Occupant Satisfaction in Sustainable and Conventional Higher Education Buildings

  • Kim Szery
  • Riza Yosia SunindijoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 11/2)


The higher education sector as a bastion of sustainability research has embarked in continual efforts to make its buildings more sustainable. Besides being environmentally friendly and economically feasible in the long run, there are perceptions that sustainable buildings are more user friendly and that their occupants are more satisfied than those in conventional buildings. However, research findings in this particular aspect of sustainability are inconclusive and even conflicting. Therefore, this research aims to study the occupant satisfaction of sustainable and conventional buildings in a higher education institution in Australia. The results show that generally there is no significant difference in occupant satisfaction between sustainable and conventional buildings. A goal of sustainable buildings to improve the wellbeing of building occupants apparently has not been achieved based on the findings of this research. There is a possibility that the development of sustainable buildings mainly focuses on the environmental aspect while the social aspect tends to be neglected. The results further show that focusing on thermal comfort is the most effective way to improve occupant satisfaction. Future developments of sustainable buildings should evolve further and find the right balance among the triple bottom line of sustainability so that they truly are sustainable buildings.


Australia Higher education Occupant satisfaction Sustainable buildings Thermal comfort 


  1. Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., & Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. In E. de Oliveira Fernandes, M. Gameiro da Silva, & J. Rosado Pinto (Eds.), 8th international conference and exhibition on healthy buildings. Lisboa, Portugal, 4–8 June 2006. Herndon, VA: International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, L., Murugan, A., & Kato, H. (2011). Green offices in Australia: A user perception survey. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(3), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird, G. (2010). Sustainable buildings in practice: What the users think. Oxon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brager, G., Paliaga, G., & De Dear, R. (2004). Operable windows, personal control and occupant comfort. ASHRAE Transactions, 110(Part 2), 17–35.Google Scholar
  5. Brill, M., & Weidemann, S. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workplace design. Buffalo, NY: Kimball International.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, R. J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z., & O’shea, M. (2008). Re-contextualizing the notion of comfort. Building Research & Information, 36(4), 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Kuijer, P. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48(2), 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, B. (2006). Benefits of green offices in the UK: Analysis from examples built in the 1990s. Sustainable Development, 14(3), 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings. The American Economic Review, 100(5), 2492–2509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heerwagen, J. (2000). Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity. Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heerwagen, J., & Zagreus, L. (2005). The human factors of sustainable building design: Post occupancy evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center, Annapolis, MD. Berkeley, CA: The Center for the Built Environment.Google Scholar
  12. Hwang, T., & Kim, J. T. (2011). Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor and Built Environment, 20(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings: A report to California’s sustainable building task force. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2012). Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall workspace satisfaction. Building and Environment, 49, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 4: The Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, Y. S., & Guerin, D. A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 18(4), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newsham, G. R., Birt, B. J., Arsenault, C., Thompson, A. J. L., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S., Galasiu, A. D., Gover, B. N., Macdonald, I. A., & Burns, G. J. (2013). Do ‘green’ buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Building Research & Information, 41(4), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ortiz, O., Castells, F., & Sonnemann, G. (2009). Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials, 23(1), 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paevere, P., Brown, S., Leaman, A., Luther, M., & Adams, R. (2008). Indoor environment quality and occupant productivity in the CH2 building. In G. Foliente, T. Luetzkendorf, P. Newton, & P. Paevere (Eds.), 2008 International Scientific Committee world sustainable building conference. Melbourne, Australia, 21–25 September 2008. Balnarring: ASN Events Pty.Google Scholar
  21. Paul, W. L., & Taylor, P. A. (2008). A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building. Building and Environment, 43(11), 1858–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rajagopalan, P., & Thanthrige, V. (2012). Occupant satisfaction of Star Rated Houses in Victoria, Australia. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference of healthy buildings. Brisbane, Australia, 8–12 July 2012. Herndon, VA: International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate.Google Scholar
  23. Roelofsen, P. (2002). The impact of office environments on employee performance: The design of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement. Journal of Facilities Management, 1(3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wagner, A., Gossauer, E., Moosmann, C., Gropp, T., & Leonhart, R. (2007). Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field studies in German low energy office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 39(7), 758–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilkinson, S. J., Reed, R., & Jailani, J. (2011). User satisfaction in sustainable office buildings: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society annual conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 16–19 January 2011. Sydney: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society.Google Scholar
  26. Yang, L., Yan, H., & Lam, J. C. (2014). Thermal comfort and building energy consumption implications – A review. Applied Energy, 115, 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Built EnvironmentUNSW SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations