Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 162, 20 September 2017, Pages 1266-1274
Journal of Cleaner Production

An examination of factors affecting healthy building: An empirical study in east China

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.165Get rights and content

Abstract

With economic development, there is an increasing demand for healthy working and living environments. Health issues of buildings have become increasingly important because people spend most of their time in buildings. One of their major concerns is whether the building is healthy or not. Many research efforts have been made regarding building health from various perspectives, such as eco-building, sustainable building, low-carbon building and green building. However, these studies cannot represent the health status of building comprehensively and appropriately. Based on comprehensive literature review, the connotation of healthy building was defined and 30 impact factors that affect healthy buildings were identified by bibliometric analysis and expert interview. A questionnaire survey was conducted to identify the importance of these key factors. Sixteen factors were identified as key impact factors (KIFs) with the importance index above 80. Furthermore, these 30 factors were classified into three principal components by using principal component analysis (PCA). At last, a framework integrating all these impact factors of a healthy building during its life cycle was developed, which provides a thorough picture of the impact factors and their classifications. The findings in this study can also help people gain deep understandings of healthy building, provide theoretical support for the design, construction and operation of healthy building, and promote the development of healthy building.

Introduction

With the fast urbanization process in China, there is an increasing demand for buildings in cities. The health of buildings is also considered to be critical because it has a close relationship with people (Abdou, 1997). Nowadays, people spend up to 80% of their time in buildings (Sessa et al., 2002). The health of the buildings has become one of their major concerns (Marmot et al., 2006). For example, unhealthy interior decoration materials may cause headaches, nausea, nightmares, feeling of collapse and nasal irritation (Jaakkola et al., 2006). With the development of science and medical technology, people have a higher demand on healthy working and living environment than ever before (Davies, 2009). A healthy building environment provides good indoor air quality, adequate lighting, and comfortable temperature and humidity (Sessa et al., 2002).

However, it is undeniable that there are many health issues during building’s life cycle. For example, construction dust contributes to air pollution, which causes various environmental and health problems (Tokmechi, 2011). Construction workers suffer from enormous stress on building sites due to various health and safety problems, such as noise, dust and falling from high structures or scaffolding (Gomes et al., 2002, Chen et al., 2012). Furthermore, some buildings may have hidden defects which threaten people’s and buildings’ health, such as fire hazard, deterioration of materials and poor maintenance (Dong, 2014). Some materials may produce odors that can cause health problems, such as headaches, nausea, nightmares, nasal irritation, sneezing and coughing, and the problems worsen if there is no adequate ventilation (Jaakkola et al., 2006, Fang et al., 2004). Sick building syndrome (SBS), like sleepiness, dizziness and chest congestion, did afflict nearly 25 million people in around 10 million American buildings (Murphy, 2006), and there are also many complaints about indoor air quality from occupants (Walsh et al., 2014). Therefore, the health of building is important for the safety and health of people, both physically and psychologically.

However, little research effort has been made to examine the impact factors of healthy buildings during their life cycle. Most existing studies focus on a single stage of building’s life cycle and ignore the changes of building health in different stages. Some scholars study the indoor health of occupants, without considering construction workers, maintenance workers, building operation staff. In the existing studies, the concepts of green building, eco-building, and low-carbon building are widely used. Therefore, there is a need to conduct a comprehensive review of healthy buildings and appropriately define the term healthy building. The paper aims to identify the key impact factors (KIFs) of a healthy building during its life cycle, develop a systematic framework that incorporates all these impact factors, and give a comprehensive connotation of healthy building. The findings provide useful theoretical support and practical guidance, with which to improve the health status of buildings and enrich the healthy building theories, as well as promote the healthy building concept in construction industry.

