Assessment and assurance of indoor environment qualities in program and
design phases
Dr Marie Hult1,, Dr Mauritz Glaumann2, M Sc Tove Malmqvist2, M Sc Xin Li1
1
2
White arkitekter AB, Box 4700, S-116 92 Stockholm, Sweden
Division of Urban Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, Drottning Kristinas väg 30,
S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The aim has been to design a scientifically based methodology to assess/secure indoor
environment qualities (IEQ) throughout the program, design and management phases. The
method should fit into a holistic; computer based environmental assessment system,
EcoEffect, which also includes assessment of energy and material use, outdoor environment
and life cycle costs.
A multi-criteria assessment structure of the indoor environment is used. Benchmarks for
each indoor factor are used as assessment criteria in the different building phases have been
arranged in four impact/target classes, each of them with impact values from 0 (no impact) to
3 (big impact). The focus is on comfort and building related health.
The method has so far been used to assess around 20 existing and 4 planned buildings. For the
management and program phases the method has been proved to be useful and quite easy to
apply. In design phase however, more efforts are needed to simplify the assessment
procedure.
INDEX TERMS
Planning new buildings, Environmental assessment, Assurance of IEQ, Building related
health, Comfort.
INTRODUCTION
During the last decades different methods and tools to assess environmental properties of
buildings have been developed. Some of them have been presented at international
“Sustainable Building”conferences, which started in 1998 (Cole 1998). The life cycle
assessment (LCA) approach is applied in EcoEffect for assessing use of energy and building
materials. Traditional LCA, based on the evaluation of emissions which effects are not
geographically fixed, is however, not suited for the assessment of indoor environment. As in
LCA, there have been attempts to use TVOC as an indicator of indoor air quality, but was
found to be too ambiguous (Andersson et al. 1997). The possibility to include indoor climate
issues as an impact category in LCA of building products has been investigated by Jönsson
(2000). She found that only very limited aspects of the indoor climate could be addressed in
LCA. Subsequently, methods to assess and secure indoor environment qualities in buildings
normally have been criteria based and developed separately from other environmental issues.

Corresponding author email: marie.hult@white.se
1
On the other hand, the development in the last years towards classification of indoor
environments makes it easier to integrate indoor environment in assessment systems.
Different efforts have been made to classify Thermal comfort, IAQ and Sound conditions.
Examples of such works are Scanvac (1993a, 1993b, 1994), FiSIAQ (1995) and CEN (1998).
The objective of EcoEffect (Glaumann, Malmqvist 2004) was to develop a holistic method of
environment assessment of buildings, where all the important impacts on environment and
health caused by a building were included. To make EcoEffect complete a specific method to
assess and secure indoor environment qualities of buildings was developed. The method to
assess IEQ in existing buildings was based on a questionnaire to the users of the building
about indoor environment and building related health. It has a central position in the method
and has been presented earlier (Hult 1998 1999 2000). This presentation concentrates on the
application of the method at the program and design stages.
RESEARCH METHODS
Important starting points for design of the methodology to assess and secure the indoor
environment qualities in buildings were:




To avoid moisture problems since this is one of the most verified health hazards in
buildings (Bornehag et al 2001)
To prevent a sick building passing as environmentally friendly while assessed with the
method.
To organize the analysis structure in a consistent way, across different stages of the life
cycle of a building.
To be transparent to the user; i.e. it should be possible for a user to follow all steps in the
assessment process, from input data to the concluding final impact values. This would
also mean that the user could understand the potential of improvement.
The approach when developing the method was as follows: 1) Identify indoor health and
comfort problems occurring during the operation phase. 2) Find actions to prevent these
problems at the program and design stage. 3) Organise these actions hierarchically in a way
that is valid throughout the program, design and operation phases. 4) Define criteria for 4
assessment levels for each indoor problem. 5) Make it possible to get a summarised picture
through a weighting system. 6) Test the method in practical building projects.
The base of the method has been developed in Hults (2002a) doctoral thesis. During 2003 and
2004 the method has been further developed within the framework of the EcoEffect project.
The choice of assessment criteria is based on a review of a wide range of scientific studies of
the causality between different indoor factors and human health. To be able to set the criteria
levels an inventory and analysis was made of studies with similar ambitions regarding the
indoor factors Air quality, Thermal comfort, Sound conditions, Lighting conditions and
Electrical environment. This review has been reported in Hult (2002b) and the works included
are for instance ISO 7730, SCANVAC (1993), FiSIAQ (1995) and CEN (1998).
