Enablers of incorporating indoor environmental quality (IEQ) principles into buildings

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to identify these enablers in literature and subsume them under broad categories for the development of a framework showing the interrelationships among the enablers.Design/methodology/approachFifty-four (54) relevant articles were desk reviewed from different construction peer-reviewed journals and published conference proceedings to identify 20 core enablers of incorporating indoor environmental quality (IEQ) into building designs.FindingsThe identified enablers include improved occupants' health, well-being and satisfaction, environmental conservation, high return on investments and co-operative methods of design and construction management among others. To better understand the enablers identified, they were classified into seven main interconnected categories: economic enablers, environmental enablers, occupant and end-user enablers, process enablers, corporate image, culture and vision enablers, client-related enablers and external enablers.Research limitations/implicationsThe interconnectedness brought to the fore a subtler appreciation of the drivers of IEQ, which could help expand current knowledge outside the narrow scope of isolated drivers. The fact that the papers selected in this study are not limited geographically underscores the wide applicability of the findings to the global construction industry.Practical implicationsUnderstanding that the enablers will enhance the adoption and design of quality indoor environments, help in building the capacity of consultants to adopt the design of quality IEs and reduce the impact of construction on the environment.Social implicationsThese identified enablers are not limited geographically and thus could promote the design of quality indoor environments globally, particularly in green building design. To the global construction community, this review presents a list of enablers that would expedite the adoption of principles of IEQ designs in buildings thus taking the global construction industry one more step towards sustainable built forms. Promoting the identified enablers would ultimately steer stakeholders to design and build better indoor environments.Originality/valueThe fact that the papers selected in this study are not limited geographically underscores the wide applicability of the findings to the global construction industry.

Impact of improved indoor environment on recovery from COVID-19 infections: a review of literature

“…The objective of this review study was satisfied by exploring the broad spectrum of IEQ and its relationship with COVID-19. For a better understanding and reach of the study, it was divided into the core themes of IEQ, being the Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Comfort, Acoustic and Daylighting/Visual Comfort (Du et al , 2015; de Dear et al , 2016; Afful et al , 2021; Afful et al , 2022). By this then, the study was able to precisely retrieve pertinent information from the more recent publications including, review papers, peer-reviewed research articles, letters to the editor, books and dissertations.…”

“…According to Meho and Rogers (2008), Scopus also provides swifter index processing than other important scholarly databases, such as Web of Science and Google Scholar, which further makes it a major database for scientific research (Tseng et al , 2019). Moreover, the Scopus database comprehensively records abstracts and citations of peer-reviewed literature across multidisciplinary fields with built-in intelligent tools to track, analyse and visualise research (Darko et al , 2017; Afful et al , 2021). As posited by Afful et al (2022), WOS and Scopus have significant overlaps in literature, although Scopus is advantaged with a much broader database as corroborated by Zhao et al (2019).…”

“…In public health and construction design, IEQ has long since been a central focus as it impacts significantly on the health and well-being of occupants (Kim and de Dear, 2012). Various studies (Wall, 2016; Akpan-idiok and Ackley, 2017; Afful et al , 2021) have previously identified the various factors that impact the quality of the indoor environment (IE). However, most have come to agree on the four central indicators (Wall, 2016; Haverinen-Shaughnessy et al , 2018; Choi et al , 2019; Afful et al , 2021; Afful et al , 2022).…”

“…Various studies (Wall, 2016; Akpan-idiok and Ackley, 2017; Afful et al , 2021) have previously identified the various factors that impact the quality of the indoor environment (IE). However, most have come to agree on the four central indicators (Wall, 2016; Haverinen-Shaughnessy et al , 2018; Choi et al , 2019; Afful et al , 2021; Afful et al , 2022). They are the indoor air quality (IAQ), thermal comfort, visual comfort and the acoustic conditions.…”

“…It has been hypothesised that the quality of the IE significantly impacts the well-being, comfort, satisfaction, productivity and, more importantly, the health of occupants (de Dear et al , 2016; Candido et al , 2016; Afful et al , 2021; Afful et al , 2022). With these impacts, comes the need for designing and building healthier and greener environments that allow occupants to live in better health conditions [World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010; Wang and Zhang, 2011; Chan and Liu, 2018].…”