home to work’, to create an environment that boosts positive emotions. The biggest difference between this concept and other standards is a focus on connecting health with happiness, thus to improve health, the emotional state must be improved (Bauer, 2017). As admitted by A. Bauer those changes have to be an integral process between organisational transformations, EBD, PDA, POE and design elements. The concept was used in creating offices for companies like Google, Sonos, Plantronics. There is no formal evaluation of benefits but D/Dock estimates 30% less sick leave and a level of productivity 20% higher.

The Healing Offices concept presents 10 design qualities and examples of how they could be translated into design: • Healthy Food - easily accessible and ‘placed intelligently’ • Physical Activity - stimulating staircases, walking pathways, game areas, rocking chairs etc. • Re-Energising - meditation rooms, contemplation niches, integration of nature, (power)nap space • Nature - plants, natural materials, views, paintings of landscapes, water fountains • Daylight - natural light through layout and a circadian rhythm Connectedness - creating places for memories, building friendships, accents showing the history and mission of the company • Ownership - participating in the workplace-design, adjusting furniture, controlling the indoor climate (lighting, temperature), choosing the right place depending on the task, personalising the workplace • Diversity - variety of working typologies, with different features (materials, textures, shapes, colours), sensorial design, playfulness • Sustainability - local, natural materials, integrating reuse, repair, redesign. Building technologies which are ‘persuasive’ and stimulate certain behaviours Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) - sensors, personal controls. The epicentrum of the global trend in healthy office environments was New York, with two popular standards called WELL® Building Standard and Fitwel®Rating System emerging there in the early 2010s. The difference about them is in their focus areas. WELL was the first building certification which focused purely on health and wellbeing indoors while Fitwel focused more on more accessible and affordable changes on the workplace without the need for major changes. Their varying rigorousness in approach can be easily understood when comparing their specifications:

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Characteristics

Fitwel®Rating System

WELL® Building Standard

Initiator

initiated by the US Federal Government

initiated by property developer ‘Delos’

Initial targeted group

facilities managers

developers, building owners

Administrator

Center for Active Design (CfAD), General Services Administration (GSA)

The International Well Building Institute (IWBI)

Launched

2016

2014

Projects no (date accessed 15.07.18)

95 certified or pending certification 600+ committed projects through 2018 20 countries represented

Overall registered:826 and 106 certified (10 project with maximum Platinum score) New ad Existing Interiors - Office: 309, 20 of them in UK

Categories

Categories of the impact - Impacts Community Health - Reduces Morbidity + Absenteeism - Supports Social Equity for Vulnerable Populations - Instills Feelings Of Wellbeing - Provides Healthy Food Options - Promotes Occupant Safety - Increases Physical Activity

Body parts impacted -Cardiovascular Digestive -Endocrine Immune -Integumentary -Muscular -Nervous - Reproductive - Respiratory -Skeletal -Urinary

Strategies

Structured as journey 1. Location 2. Building Access 3. Outdoor Spaces 4. Entrances & Ground Floor 5. Stairwells 6. Indoor Environment 7. Workspaces

Related to body 1. Mind 2. Light 3. Nourishment 4. Water 5. Air 6. Movement 7. Thermal Comfort

Diagram made by the author 30

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

8. 9. 10. Retail 11. Bars 12.

Shared Spaces Water Supply Cafeterias & Prepared Food

8. 9. 10.

Sound Materials Community

Vending Machines & Snack Emergency Procedures

Weighting

144 points available. Minimum number of points 90. no mandatory criterias, each with different weighting

110 points available. Mandatory preconditions (30%) and flexible optimisations

Scoring and certification level

* 90–104 Points ** 105–124 Points *** 125–144 Points

-WELL Silver Certification: 50 points. -WELL Gold Certification: 60 points. -WELL Platinum Certification: 80 points.

Verification

Photos taken on site

Verification on site by third-party and sent documentation Valid for 3 years, recertification required

Valid for 3 years, recertification available Costs for office design

consultancy expected 80-150h Registration fee is $500 Certification fee is $6,000 Recertification fee is $500 + 80% of the prevailing certification rate

consultancy expected 250-450h Registration: $1,800 to $4,200 Certification: one time $7,500 or range between $0.165-0.195/sq ft Recertification: one time $2,250 or range between $0.050-0.059/sq ft Performance Verification: minimum $9,000 range between $0.15-0.35/ft2 available discounts and aligned payments

Crosswalks

BREEAM USA (Crosswalk), LEED (Alignment), RESET (Air Quality)

BREEAM, LEED, Living Building Challenge, GreenStar (Australia), RESET (Air Quality)

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

32 HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Fitwel is easily achievable, without the need of third-party certification services or interior designer consultations, which helps avoid extra paperwork and costs. It can however be criticised for its lack of mandatory requirements as it simply demands the building manager to submit filled scorecards with photographic evidence. However this also means that design aspect relating to the concept, branding incorporation, pattern and colour are not requested. Also some of the main wellness strategies such as use of daylight or views could be omitted if the registrant proved other criteria were met. Fitwel as a certification is relatively less recognised on the market which does not help when a client is aiming for a cognizance as a business promoting health and wellbeing. Well Building Standard as a certificate is currently the most recognised benchmark for health and wellbeing, and for that reason the most probable choice for both clients and interior designers. It involves much more consideration during the design stage. Additionally, it has a feature called ‘Innovation’ which promotes creative thinking to append to the overall score and strict material choice expectations (Hazardous Material Reduction, Material Transparency). In order to ensure the requirements are met, changes to the client’s company policy might have to be made (i.e.extended time of maternity leave), also it can involve costly third party air and water certificates among other things. With or without a certificate? Certificates provide a useful platform to determine areas that could be improved and help acquire in-demand skills for sustainable design. Outlined in this work, certificates like WELL and Fitwel proved useful for those companies that aim for health and wellbeing outcomes based on the latest knowledge. However there arises the question is this the only avenue for best outcomes (Fischer, 2017)? Despite ratings not guaranteeing wellness outcomes, they can help achieving set goals, but are not essential (BCO, 2018). Certificates often fail to certify the quality of air but also the ‘feel’ of the space which strongly affects the overall wellness. Thus a holistic approach not restrained by certified requirements is essential. Even if a certificate contains requirements towards important goals, very often they can be ‘traded’ for other criteria (BCO, 2018). It is important to understand that each project is unique and priorities could change accordingly, similarly Healing Offices recommends certain design steps which could be used in a flexible way. Does lack of certification necessarily make an office space unhealthy or ‘ill’? Analogously, does the label of healthy office mean that it will perform in a sustainable and healthy way? The answer is ‘no’, unless explicable by reference to the whole: designing for people and with 2030 Challenge in mind (Fischer, 2017). Figure made by the author

Additionally certificates focus only on concepts that are supported with evidence-base and data perceived as indisputable. The guidelines do not include any information that are 100% checked to have an effect on the occupants, thus limiting and possibly omitting important but more controversial findings. For example a question during a seminar titled ‘Wellbeing standards: WELL, Fitwel or the new BREEAM?‘ (The Building Centre, 2018) was why exposure to Electromagnetic fields (EMF) is not addressed. The response of the WELL director of business development for Europe was that there lacked evidence to include this as a feature. Moreso, certificates are also a powerful instrument in unifying expected outcomes and providing standardised results, which allows for effective juxtaposition of offices’ performance (Templeton, 2011). By investing in a certificate both client and designer have a guaranteed level of performance against the baseline data, which means that both parties can be ascertained as to the level of the delivered design. It is an effective way of motivating designers to adhere to the priorities set with the client and not to compromise, be it because of budget limitations or lack of time. Another positive attribute is in allowing for a benchmark based on recent scientific knowledge. Credible documentation will help prove the ability to provide efficiency for the operation which might reduce the rent costs, but also factors like reduced staff turnover, absenteeism, presenteeism, leaveeism and attracting workers to work for the company. Looking even further the building asset value will likely increase the more sustainable and healthier it is.

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Questionnaire and Interview findings 35

Were you taught about health and wellbeing at University before becoming a designer? Yes

Not sure

11% 28%

How would you rate interior designers' awareness about health and wellbeing? Very aware

Not sure

Very aware

Not aware

30%

11%

2 61%

Is health and wellbeing a consideration, or an important aspect for you when designing offices for your clients? No

3 78%

45%

Is health and wellbeing as an approach in designing offices discussed among staff and employers, or such awareness otherwise encouraged in your current employment? Yes

Not sure

11%

25%

Yes

Not aware

How would you rate your awareness about health and wellbeing?

Not sure

How would you rate your awareness about health and wellbeing? Very aware

Not aware

Not sure

11%

22% 11%

17%

61%

78%

94% From your professional experience, would you say that awareness amongst clients of health, wellbeing and sustainability in office design has grown? Yes

Not sure

Do you think access to the schemes mentioned above would be of interest to your client base? Yes

Not sure

Do you think that absence of these sustainability ratings indicate that the building is unhealthy or 'ill'*? Yes

Not sure

17%

22%

7 83%

36 QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS

22%

100%

56%

Diagrams made by the author

Questionnaire and interview findings Questionnaire, 1st-30th July 2018 The questionnaire was completed in July 2018, by 18 interior designers working as office design consultants. Invitations for the participation were issued through viva voce among interior designers and by calling various interior design practices. In total around 40 interior design companies were approached. Due to the time limitations, restricted sample choice as well as being the period of the year in which many workers are on annual leave, further efforts for larger number of participants proved to be challenging. However the study does show interesting patterns and brings insight to the research (refer to the Appendix for more details). The survey provided was completed online and was designed to take around 3-5 minutes. Previous research on questionnaires, demonstrated that more concise surveys are a better practice due to short attention span (Adams, Cox, 2008; Leeuw, 2008) thus it was narrowed down to 14 questions. The beginning of the survey highlighted main areas of research and its purpose, as well as introducing the author and ensuring anonymity of the answers. The survey questions consisted of attitudinal, factual and open ended questions. Each multiple choice question also allowed for an alternative answer by selecting ‘Other’. There was seven Likert scale questions, multiple answers and two ordinal questions where respondents were asked to rate a feature according to importance. Analyses included overall summary of the outcomes as well as comparing each individual sheet for more detailed comparison. The key findings of the questionnaire are: • 11 respondents have not been taught at University about health and wellbeing, with 5 neither agree or disagree, which might mean vestigial amount of knowledge gained. 7 out of 8 of designers with 10 or more years of experience ranked this preparation as very bad. • Ranking the awareness of interior designers has proved a challenging question. Half of the respondents ‘opted-out’ from an answer by selecting ‘neither aware or not aware’. From the other half, 6 designers perceived to be aware. • Perceived self-awareness is very high. 14 respondents rated their understanding of health and wellbeing with ‘aware and very aware’ and almost all (17/18) have strongly agreed that it is an important aspect for them when designing workplaces for their

clients. • 5 of the respondents who marked their awareness as high, later on answered that the main reason for not implementing this was ‘not enough expertise’ which might mean awareness about the importance of the issue but not enough knowledge to implement it. • There are similar opinions on whether aspects of health and wellbeing are discussed and encouraged in their current employment. 11 strongly agree with that question, 4 were not sure and 3 disagreed. • The most common way of increasing knowledge on emerging trends in office design is chosen by every respondent as collaboration with colleagues and exchange of knowledge. Next oftenly selected mediums were: websites, attending Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and books. • 6 respondents perceived designer as the most responsible in delivering health and wellbeing strategies in office projects, however 5 respondents also chose designers to be the least important, instead choosing landlord(5), Contractor (2), Occupier (2) and project manager(1). • Almost all respondents thinks that awareness amongst the clients on health and wellbeing has grown • Most of the listed methods of evidence based design have been selected by various participants, with mostly chosen ‘interviewing the client’, only one person said this was usually given as a brief • Most of designers with 1-3 years experience do not know any health and wellbeing rating schemes for interiors (3 out of 4). The most well well known certification is BREEAM (selected 15 times), LEED (10), WELL (8), SKA (7) • 89% respondents think that access to the schemes mentioned above would of the interest to their client base, however one of the biggest obstacle is in additional fees, not enough expertise, client not being interested and time constraints. The findings prove there exists interest amongst the designers. There is limited knowledge about the ratings and little awareness among interior designers in general. Only half of the designers feel that they have an impact delivering health and wellbeing in their projects. Most of the respondents also do not perceive the lack of certification as an indication of projects being unhealthy or ill. One of the respondents who holds 10 or more years of experience and a high level of awareness complained (both via open and closed ended questions) that although health and wellbeing is a consideration QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Which of the health and wellbeing rating schemes for interiors do you know about?

How do you increase your knowledge in emerging trends in office design? Attending CPD

LEED of the health and wellbeing rating schemes for interiors do you know about? Which

How do you increase your knowledge in emerging trends in office design?

Sharing among colleagues

WELL

Attending formal lectures Attending CPD Reading books Sharing among colleagues Readingformal periodicals Attending lectures

Fitwel LEED WELL RESET BREEAM Fitwel SKA RESET None BREEAM

Collaborating withReading colleagues books

Visiting websites Reading periodicals I don't have time Collaborating with colleagues Other: Local supplier events Visiting websites Other: Social media I don't have time

NoneSKA None None

Other: Local supplier events

None

Other: Social media

None

What might be the obstacles to fully incorporate the health and wellbeing benchmarks into your practice? On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the highest) the biggest obstacle the smallest obstacle What might be the obstacles to fully incorporate the health and wellbeing benchmarks into your practice? On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the highest) the biggest obstacle Time 16 14 12 16 10 14 Your company not interested Your company not interested

Who, in your opinion, should be responsible for delivering health and wellbeing strategies to office design projects? (In order of importance) the most resposible the least responsible Who, in your opinion, should be responsible for delivering health and wellbeing strategies to office design projects? (In order of importance)

the smallest obstacle

the most resposible Occupier 12 10 Occupier 12 8

Time

8 12 6 10

4 8 2 6 0 4

6 Additional Fees

Contractor

QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS

10 8

Landlord

6 4

Landlord

Not enough expertise

4 2

Additional Fees

Not enough expertise

the least responsible

Client not interested

Diagrams made by the author

Project Manager

Design Team

when designing offices, it is neither supported by his/her employer, nor by the client’s management. Another interesting feedback given by one of the junior designers was that clients ‘do not care’ about health and wellbeing. In practice wellbeing solutions are only presented to larger clients; presumably with a bigger budget; but often clients will not believe in the health benefit the designers could provide. Respondent also emphasised that some clients who expressed willingness in improving health and wellbeing in their companies ‘follow the standards completely/blindly’, which often is more of ‘a hindrance for us as designers/project’ managers.’ Interview with interior designer, 6th July 2018: In order to get information about the industry, an interview with the owner of an interior design company specialising in office design was arranged. The interview took place on the 6th of July 2018 and lasted for 40 mins. There was 14 questions on personal experience as well as to express opinions about the future of the office design. The interview was recorded and documented into a written transcript (please refer to the appendix). The interviewee is an interior designer with 25 years experience in the field of office design, 5 of which were dedicated to creating and managing his own company in Scotland. The firm is currently employing 9 designers who exclusively work on commercial projects. The respondent presented significant concerns about health and wellbeing aspects that he perceives as growing interest in the office design profession. Without preparation in college, where sustainability was not in the agenda and purely from a personal interest, interviewee’s knowledge has developed, resulting in organising seminars in 2006 about sustainability for a broad range of professionals. These showcased inexpensive but effective ways in which environmental solutions could be implemented in office design. The recession in 2008 affected the progression of these concepts and only recently the interviewee has noticed revived focus on wellness and sustainability among interior designers. Especially WELL presents good opportunities for interior designers as opposed to other standards like BREEAM, LEEDS, SKA. The use of wellness concepts, in interviewee’s opinion, should not be forced in the education curriculum, nor through the legislation but only presented as an option. Currently his company does not implement it fully and the aspects are not enforced. It is predicted however, that it would be implemented into the agenda of the company in the future, due to the clients’ demands for better office environments, thus ‘it’s better

to lead than to follow’ in this coming trend. Wellness is anticipated to be the future of design and will not need to be supported with certification to prove its effectiveness. Owing to the costs involved it will be used only when demonstrated evidence would be required, ascribed to company’s policy or as a selling point. The key changes that the interviewee noticed from years of experience is that the cellular and highly hierarchical design have been replaced with more collaborative spaces driven by technology development. The future, nevertheless will ‘see the office disappear’. There will be no 20 years long leases and will gradually transform into a digital workplace. For this purpose residential and commercial style will merge into what can be called ‘Resimercial’, replacing hitherto traditional office typologies. Finally, the interviewee observed the biggest obstacle to be the lack of collaboration between stakeholders. This adversarial nature results in missing out on health and wellbeing opportunities in projects undertaken. Interview with a Programme Leader, 25th July 2018: Interview carried out with an Interior Design programme leader in one of the UK’s universities, shows that there are limited advancements in health and wellbeing as a consideration when teaching and preparing modules for students. The interviewee who holds a total of 14 years experience in teaching, stresses that aspects of sustainability, for instance: indoor air pollution, biophilia, waste, water and energy consumption are very important. However unless the programme is specifically designed to cover these issues, it is mostly through student’s own research and project briefs that these aspects manifest themselves. Further academic or professional experience would be the only to method extend knowledge. The interviewee acknowledge that there is great importance for interior design students to understand sustainability before entering the job market, yet when rating students’ awareness of health and wellbeing at the moment on a scale of 1-5 (1 - very poor, 5- very good), ‘3’ was chosen. Further questions show the reason for this rather low rating: The interviewee sees that awareness has grown in recent years, however often with little depth. For instance, one of the first year projects demands students write their own brief for well-being intervention at the human scale in the Merchiston Campus, and often interpreted as simply creating ‘a place to relax’. The respondent himself presents personal interest in sustainability, alongside teaching he is also involved in a project that looks at woods capacity to absorb VOC in internal environment. It has been stressed that apart from the scientific aspect, health and wellbeing is strongly interlaced with good design: ‘because the best design achieves clarity, lack of stress, simplicity and joy in the everyday’.

QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

4. EVALUATION

3. DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION

Office Wellness Journey: Diagram made by the author

42 OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

1. PREPARATION

2. ANALYSIS

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE Key elements of healthy workplace that could be implemented by interior designers This work along with other growing number of reports like Wellness Matters (BCO, 2018), Doing Right By Planet and People (WGBC, 2018), WELL guidelines (WELL, 2018) or WorldGBC Metrics Framework (2014) and Harvard’s ‘The 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building’ (2017) is an attempt to simplify where current health and wellbeing knowledge fails to directly approach the discussed matter. Interior designers must embrace the importance of their voice in the broad sustainability movement and to do so they have to be empowered with knowledge (Burton, 2010; BCO, 2018; McCoy, 2012). Various publications, as well as previous chapters show that awareness is still not sufficient and there are limited available sources unifying knowledge of the discipline. Now that interior designers look at those issues more consistently- triggered by emerging certificates and demand, their interest is confronted with publications which are neither consistent in terminology nor in evidence base and often suffering from wellness washing (BCO, 2018). Frequently these are limited to merely showing luring visuals with percentages of reduced absenteeism and sick-leave, supported with dollar icons, which does not necessarily inspire confidence. As suggested by one of the questionnaire respondents the best way to raise awareness would be ‘via local events’ for both interior designers and clients through ‘use of images’ with statistical analysis of data. Interior design as an academic discipline could also encourage students to be acquainted with the newest innovations and trends.

1. PREPARATION The first stage in successful sustainable design must always be conscientious research (Sailer, 2010). In this part, interior designers should learn as much as possible about the client existing office and proposed site. Featuring in WELL (2018) and BCO (2018) guidelines as: charrettes, it engages all stakeholders from the early onsets to reach a collective vision and set priorities upon which the project would be developed in the later stages. Ideally health and wellbeing project should comprehensively cover all of discussed outcomes, however with budget constraints it often means choosing a list of the most ‘crucial’ ones. The first step in successful initiation of health and wellbeing project is to educate and inspire the client about what could be achieved, both with inspirational images of successful office designs which cover discussed strategies, as well as data showing planned improvement on occupant’s health and productivity stimulus (Steelcase, 2017). At the same time building the team should commence with identifying representants from each stakeholder: Client, Project, Specialist, Product, Operations and Occupant (BCO, 2018). An often underestimated action is to gather data about the existing and proposed workplace in addition to the client. BCO’s case studies state the main reason for future performance success of a new office is evidence based design. Baseline data to be gathered involves Pre-Design Analysis (questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops) often carried out by qualified surveying platforms like Leesman Index, Building Use Studies(BUS), The Centre for Built Environment CBE) Berkeley. The Lessman Index comprises of 11 minute perception survey and represents one of the largest and most recognisable dataset for workplace surveys.

From the gathered research (Harvard, 2017; BCO, 2018; WELL, 2019; WorldGBC, 2017) and a personal experience in the field of commercial interior design, a guideline has been prepared to help fellow designers in achieving health and wellbeing goals, through simplified stages. The main stages identified are: Preparation, Analysis, Design & Evaluation, each comprising of different steps and elements.

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

KEY STAGES

SECTIONS

ELEMENTS

Build the team and establish project aspirations

Gather data about the existing office

PREPARATION

Gather data about the client and their people

Gather data about the proposed office

Review Review collated collated information information regarding regarding the staff the building

Review the aspirations and establish the vision

Review (identify what works well and what could be improved)

Indoor + Outdoor Air Quality Tests (ventilation Effectiveness, test IAQ, contaminants identification)

Benchmark (assess the baseline data against measures of good practice)

Pattern of use (Space syntax, how people move, interact, use/demand for spaces, maintenance regimes)

Strategic workshops (share findings with the stakeholders, show ways of implementation)

Sustainability + performance (financial performance of the building operation, renewables, energy efficiency)

Set priorities (together with project stakeholders establish what matters most)

Professional surveys (BUS, CBE IEQ, Leesman Index) + Certification ( WELL, Fitwel, SKA, BREEAM)

Technical feasibility & financial viability (filter the priorities against constraints)

Pre Design Analysis (perceived: health, productivity, office environment, culture, patterns of interactions)

Allocate roles (stakeholders agree on each roles and responsibilities)

HR metrics (absenteeism, Staff turnover, Medical costs, physical discomfort complaints, Revenue breakdown)

Final review (establish final vision before moving to the next stage)

Location (ease of transport, enabling cycling and walking, amenities, garden outdoor space)

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

Set the wellness priorities

Initial workshop (inform about certificates, establish expectations, educate about wellness)

Company policy (relationship between the managers and staff, allowing for flexible working, involvement)

ANALYSIS

Office Wellness Journey: Diagram made by the author

The areas this survey investigate are: • Work Activities • Impact of Design • Workplace Features • Workplace Facilities. Building Use Studies (BUS) methodology contains questions relating to (ARUP, 2017): • Thermal comfort and ventilation • Lighting and noise • Personal control • Space, design and image • Perceived productivity • Transport to work. CBE Berkeley conducts research into Indoor Environmental Quality of a space and how it affect the user, with a set of optional questions like Office support equipment, Daylighting, Commute etc. However the main topics are: • Acoustic quality • Air quality • Cleanliness and maintenance • General comments • Lighting • Office furnishings • Office layout • Thermal comfort.

behaviour - Space Syntax identifies ways through which encounter and movement can be enhanced in a building (Sailer, 2010). Further to the occupant related surveys, very important is a base data gathered from the site investigations and analyses of the new office space. Collecting information about the outdoor & indoor air quality, noise, location, views can influence the design and highlight what could be amended and developed. If the client requires a change of office space, it is crucial for designer to take the lead in site choosing process against health and wellbeing criteria (CBRE, 2015). Measuring Indoor Air Quality, noise levels, water quality and sustainability of current office as well as Human Resources metrics (i.e. absenteeism, medical, physical complaints) and understanding the company policy are necessary. 2. ANALYSIS The stage of analysis contains review process of all the data collated in the previous stage in order to establish aspirations and a final vision prior to the design. Based on the findings regarding the staff and the site, workshops with all the stakeholders should be organised. In this stage priorities should be determined and set against technical feasibility and financial viability. BCO proposes choosing the best prioritising method, particularly favoured are: Ranking (with category cards) or DotVoting. Matters of the greatest importance must be highlighted, and then allocated to stakeholders according to their responsibility (BCO, 2018). If one of the stakeholders feels like the issues of health and wellbeing were not properly addressed, then workshops should be repeated. For instance this could be done by triggering stakeholders imagination with visuals showing the ways in which base data implementation is possible. It is important to clarify the concepts of health and wellbeing design early to avoid misunderstandings between the parties. Thus, final review of the vision with set priorities should take place to establish the most important requirements for the next stage.

Along with these findings questions on how staff perceive their physical and psychological health, productivity and the office environment should be gathered (WorldGBC, 2014). As well as how they wish for the company to promote health and wellbeing in future design. There are also elements that cannot be measured through surveys and requires monitoring system or simply observations to establish patterns of use, in terms of how people move and how they interact. The platform which pioneered modelling the connections between the layout and patterns of human

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

KEY STAGES

SECTIONS

ELEMENTS

Develop concept design – using wellness priorities

Develop detailed design – review of the service strategies

DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION

Technical Design – Implementation final of design specification

Post Occupancy Evaluation

Review and future actions

Thermal Health (temperature, humidity levels, personal thermal control, adaptive comfort model) Water Quality (water purification system, prevent water stagnation, UV disinfection)

Monitoring the conditions performance with allocate

Lighting and Colour (provide daylight access, visual comfort, avoid glare, circadian rhythm, sensors)

Extended aftercare (gathe the staff, support the staff

Active Design (promote movement in the office, Task Based Working, promote sustainable commuting modes) Biophilia (direct – plants, views, food growing; indirect – textures, patterns; representational - digital walls) Perceptual Factors (address staff’s needs, encouraging social interactions, convertible spaces, resimercial style) Sustainability (challenge for more sustainable energy and water approaches, recycle materials, designing for deconstruction in mind) Review the design against the set targets (refer to the previous stage, ensure these are addressed) Implementation (ensure that the finished project meets the criteria, i.e. water, air, noise tests)

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

SECTIONS

Soft Landing actions

EVALUAT

Pre-handover (ensure tha how to use the space: wor videos) Post Occupancy Evaluatio the design and staff’s perc

Indoor Air Quality (pollutants, VOCs, CO2, odour, ventilation rate, MERV>13 filters, local exhausts)

Healing Layout (flexibility, personalisation, diversity, re-energising spaces, acoustic properties)

KEY STAGES

Office Wellness Journey: Diagram made by the author

ELEMENTS

3. DESIGNING Indoor Air Quality The quality of indoor air should be an important consideration, especially when realising how much time we spend exposed to it (60% in offices, 90% indoors in general) (Moxon, 2012). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pollution within the built environment can be 10 to 50 times worse, when compared to the outdoor air (Templeton, 2011). Most of the issues that interior designers are responsible for relate to quality of the designed interior, however it is important to stress that air intake of the building through the natural ventilation systems, AHU and infiltration through the building fabric in areas exposed to the high traffic or a plant should also be considered (HSPH, 2017). Measuring the levels of VOCs (volatile organic compounds such as formaldehyde, limonene, and benzene), nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter (PM) is an important practice. Additionally offices in basements are likely to have problems with radon (carcinogen gas emanated from soil and rock). Restricting VOC, SVOC, halogenated fire retardants (HFRs) formaldehyde and phthalates which often migrate from furniture, furnishings, laminates, paints, wallpapers, fiberglass products, varnishes and others (HSPH, 2017). There are already many studies on the risks associated with exposure to indoor pollutants, however there are still 85% out of 82,000 chemicals in commercial use which have not yet been examined (HSPH, 2017). Referring to the newest studies, like Global Ecolabelling Network(GEN), Globally Harmonized System(GHS), Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy in Copenhagen, Indoor Environment Centre in Delft or research by Master students at Health and Wellbeing Sustainable Buildings of London College can provide the latest findings on hazardous chemicals which can affect indoor air. Currently building and construction materials are not required to provide lists of ingredients, which makes it very difficult for interior designers to choose the best option. However it is crucial to try to specify those materials with the least risk of carcinogenic and hormone disruptive properties. Increased material transparency in interior design discipline is a very important focus that might save occupants health (Moxon, 2012; WELL, 2018; HSPH, 2017; WorldGBC, 2014). In order to avoid air pollution, holistic design strategies should be implemented to minimise exposure to harmful contaminants and also promote actions that would maximise health, wellbeing and productivity in office design. Those strategies include

choosing the right ventilatilation system and its distribution on the office plan, material finishes, products used by people and those present in the cleaning process (WHO, 2005). Chemicals are currently unavoidable, nevertheless interior designers can specify and encourage the user to prevent pollutants from accumulating indoors. First rule for interior designers is to increase fresh air supply in a space (Allen, 2015). There is no right answers to which ventilation system is the best, but probably the safest choice is to provide mixed-mode ventilation combined with mechanical technology (i.e. mentioned ERV -Energy recovery ventilation HVAC) and use of operable windows or vents. Together with high efficiency particle filters installed in those systems, of MERV rating above 10 (14-20 are commonly used in hospitals providing a greater percentage of particles captured) (WELL, 2018). Secondly, to limit pollutant sources, which is one of the most challenging actions. It includes augmented exhaust strategies in spaces which emit harmful off gassing or mould issues, i.e. printers, bathroom, kitchens. The results of these efforts at the moment are exacting, requiring lab tests for precise findings, or monitor it with air pollution sensors (still with a limited accuracy). Continuous monitoring, with or without 100% precise figures is good practice within companies seeking to learn about the performance of the office, by ensuring that airborne pollutants remain below 800 parts per million (ppm) (WorldGBC, 2017). Thermal Health and Water Quality Formerly known as ‘thermal comfort’, the new term proposed by the Harvard’s Healthy Buildings programme indicates a category which extend beyond just ‘comfort’ (HSPH, 2017). The effects of temperature and humidity levels can have lethal effects and will worsen along with global climate change. The buildings must mitigate and provide safe zones. The model for thermal comfort predictions were first developed by Ole Fanger (1970s) to objectively measure factors like air temperature, air speed, humidity and personal factors (Fang, et al, 2004). The research shows that thermal comfort in offices is highly ranked among workers, higher than ventilation or job satisfaction. Additionally research shows that too warm environments increase Sick Building Syndrome symptoms and feeling of fatigue, cold and dry environments facilitate and permits for longer spread of influenza viruses (HSPH, 2017). The ways in which interior designer could assure good comfort parameters is through providing personal control over the environment, generating greater user satisfaction than regulated by electronic devices. However in open plan layout this would require extensive alterations, through Task Air systems in outlets hidden under the floor or on each desk (WorldGBC, 2014). Ventilation and heating/cooling strategy should be

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

carefully discussed with the specialist and not assume that contractors will take that responsibility. For instance, there is ongoing discussion if projects should be served by independent ventilation separate from the heating and cooling systems. Water quality is an element likely to be omitted in the design process. It is important to promote drinking water in an office, alongside the nutritional values, the quality of water offered should be maintained. The main reasons for compromised water quality are due to the water infrastructure and even if water is approved to be drinkable from the tap, caution should be taken: service pipe corrosion, storing water within a system could deteriorate the quality of water. Thus the drinking water should be assessed prior to the move and system of sediment, carbon filters and UV disinfection systems could be applied (WELL, 2018). Lighting and Colour Light exposure is an important factor in maintaining mental and biological health. Diurnality as a form of natural cycle in humans regulates physiological functions in response to light. Its colour and intensity influences the perception of the ‘internal clock’ and any longer disruptions in this natural cycle can cause depression, obesity and metabolic disorders (WELL, 2018; HSPH, 2017). If applicable, interior designers should extend the amount of the natural light permitted into the space via skylights, atriums and windows, as well as through the office layout. Strategies for this could involve providing common spaces rich in daylight, while less frequented areas like meeting rooms could be situated closer to the core of the floorplate. Careful choice of glare control systems should also be considered. Allowing for maximised use of daylight is a sustainable solution and additional energy efficiency features like automatically controlled occupancy and daylight sensors. Best practice also involves careful lighting fixture choice, with high quality of colour rendering with no flicker at the light source. The colour of light is especially important when introducing circadian lighting strategies in which blue-enriched light could be used in the morning and early afternoon to magnify alertness (300 lux, 5500K) and gradually change it to softer shades to match external light levels (3200K) (HSPH, 2017). Typical lighting recommendations for office are 300-500 lux. Studies show that higher light levels can stimulate focus and should remain around 300 lux, but also that different age groups have different requirements which should be taken into consideration. Dim illumination of neighbour spaces creates a contrast between

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

bright environments designed to enhance cognitive performance, allowing staff to find a space appropriate to their need. Studies show that darkness increases social interactions and triggers more explorative ideas (Bauer, 2017). By segregating spaces with different lighting and colour requirements designers can deliver spaces which are more regenerative and creative, providing a variety of areas which occupant could choose from and develop a feel of ‘ownership’. Being able to control lighting and creating different ambience. Healing Layout & Active Design Layout is limited by the existing envelope and client’s expectations, this creates challenges which should be seen as opportunity. Exposing vulnerabilities and opportunities is important in creating stimulating workplaces. The aim is to not only create healthy environment in terms of ventilation strategies and thermal comfort, but to also translate this into tangible and intuitively understandable layout and tactility. Important considerations in designing office layout is introducing diversity of spaces freeing the employee to be more flexible in spaces used (Bauer, 2017). However it is crucial to note that without successful management, promoting healthy behaviours and etiquette guidance, the designers’ attempts might remain in vain (WorldGBC, 2014). The foremost consideration, is the workplace density, deduced from calculations of square meters per workstation. Guides based on practice rather than theory suggest a flexible, desk-sharing style of work as preferable for the best productivity outcomes. Example of such design is Agile Working, which requires less square meters for fixed number of desks per employee, encouraging instead movement and use of the most appropriate space for the task at hand. However, studies also reveal issues which are connected with noise levels and loss of ownership when implementing this type of agile working. Problem with the acoustic properties of work environments is common in offices which do not practice Activity/ Task-Based Working. Distracting noise has a big impact on the workers and via layout and acoustic properties of materials this can be successfully addressed. The layout should consider the character of work of different departments, if they require more focus spaces or if their work is linked with discernible noise (telephone calls and collaboration between colleagues). Diversity of spaces to retreat to, needed for additional privacy and concentration but also to talk, collaborate and brainstorm should be available. The Steelcase Global Report uncovers that employees who felt engaged