The methodology used to arrange the assessment criteria was multi-criteria analysis (Saaty,
Erdener 1979, Andresen 2000).
2
When deciding the weight of each sub-problem it’s relative significance related to the
addressed problem at large was evaluated. The main consideration in this process was the
estimated degree of discomfort or illness the sub-problem may cause a user of the building
and the duration of the problem. A more sophisticated and general method has later been
developed for the whole EcoEffect method.
The assessment method has so far been used to assess around 20 existing and 4 planned
buildings. There have been a number of information courses directed to employees in the
organisations and enterprises in the building sector, which have given feedback on and further
development of the method. The experiences presented here are based on the opinions put
forward by the actors involved in the building process of four building projects where the
method has been applied.
RESULTS
The multi-criteria analyse resulted in criteria arranged in hierarchical structures. They have all
one common feature, shown partly in Figure 1. They all start with groups of indoor
environment factors and end up with indoor problems. In the operation stage most of these
problems are related to the questions used in the Questionnaire for assessment of existing
buildings. The criteria chosen for the program and design phases were then based on the
problems addressed in the questionnaire
During the program phase the input data are target values chosen by the client. The associated
criteria are gathered in a table, PM 1 (Figure 2), The client chooses a target load (value of 0,
1, 2 or 3) according to the scale given in the table (Figure 2 and 3). These load values are then
fed into the EcoEffect software resulting in calculated profiles, (Figure 4). These profiles are
also used to formulate targets for the building project. Since the profiles provide feedback on
what specific criteria need to be fulfilled in order to achieve a target load value, the builder
can elaborate on the criteria in order to find the appropriate levels.
At the design phase a corresponding table PM 2 (Figure 3) is used and filled in by the
designers. Now it is possible to choose more detailed criteria on the performance of various
building materials, components, activities etc to reach the target value set on a higher level.
Input data for the assessment in this phase thus consists of such performance criteria that are
translated into load values according to a given scale in the table PM 2, examples are given in
figure 3. These load values are then transferred to the computer software and indoor profiles
can be calculated. The profiles provide the designer and constructors with feed back on the
possibilities to reach stated target levels from PM1 in the program phase. If the target levels
are not reached other levels of the performance criteria may be tested to reach the goal.
The result of the indoor assessment is presented in two diagrams, one showing estimated risk
that the building will be associated with health problems and one showing the estimated
future indoor environment, figure 4. The health problems, shown in the House and Health
diagram, are sick building syndrome (SBS), aggravated allergy, intensified joint annoyance
due to chilliness and sleeping problems (in offices and schools; concentration problems) due
to noise. Selected indoor factors in table PM1 and performances in PM2 are reorganised in
another hierarchical structure to estimate the risk of health problems. The assessed risk of
getting cancer due to a high rate of radon and legionnaire diseases due to low temperature of
hot tap water is not shown in the diagram “House and Health”, but will be seen in the bar of
Air Quality in diagram Indoor Environment Factors.
3
Indoor Environment Problems
Group of indoor factors
Under groups of indoor factors
Indoor Air Quality
Volatile compounds, smells
Moisture, microbes
Dust, particles
Ionising radiation
Dilution of compounds
Smells mould
Smells musty
Risk of Legionella growth
Air temperature
Surface temperatures
Air velocity
Thermal comfort
Dusty Air
Risk of harmful rate of radon/gamma
radiation
Air borne sound insulation
Impact sound insulation
Sound level
Reverberation time
Sound conditions
Stuffy Air
No possibilities to influence IAQ
Too chilly in winter
Too hot in winter
Room temperature varies with outdoor temp.
Sunshine on balcony
Sunshine in dwelling
Day light factor in dwelling
Intensity of illumination
Glare of illumination.
Flicker of illumination.
Colour of illumination.
Lighting conditions
No possibility to influence room temperature
Too cold floor
Too hot floor
Cold walls
Too hot walls
Cold ceiling
Too hot ceiling
Electric fields
Magnetic fields
Static electricity
Electrical environment
Pungent smell-Dry air
Smells exhaust gases
Smells sewer
Smell from neighbours cooking
Smell from own cooking
Smells smoke from outside
Draught from floor
Draught from window or balcony
Draught from ventilation valves
Figure 1 A part of the common tree structure, similar for
assessment in all stages of building process.
And so on.......
