Energy, SBS symptoms, and productivity in Swiss open-space offices: Economic evaluation of standard, actual, and optimum scenarios
The fundamental aspiration of new-generation high-performing buildings is to reduce energy use while securing indoor environmental quality conducive to human health and productivity. However, existing frameworks for identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of buildings are sporadic and limited...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Building and environment 2023-08, Vol.242, p.110565, Article 110565 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The fundamental aspiration of new-generation high-performing buildings is to reduce energy use while securing indoor environmental quality conducive to human health and productivity. However, existing frameworks for identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of buildings are sporadic and limited to a few parameters. Based on two Swiss open-space buildings, this paper demonstrates an economic comparison combining three KPIs: health (represented by sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms), occupants’ productivity (based on the thermal environment and ventilation), and operational energy for heating (based on building simulations using measured inputs). Monetization translated various criteria into the same unit currency and compared them on equal terms. Three scenarios for human- and energy-related performance analysis were actual (considering measured data), standard (using parameters from the national standard), and optimal (maximized productivity). The actual environment in case studies measured in the Fall and Winter seasons was relatively warm, with poor ventilation in one of the two buildings as no mechanical ventilation was on. Therefore, there was some loss of productivity (0.11–0.4%) and SBS symptoms (e.g., dry eyes, fatigue) present in both buildings resulting in up to 2 times the difference between the energy and human costs. The minimum energy costs for the standard scenario indicated that standard settings prioritize energy objectives. Oppositely, energy costs were the highest (47.6–69.6%) in the optimal scenario minimizing the human-related costs but not the weekly SBS symptoms. The analysis presented highlights the conflicting goals when one parameter is prioritized over another one, thus demonstrating the importance of a multi-criteria approach.
•Assessment of office buildings integrating factors of energy, health, and productivity is needed.•Energy and human costs were estimated for standard, actual, and optimal conditions.•SBS symptoms, productivity, and energy KPIs were monetized to compute their economic impacts.•Actual indoor environment and occupancy variation strongly influence human-related costs.•Robust data and tailored models are needed for the multi-KPI analysis of buildings. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0360-1323 1873-684X |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110565 |