over how and where they work are more satisfied and productive (2017). The research shows that UK workers admit having access to relaxation spaces, but that they rarely use them, because they do not feel them to be alternative places to work. Another way of approaching layout design is also to involve the employees in the process of creating an office space to uplift their sense of control over their environment. Bespoke furniture that can be moved and personalised according the changing staff needs involves them in the creation of their space, empowering them and making the office more exciting. As an addition to specifically work task spaces, places to ‘re-energise’ help to recuperate from stress and fatigue, through meditation rooms, unconventional spaces with hammocks ,deckchairs rearrangeable to a fitness space; There should be no limit to creativity and imagination (Bauer, 2017). Active Design must be considered when designing a layout. ‘Walking is man’s best medicine’ (Hippocrates) and the easiest way to maintain regular physical activity in the office. Sedentary lifestyle has proven to be a cause of several chronic diseases, including musculoskeletal and circulatory disorders. Thoughtful office design of circulation routes, amenities such as bike racks, showers, lockers room, fitness or game rooms are low-cost interventions which subconsciously unwinds users from work (Rassia, 2017). Biophilia & Perceptual Factors The benefits of nature have been researched and proved helpful to interior design, i.e. Enhanced Healing in hospitals and Attention Restoration Theory. Authors like Ulrich (1984), Kaplan (2001), Hartig (1991), Park, Mattson (2009) who examined the influence that direct, indirect or representational exposure to nature has on occupants, all found improvement in health, concentration and mood. ‘Biophilia Hypothesis’ by E. O. Wilson (1984) defined biophilia as “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life” or “love of life or living systems’, it does not simply mean making a ’garden’ in an indoor space (Beganskas, 2018). Creative interpretations of nature to be applied to interior design could be a more accurate way of describing the philosophy. Biophilia in architecture involves maximum exposure to nature outside the building and is closely connected with biomimicry in the design (i.e. wind catching shape, responsive building skin, geometry of the building). These indoor features can be divided into direct, indirect and experience of nature in a built environment. Directly connecting with nature means incorporating elements like plants, living walls,

water features, light, fireplaces and views. An additional advantage of greenery is their air purifying properties which, when exposed to the right light levels, can filter dust, absorb CO2, reduce noise and improve humidity levels. The list of plants published by Wolverton BC. (1997) show easily low maintenance and durable household plants that can be used as ‘air cleaners’: 1. Areca palm (Chrysalidocarpus lutescens) 2. Lady palm (Rhapis excelsa) 3. Bamboo palm (Chamaedorea erumpens) 4. Rubber plant (Ficus elastica) 5. Dracaena (Dracaena decremensis ‘Janet Craig’) 6. English ivy (Hedera helix) 7. Dwarf date palm (Phoenix roebelenii) 8. Ficus (Ficus macleilandii ‘Alii’) 9. Boston fern (Nephrolepis exaltata ‘Bostoniensis’) 10. Peace lily (Spathiphyllum wallisii) Indirect exposure allows for more creative renditions of nature. It could manifest itself through the use of natural materials, organic shapes/patterns, paintings and images (Beganskas, 2018). Optionally gardens or food production areas inside the building or rooftops & terraces could have restorative and educational properties (WELL, BCO 2018). Food self-sufficiency is promoting healthy eating choices and enforces connection with nature. Alternatively, the layout of the space can foster this with strategically placed bowls of fruit/vegetable snack bars and encouraging graphics on healthy nutrition options. Measurable objectives must be accompanied by perceptual factors through which interior designer can address specific staff needs. This could be applied through diversifying colour schemes, homely objects and patterns which bring the comforts of home into the workspace, the essence of the resimercial concept (2018, pers. comm., 6 July). The Healing Office concept encourages a sense of Ownership, Diversity and Connectedness. For instance the unconventional design of Google office featuring: jungle, beach volleyball or climbing walls, which aims to surprise and excite. Additionally it allows the employee to build Ownership for the space through his interactions. Diversity can be applied through the deliberate tactile diversity. Material finishes have different effect on the user’s perception, for example the texture of

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

velvet compared to synthetic fur or tree bark to a chipboard. Connectedness focuses on creating spaces where social interactions are encouraged, helping form a team that understands and follows the firm’s vision. The office needs not be confined to only daily office tasks, it could also be convertible to social hub with activities like movie projections, seminars and other social events (2018, pers.comm., 1-30.07.18).

location or purpose. Searching for materials that could be repurposed from demolitions or coming from local manufactures is supporting local economy, helps the design root in the regional traditions and reduce the carbon footprint of the project (Moxon, 2014).