Table PM1- Input tool to assess and assure IEQ i program phase
Criteria
Scale of impact value
Weight The client
chosen
Much better Better than
As
Worse
value
than normal
normal
normal
than
0, 1,
normal
2 or 3
0
1
2
3
A.4 Ionizing
0,20
radiation
Indoor problem
Risk of harmful rate of radon/gamma radiation indoors
A.4.1 Radon in
room air
< 50 Bq/m3
50 - < 100
Bq/m3
100 - 200
Bq/m3
>200
Bq/m3
0,10
A.4.2 Gamma
radiation
< 0,3 µSv/h
0,3- < 0,4
µSv/h
04- < 0,5
µSv/h
>0,5
µSv/h
0,10
Related health
problem/References
Cancer of the lung
Sw. Building code: : <
200 Bq/m3
for new buildings
Cancer of the lung
Sw. Building code: < 0,5
µSv/h
for new buildings
Figure 2. Extraction from Table PM1, used by the client to decide the targets for indoor
environment in the new building.
4
Table PM2 – Input tool to assess and assure IEQ in design phase
Scale of impact value
Responsi
The
ble.
designer
Much better Better than
As
Worse
designer
chosen
than normal
normal
normal
than
value
normal
Weight
0, 1,
0
1
2
3
2 or 3
0,20
Criteria
A.4 Ionizing
radiation
Indoor problem
Comments
Risk of harmful rate of radon/gamma radiation indoors
1. Demand on radon Measurement Measurement Estimated
measurement in soil. according to according to
with
best standard..
some
geological
standard.
map
2. Demands on
follow up
measurement of
indoor air in the
completed building
Measurement
of yearly
mean value of
radon and
gamma
radiation
Not
investigated.
Direct
Measurem
No
measurements ent of
demand
of gamma and gamma or
on
short sample
radon.. measuremeasurement
ment.
of radon.
L, C
0,04
Cl, C, A
0,04
Figure 3. Extraction from Table PM2, used by the actors in the design phase to decide the
activities and performance of the building construction, materials and installations. L=Land
Consultant, C=Constructor, Cl= Client, A= Architect.
Indoor Environment Factors
3
2,5
2,5
1,5
En
vi
ro
nm
.
0= Much better (less
impact) than normal
1= Better than normal
2= As normal/
benchmarc
3= Less good than
normal
tr.
Li
gh
ti n
g
Ai
r
In
do
or
Jo
in
t
Sl
ee
lle
r
A
SB
Explanation of
Impact Values:
El
ec
0
Q
ua
li t
y
0
gy
an
no
ya
nc
pi
e
ng
pr
ob
le
m
s
0,5
So
un
d
1
0,5
fo
rt
1
2
om
1,5
al
c
2
Th
er
m
Impact Value
3
S
Impact Value
House and Health
Figure 4. The indoor assessment is presented in two diagrams, with the same design
independent of stage. A critical factor in this specific building seems to be the sound
conditions. This building will be erected in the centre of a town with heavy traffic near by.
DISCUSSION
One of the aims of EcoEffect is to illustrate the balance between good indoor environment
and low impact on the exterior environment. The quota between an aggregated value on each
of these areas has been called a buildings environmental efficiency value. The positive side of
this is that environmentally efficiency of different buildings can easily be compared. The
negative side is that such highly aggregated figures may conceal differences that might not be
perceived as real, since the predefined weighting system is responsible for the result. One
conclusion from this is that it is important that the assessment method is transparent in all its
steps. Another conclusion is that it is crucial that the weighting system is trustworthy.
5
Another important issue when developing assessment criteria for the design phase is to avoid
formulating them in a way that could be conserving technical solutions. The more technical
neutral the criteria are, the better.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The assessment greatly enables architects to compare different solutions from an
environmental perspective and with more accuracy. Earlier architects might have an opinion
about which technical solutions are environmentally superior compared with others, but now
they can assess by how much. One good example is that window area on the façade leads to
the sunlight-index and heat loss index, which are both of vital information for both energy and
indoor environment. By testing different window sizes, one can clearly see how the
environmental profile and environmental efficiency change correspondingly. Also, to choose
different building materials will certainly affect the building’s performance in terms of
environmental efficiency. This gives the designers, and even the clients, an opportunity to
consider and verify different options in a quantified way,
As the analysis structure is general across different stages in the building and management
process it is possible for designers, clients and real estate owners to observe and scrutinise the
connections between health effects, indoor environmental factors and performance of building
elements. It helps the actors to get feed back from management to early planning.
The method to assess and assure IEQ is quite easy to use at the program phase. At the design
phase, there are a lot of criteria concerning assurance against future moisture problems. This
is good, but in order to be smoothly integrated into the design phase, the recent procedure
must be simplified. In a future, it is desirable to create links to CAD and different software for
more detailed moisture dimensioning, climate calculations and so on.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grants from the Swedish Council of Building Research (now FORMAS), and the Foundation
of Architectural Research (connected to White architects Ltd) mainly supported this study.
