China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Future drivers and economics
Published in Ming Hu, Net Zero Energy Building, 2019
A building’s design, materials, and method of construction, as well as the construction process, may affect the health of the occupants, operatives, and general population over its entire life cycle.26 Research indicates that energy-efficient buildings have a better chance of mitigating heat stress.28 It has also been shown that several diseases, deteriorating human health, and even death are associated with certain indoor environment characteristics. Respiratory diseases are related to the indoor concentration of toxins, volatile organic compounds, particular pollutants, and carbon dioxide concentration. These pollutants usually originate in the building materials,29 and their impact is exacerbated by inadequate airflow within the space through airtight building enclosures. Certain green building design guidelines or rating systems follow a holistic approach to integrate requirements of using “healthy” building materials, suggesting that these materials produce less or none of the byproducts that could endanger human health. For instance, the only organization managing the net zero building label, the Living Future Institute, has specified a large number of building materials in its red list that are prohibited in sustainable buildings. For example, asbestos, known for its strength and heat-resisting capabilities, is often found in building insulation materials. However, it is a known human carcinogen that increases the risks of lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis. Having more streamlined and stringent sustainable building requirements will help to control and reduce the use of harmful materials while achieving the energy conservation goal.
Sick building syndrome: are we doing enough?
Published in Architectural Science Review, 2018
Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, Husam AlWaer, Hossein Omrany, Ali Ghaffarianhoseini, Chaham Alalouch, Derek Clements-Croome, John Tookey
Well-being, embracing health and comfort, is a critical parameter for determining the quality of life of an occupant. In late 1980s and during the 1990s, WHO concept of health, became significant for identifying the concept of a ‘healthy building’ in terms of building performances (i.e. IAQ, thermal comfort, lighting quality and acoustics) (Bluyssen 2010). A healthy building is defined as ‘built environment that encourages positive well-being of human beings’ (Ho et al. 2004; Mohtashami, Mahdavinejad, and Bemanian 2016). Moreover, a broader definition is proposed by Levin (1995), considering the impacts of buildings on both occupants and surrounding environments. Levin defined healthy building as ‘a building that adversely affects neither the health of its occupants nor the larger environment’. From a more generic outlook, a healthy building is free of hazardous materials (e.g. lead and asbestos) and capable of fostering health and comfort of the occupants during its entire building life cycle, while supporting social needs and enhancing productivity. While Levin aspiration calls for ‘treads lightly on the earth’, this brings in other dimensions– such as the total amounts of materials used in the construction and operation of a building and the environmental impact of the mining/production/transportation to site and subsequent disposal of waste. In short, this would require lifecycle analysis of the wider environmental impact of buildings. This reveals the ‘health’ and ‘well-being’ approaches as being flawed because they are entirely species-centric and lacking regard for other flora and fauna.