Section snippets

Connotation and development of healthy buildings

Under the background from “Healthy City” (on 1984 Toronto International Congress) to “Healthy China” (in 13th Five-Year Plan beginning in 2016 in China), healthy building, initially regarded as a designing primer for a living environment, has been a gradual focus of research interest (Holdsworth, 1992). A model is provided for examining harmful indoor elements (Wyon, 1993). It is confirmed that interior environmental quality is positively correlated with people’s health (Fisk et al., 1993).

Identification of factors affecting healthy building

Gordon introduced life cycle cost management theory in 1964. After that, life cycle management has been applied in various industries. Life cycle management for buildings can be divided into five stages: planning, design, construction, operation, and demolition (Grussing, 2014). The formation of a building entity actually begins during the design stage in that there is a focus on preparatory work in the planning stage (Clark, 2009). Therefore, the four stages including design, construction,

Questionnaire development

Questionnaire investigation was adopted to analyze these identified impact factors further. The purpose of the questionnaire is to investigate different perceptions on the importance of factors above and determine the importance index of them, based on which, KIFs will finally be identified.

There are three main sections in the questionnaire. Section 1 is about the background of respondents. Four questions (Q1-Q4) were designed regarding the highly-specialized profession of this research to

Reliability analysis

Cronbach’s alpha is often used to test the internal consistency of collected data. Cronbach’s alpha measures internal consistency (reliability) on a scale between 0 and 1 based on the average inter-item correlation. The reliability is acceptable if the Cronbach’s alpha value is more than 0.7 (Aigbavboa and Thwala, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha was used in this study to test the internal consistency among the impact factors. All Cronbach’s coefficients are more than 0.7, as shown in Table 2.

Ranking of factors

The

Conclusions

Buildings play major roles in economic, social, and environmental activities in the development of construction industry. Their health status should be properly examined when considering implementation. In fact, the health of building involves many complicated impact factors during its life cycle, and on the contrary, relevant comprehensive research studies are still unavailable, which leads to an ambiguous connotation of healthy building in these days. It is of great significance to make an

References (76)

  • O. Ortiz et al.

    The environmental impact of the construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2010)
  • Y. Pan et al.

    Energy modeling of two office buildings with data center for green building design

    Energy Build.

    (2008)
  • X.L. Zhang

    Green real estate development in China: state of art and prospect agenda—a review

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2015)
  • X.L. Zhang et al.

    Green property development practice in China: costs and barriers

    Build. Environ.

    (2011)
  • X.L. Zhang et al.

    A prototype system dynamic model for assessing the sustainability of construction projects

    Int. J. Proj. Manag.

    (2014)
  • O.A. Abdou

    Effects of luminous environment on worker productivity in building spaces

    J. Archit. Eng.

    (1997)
  • Y.M.D. Adedeji et al.

    Low carbon construction materials and techniques for sustainable housing development in Nigeria

  • C. Aigbavboa et al.

    Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Neighbourhood Features Amongst South African Low-income Housing Occupants

    (2013)
  • S. Baharetha et al.

    Towards a Unified Set of Sustainable Building Materials Criteria

    (2012)
  • D.J. Bartholonew

    Principal components analysis

    Int. Encycl. Educ.

    (2010)
  • A. Brown et al.

    Risk assessment of exposure to particulate output of a demolition sit

    Environ. Geochem. Health

    (2015)
  • C. Brunsgaard et al.

    ‘Healthy Buildings’: toward understanding user interaction with the indoor environment

    (2016)
  • A. Chan et al.

    Using the thermal work limit as an environmental determinant of heat stress for construction workers

    J. Manag. Eng.

    (2013)
  • C. Chang et al.

    Medical records for building health management

    J. Archit. Eng.

    (2007)
  • H.R. Chen et al.

    Exploring learner attitudes toward web-based recommendation learning service system for interdisciplinary applications

    Educ. Technol. Soc.

    (2009)
  • J.H. Chen et al.

    A prospective study of blood pressure dynamic change and related factors in construction workers in high-altitude regions

    Med. J. Chin. People’s Armed Police Force

    (2012)
  • China Academy of Building Research

    Healthy Building Evaluating Standard (T/ASC02-2016). China

    (2016)
  • Y.K. Chu

    Control measures for high-rise building operation safety management

    Appl. Mech. Mater.

    (2013)
  • R. Clark

    Integrated architectural design

    Struct. Congr.

    (2009)
  • P.G. Davies

    Why the definition of health matters

    BMJ Clin. Res. Ed.

    (2009)
  • R.E. Diasty et al.

    Improving IAQ through healthy building envelope design and systems selection

    Indoor & Built Environ.

    (1993)
  • X.L. Dong

    Residents safe hidden trouble existing in the construction and construction safety management

    Appl. Mech. Mater.

    (2014)
  • M. El Asmar et al.

    Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality: a Study of the LEED-certified Buildings on the Arizona State University Campus

    (2014)
  • L. Fang et al.

    Impact of indoor air temperature and humidity in an office on perceived air quality, SBS symptoms and performance

    Indoor Air

    (2004)
  • A. Field

    Discovering Statistics Using SPSS

    (2005)
  • W.J. Fisk et al.

    Phase 1 of the California healthy building study: a summary

    Indoor Air

    (1993)
  • R. Ghaderi et al.

    Construction Safety in Design Process

    (2011)
  • J. Gomes et al.

    The health of the workers in a rapidly developing country: effects of occupational exposure to noise and heat

    Occup. Med.

    (2002)
  • Cited by (23)

    • Natural ventilation in London: Towards energy-efficient and healthy buildings

      2021, Building and Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      On the other hand, acoustic comfort and health are now receiving increasing attention and consideration in regulations of healthy buildings [16–19]. As occupants are reluctant to open windows in the background of high-level ambient noise, the potential of NV can also be significantly influenced by noise pollution levels [20,21]. However, due to the complexity of noise monitoring and the limitation of feasible noise datasets, the impact of noise pollution on NV potential is still lack of exploration.

    • The spatial characteristics and relationships between landscape pattern and ecosystem service value along an urban-rural gradient in Xi'an city, China

      2020, Ecological Indicators
      Citation Excerpt :

      We then constructed multiple linear regression models using ESVs and LPIs which were calculated in different buffer zones. Meanwhile, principle component analysis (PCA) was used to eliminate multiple collinearity which converted a set of observations of possibly correlated variables by using an orthogonal transformation method (Mao et al., 2017). The work flow chart of this study was provided for better understanding (Fig. 3).

    • Review of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for green building projects

      2019, Building and Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Exploring critical project management factors that influence project success has been given special and continual attention in the last few decades [24,25]. For instance, CSFs for R&D projects [26], PPP projects [27] as well as healthy building projects [28] have been investigated by previous researchers. In essence, until now, CSFs for GB projects have increasingly become the focus with the growing demand for GB.

    • Examining sustainability indicators of space management in elderly Facilities—a case study in China

      2019, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      In practice, drawing attention to KSIs could yield twice the results with half the effort. In some prior studies, a mean value of 4 or above was applied as the demarcation for selecting key indicators (Mao et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2014), and indicators with a factor loading of 0.5 or above were selected as key in some other articles (Li et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2011). However, the fact that an indicator had the highest mean value (e.g., X20 and X21) did not necessarily mean that its factor loadings were high (Yuan et al., 2018).

    • Effect of ecological engineering projects on ecosystem services in a karst region: A case study of northwest Guangxi, China

      2018, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      In general, a KMO value of more than 0.9 represents very suitable, 0.8 means fit, 0.7 means general, 0.6 means not appropriate, and below 0.5 is extremely inappropriate. PCA uses an orthogonal transformation to convert a set of observations of possibly correlated variables (Mao et al., 2017). This transformation is defined such that the first principal component has the largest possible variance, which is sensitive to the relative scaling of the original variables.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text