REFERENCES
Andersson, K., Bakke, J.V. Björseth, O., Bornehag, C-G, Clausen, G., Hongslo, J-K., Kjellman, M., Kjärsgaard,
S., Levy, F., Mölhave, L., Skerfving, S., Sundell, J., 1997. TVOC and Health in Non-industrial Indoor
Environments – Report from a Nordic Scientific Consensus Meeting at Långholmen in Stockholm, 1996.
Indoor Air 1997, pp 78-91. ISSN 0905-6947.
Andresen I. 2000. “A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method for Solar Building Design”. Thesis submitted in
partial of requirements for the degree of Doktor Ingeneer. The Norweigian University of Science and
Technology Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Fine Arts Department of Building Technology, Oslo.
Bornehag, C-G, Blomquist, G., Gyntelberg, F., Järvholm, B., Malmberg, P., Nordvall, L., Nielsen, A.,
Pershagen, G., Sundell, 2001. Dampness in Buildings and Health. Nordic Interdisciplinary Review of the
Scientific Evidence on Associations between Exposure to "Dampness" in Buildings and Health Effects
(NORDDAMP). Indoor Air,International Journal of Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Volume 11, No2, p.
72-86
CEN, 1998, Report CR 1752. Ventilation for buildings – Design criteria for the indoor environment. ICS
91.140.30. Ref nr CR 1752:1998 E.
Cole R.J. 1998. Green Building Challenge´98. Assessment Manual, Volume 1. Overwiew, Volume 2: Office
Buildings, Volume 3: Schools, Volume 4: Multi – Unit Residential Buildings.
FiSIAQ, 1995. Classification of Indoor Climate, Construction, and Finishing Materials. FiSIAQ Publication 5E,
ISSN 1237-1866, Espoo, Finland.
Glaumann M, Malmqvist T. 2004. “Environmental assessment of buildings, the EcoEffect method – background
and summarising description”. Gävle: The University of Gävle and the Royal Institute of Technology, Built
environment analysis. (Includes an extensive summary in English).
6
Hult M. 1998. “Assessment of Indoor Environment in Existing Buildings”. Proceedings of Green Building
Challange´98 Conference in Vancouver, Canada. Vol. 2, pp 139-146.
Hult M., Engvall K, Norrby C, Bandel J. 1999. “Applying a multiple logistic regression model to identify multiunit residential buildings with high risk of SBS in Stockholm”. Proceedings of Indoor Air 99, Edinburgh
Vol. 1, pp 829-834.
Hult M. 2000a. “A Methodology to Assess Indoor Environment in existing Buildings”. Proceedings to Healthy
Buildings 2000 in Espoo, Finland, aug 6-10, 2000, p. 521 – 526.
Hult M. 2000b. “Assesment of indoor environment in planned buildings, M Hult”. Preceedings to Sustainable
Building 2000 in Maastricht, Netherlands, 22-25 Oct. 2000, p 755-757.
Hult, M. 2002a. ”Asessment and Assurance of Indoor Environment Qualities in Buildings – during Program,
Design and Managemant phases. Ph.D.. Department of Building Servicees Engineering, Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburgh.. (Includes an extensive summary in English).
Hult, M. 2002b. ”Some existing tools to make target documents and to design indoor environment qualities”.
Department of Building Servicees Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburgh.. (In
Sweedish).
ISO/WD 7730, Ergonomics of the thermal environment – Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal
comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort. International standard
ISO/WD 7730.
Jönsson Å, 2000. “Quantitative methods. Is it feasible to adress indoor climate issues in LCA?” Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 20 (200) pp 241-259.
Keeney R. L. 1992. “Value Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decision making”. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard Univercity Press.
SCANVAC, 1993a. Classified indoor Climate Systems – guidelines and specifications, Report R:1, Stockholm
SCANVAC, 1993b. The new indoor climate – a survey. Contact person Ulf Rengholt phone: ,+46- 8-305790,
Stockholm.
SCANVAC, 1994. Indoor climate and ventilation for tomorrow needs – quality based principles and guidlines
for the ventilation of indoor environments an work spaces. Report R:2. Contact person Ulf Rengholt phone:
,+46- 8-305790, Stockholm.
Saaty Th, L., Erdener E. 1979. A new approach to performance measurement - the analytic hierarchy process.
Design Methods and Theories, Volyme 13, Number 2.
7