Sustainability

• • •

The choice, and how to implement sustainability is not a decision that necessarily lies with the interior designer. Regardless, a conscientious design should always strive to apply these principles whenever possible. Challenging the client to expect sustainable solutions (from the landlord or contractor) within a scope of the project can result in lower energy bills but also demonstrates that their business conduct actions with the environment in mind, a potent marketing advantage (WorldGBC, 2018). Lighting, heating and cooling accounts for the biggest energy waste, thus use of monitoring sensors might help minimise in loss. Good quality lighting fixtures which, through sensors or user control, adapt to daylight levels would organically adjust lighting in areas which require artificial light. Adaptive comfort model is beneficial for the office in reducing the amount of energy you use. Water use brings up another consideration. By investing in toilets which reuse greywater for flushing or taps into harvested rainwater can bring financial benefits to the client ready to implement this but also contribute positively to the preservation of natural resources (McCoy, 2012). A crucial stage that is often overlooked in interior design however waste management considerations or lack thereof. Changes made to offices during fit-outs generate a great deal of detritus, especially when considering the frequency with which refurbishments are carried out (Hayles, 2015; Moxon, 2012; Bonda, 2007, McCoy, 2012). Pollutants and hazardous substances generated tend to include waste like light bulbs (containing mercury), asbestos or batteries, which should be handled carefully (Living Building Challenge, n.d.). Designers should note and track the characteristics of materials used in their fit-outs (composition, toxicity, biodegradability). Other waste would include recyclables like carpet, wood, fabrics, which could be reused in other projects. The recyclability content of products and ensuring cradle to cradle approach of the downtakings and of their replacements is one of the key contributions to sustainability that can come from the design (British Land, 2017). Knowing that fit-out and refurbishment of the space the designer is working on, a ‘mobile’ and easily dismantlable design would minimise any impact in the future, it would also allow for use in a different

Figure made by the author

Sustainability - guiding questions:

• • •

What is the history of the material: virgin or re-used? Where is it manufactured? Where is it coming from? Does it hold relevant labels and available list of ingredients? Does it contain toxic substances or does it come from a responsible source (I.e. sustainability managed forest)? What is the recycled content? What is the embodied energy of the product? What will happen to the material after the end of its life? Is cradle-to cradle possible and how can it be ensured? What is the maintaining process of the material? Can it be cleaned without toxic products (Phthalates, Perchloroethylene or “PERC”, Triclosan, Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, or “QUATS”, 2-Butoxyethanol, Ammonia, Chlorine, Sodium Hydroxide)?

Designers should always look for material assessments when specifying a product, that information should then be freely available to the occupants. Organisations which might be useful in further research of the products and the toxic substances that should be avoided are: • • • • • • • • • •

WWF’s One Planet Living, Building Research Establishment (BRE) Green Guide to Specification Global Organic Textile Standard, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), SCS Indoor Advantage, Eurofins Indoor Air Comfort, The Green Dot, European Management Audit Scheme (EMAS) ISO 14001.

Furthermore, ensuring that the occupiers have amenities which will allow them for more sustainable transport choices, it should be discouraged for employees to use individual cars to commute to work.

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

4. EVALUATION

KEY STAGES

SECTIONS

Soft Landing actions

ELEMENTS

Post Occupancy Evaluation

EVALUATION

Review and future actions

Pre-handover (ensure that the staff understands how to use the space: workshops, manuals, videos) Post Occupancy Evaluation (after 12 months review the design and staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception) Monitoring the conditions (tracking building performance with allocated sensors) Extended aftercare (gathered data available to the staff, support the staff and management)

Office Wellness Journey: Diagram made by the author

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY GUIDANCE

The evaluation steps consist of: Post Occupancy Evaluation, Gathering building performance data and Reviewing process, combined with ongoing Soft Landing actions (Sailer, 2010). The initial verification should take place in the first weeks after moving in to the space, followed by workshops and manual handouts accessible to all of the staff, demonstrating how to best use the space and associated technology. If air quality monitoring is installed designers might also be asked to keep an eye on the ongoing performance during occupation, which; if management is willing to share this information; should be accessible to the building users to build awareness about the green features and performance of their office (BSRIA, 2014; Meixner, 1995; Jafari, 2015). Evaluating the endeavours set in the first stage of the project through Post Occupancy Evaluation is a crucial tool in reviewing performance of a space and the influence it has on the employees. First Operational Surveys should be planned after 3-6 months of moving in, in order to check if the occupants understand the operation prescribed for the technology or flexibility of some of the areas. Guidance such as simple hints can affect peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception and involve them in shaping spaces according to their use requirements. For instance staff might complain about bad thermal comfort, but upon closer inspection it could be discovered that they did not know how to adjust the air system, or the programme has failed and occupants were left to without direction on how to solve this (Sailer, 2010). The ongoing Soft Landing procedure, can provide successful support for the users and inspire necessary changes, whilst reducing the gap and separation of the different participants who aim to implement sustainable design (construction, architects,designers) from the occupants. This strategy should be provisioned and budgeted during the early stages of design (BSRIA, 2014). A year or more after the occupation the Functional Performance review should take place. This would involve gathering data from the occupant surveys and measurements of the Indoor Environment Quality against the benchmarked data set in the first stages of the project lifecycle. A regular engagement with employees is also good practice with studies and surveys repeated every year.

OFFICE WELLNESS JOURNEY

KEY STAGES

SECTIONS

ELEMENTS

Build the team and establish project aspirations

Gather data about the existing office

PREPARATION

Gather data about the client and their people

Gather data about the proposed office

Review Review collated collated information information regarding regarding the staff the building

ANALYSIS

Set the wellness priorities

Review the aspirations and establish the vision

Develop concept design – using wellness priorities

Develop detailed design – review of the service strategies

DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION

Technical Design – Implementation final of design specification

Soft Landing actions

Initial workshop (inform about certificates, establish expectations, educate about wellness)

Review (identify what works well and what could be improved)

Indoor Air Quality (pollutants, VOCs, CO2, odour, ventilation rate, MERV>13 filters, local exhausts)

Indoor + Outdoor Air Quality Tests (ventilation Effectiveness, test IAQ, contaminants identification)

Benchmark (assess the baseline data against measures of good practice)

Thermal Health (temperature, humidity levels, personal thermal control, adaptive comfort model)

Pattern of use (Space syntax, how people move, interact, use/demand for spaces, maintenance regimes)

Strategic workshops (share findings with the stakeholders, show ways of implementation)

Water Quality (water purification system, prevent water stagnation, UV disinfection)