Philosophy About the Quality of Our Indoor Climate

Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 56)


This chapter focuses on a new approach and ideas about the indoor climate of our built environment. For a long period, our views on this subject were supported by the technical solutions and possibilities of the past industrial revolution. As a dogma, we did focus on achieving a quality of our indoor climate based on steady fixed and measurable temperatures. By neglecting the factor human being, we created indoor environments which give unforeseen healthy problems. Besides that, fresh air is one of the most vital elements for our life; when ignored, it ends up with health problems like respiratory disorders such as asthma which causes serious difficulty with breathing. In case of asthma or other respiratory disorders, harmful substances and gasses like sulphur dioxide, ammonia, carbon dioxide and formaldehyde have been detected in many indoor environments. From various directions and at the same time, people with strong visions were alarming for the existing views on our indoor climate and the way how we achieve this. The new focus is based on a new way of thinking and is aiming for another quality of our indoor climate. New parameters are a healthy environment, a high level of comfort and a low consumption of energy, all based on the perception of the human being itself. The instrument to implement this new philosophy is integrated design. Architects and engineers in the building design are responsible for taking these signals seriously. It is not by accident that this instrument integrated design is introduced at the same time as our scream for sustainability!


Operable Window Outdoor Temperature Integrate Design HVAC System Weighted Temperature 


  1. 1.
    Susanne Piët; De Emotiemarkt; (the future of the perception economy) De toekomst van de belevenis economie; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. J. Mendell, A.H. Smith, Consistent Pattern of Elevated Symptoms in Airconditioned Office Buildings: A Reanalysis of Epidemiologic Studies, Am. J. Public Health 80 (10) (1990) 1193–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Teeuw, Sick Building Syndrome – the role of airborne microorganisms and endotoxins, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Zweers, L. Preller, B. Brunekreef, J.S.M. Boleij, Health and Indoor Climate Complaints of 7043 Office Workers in 61 Buildings in the Netherlands, Indoor Air 2 (1992) 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Groes, The European IAQ-Audit Project – A Statistical Analysis of Indoor Environmental Factors, Laboratory of Heating and Air Conditioning, Technical University of Denmark, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    TVVL magazine June 2005, volume 34, nr. 6. Page 42–49.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.C. van der Linden, A.C. Boerstra, A.K. Raue, S.R. Kurvers (2002), Thermal indoor climate building performance characterized by human comfort response, Energy and Buildings, June, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort, Analyses and Applications in Environmental Engineering (1970), McGraw-Hill, London, New York, ISBN 0-07-019915-9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. de Dear, G. Brager, D. Cooper (1997), Developing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and Preference, Final report, ASHRAE RP/884.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thermal comfort requirements in buildings Thermische Behaaglijkheid; eisen voor de binnentemperatuur in gebouwen (2004), publicatie 74, ISSO, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.C. van der Linden, A.C. Boerstra, A.K. Raue, S.R. Kurvers (2006), Adaptive temperature limits; a new guideline in The Netherlands, Energy and Buildings, January 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Nicol, M. Humphreys (2005), Adaptive comfort in Europe: results from the SCATs survey with special reference to free running buildings, Man., august 2005.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morgan C, de Dear R., Weather, clothing and thermal adaptation to indoor climate, Climate Research (2003), Vol.24 (3) 2003, pp.267–284.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCartney K., Adaptive comfort theory applied to office buildings (2003), Proceedings HB2003, Vol 3, 809-814.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wyon, D.P (2000). Individual control at each workplace: the means and the potential benefits, in: Creating The Productive Workplace, edited by Derek Clements-Croome, ISBN 0-419-23690-2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Hannula, R. Niemelä, S. Rautio, K. Reijula (2000), The effect of Indoor Climate on Productivity, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 659–664.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W.M. Kroner (2000), Employee productivity and the intelligent workplace, in: Creating The Productive Workplace, edited by Derek Clements-Croome, ISBN 0-419-23690-2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.P. Wyon (1996), Individual micro-climate control: required range, probable benefits and current feasibility, Proceedings of Indoor Air, Vol. 1, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Nishihara, S. Tanabe (2003), Individual control of air velocity for increasing productivity, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 219–224.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K.J. McCartney, M.A. Humphreys, (2002), Thermal comfort and productivity, Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002, pp. 822–827.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Leaman, W. Bordass, R. Cohen and M. Standeven (1997). How buildings really work, The Probe Occupant Surveys, Buildings in Use’97: London Commonwealth Institute, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kas Oosterhuis; Oosterhuis Architecture (A) | Design Methods | Chair Relation to Practice
  23. 23.
    Rudy Uytenhaak;
  24. 24.
    Alpha and beta buildings, page 24 – 26, edition of Senter Novem April 2005; Kompas energiebewust wonen en werken (energy conscious in living and working).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. Bischof, M. Bullinger-Naber, B. Kruppa, B.H. Müller, R. Schwab, Expositionen und gesundheitliche Beeinträchtingen in Bürogebauden, Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ph.M. Bluyssen, E. de Oliveira Fernandes, P.O. Fanger, European Audit Project to Optimise Indoor Air Quality and Energy Consumption in Office Buildings – Final Report, TNO, The Netherlands, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Leamen, B. Bordass, Productivity in buildings: the ´killer´ variables, in: D. Clements-Croome, Creating the productive workplace, E & FN SPON, 2000, 167–191.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft Technical University the NetherlandsDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations