green offices

Green offices in Australia:a user perception surveyLynne Armitage, Ann Murugan and Hikari KatoInstitute of Sustainable Development and Architecture,

Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to deepen understanding of what is working and what is notworking within green workplace environments. The paper examines management and employeeperceptions of their experiences of working in green workplace environments and assesses theeffectiveness of such places.

Design/methodology/approach – Being the second stage of a longitudinal study, this paper relieson a data set derived from its survey of 31 management and 351 employee respondents occupyingGreen Building Council Australia Green Star-rated offices for more than 12 months.

Findings – The green workplace is a great place to be, at least most of the time, but there is adiscrepancy between the views of management who see greater benefits of the green workplace thantheir employees.

Research limitations/implications – By focussing on green buildings, there is no control toestablish a benchmark. Hence, the next stage of the research is a comparable study of a non-green datasample. Also to be tested is – whilst managers and employees overall report satisfaction with theirgreen workplace, what is the norm?

Practical implications – The findings are useful for green building industry practitioners and forbuilding owners and managers to maximise the benefits of owning and occupying green buildings byhighlighting areas that may require particular attention in order to get it right. The results areparticularly useful to support targeted efforts to meet the environmental aspects of the workspaceneeds of employees. This study aims to assist industry practitioners, owner and managers to learnfrom the experience of current occupiers and thereby assist the design and space management of officespace in the future where such considerations will become increasingly important given theinternational concerns for improved resource management.

Originality/value – With international applicability, a large sample of office space users providesempirical evidence of what works/does not work within the green workplace, i.e. its strengths andweaknesses and provides a good reference point for similar studies in the future, leading to theestablishment of clearer, more useful benchmarks of green building occupier satisfaction.

Keywords Sustainable, Office buildings, Workplace, User satisfaction, Australia

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionBuildings in Australia are becoming “Green”. The number of Green Star[1] certifiedbuildings has been growing exponentially since the Green Building Council of Australiaintroduced its rating scheme in 2002 and today, 11 per cent of Australia’s CentralBusiness District commercial office buildings are Green Star-certified (www.gbca.org.au). Whilst the shift towards Green buildings is undisputed, what is currently still notfully established – nor yet not fully acknowledged – is how these green workplacesactually are liked by the people occupying them.

In this regard, the purpose of this research is to examine how occupiers(both management and employees) perceive and evaluate the role of green

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-001X.htm

Green officesin Australia

169

Journal of Corporate Real EstateVol. 13 No. 3, 2011

pp. 169-180q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1463-001XDOI 10.1108/14630011111170454

workplace environments and, subsequently, to assess the effectiveness of a greenworkplace environment.

2. Expected occupier benefits of a green workplace environmentTen years ago, most attention in the area of green commercial office buildings wasfocussed on ecological benefits and, to some extent, the cost savings associated withdecreased operational cost. However, as the green building industry now is movingbeyond its establishment stage, the focus is now on the benefits to occupiers from workingin a green workplace. The majority of existing research argues that green buildingsproduce happier and more productive workers (Fisk, 2000a, b; Palmer and Mariscal, 2002;Kumar and Fisk, 2002; Leaman et al., 2007; GBCA, 2006; Singh et al., 2010).

Rask and Kato (2008) found in their study based on 12 Green Star-rated buildingsand their occupants, that 100 per cent of employers and employees alike thought thatthe green building was “better than expected with all things considered” and themajority of occupiers signalled that they would not like to relocate to a non-green officebuilding. In the same study, Rask and Kato (2008) found that 80 per cent of businessmanagers believed staff absenteeism had decreased since they moved into the newGreen Star-rated building.

The Property Council of Australia estimates productivity benefits from greenbuildings to be between 4 and 10 per cent (Property Council of Australia (PCA), 2001)and it is worth bearing in mind that, on average, salary costs comprise 70-90 per cent ofa firm’s total costs (Woods, 1989). By considering the link between the indoorenvironment and productivity, one begins to understand how the quality of the indoorenvironment can directly impact the financial performance of an organisation(Clements-Croome, 2000).

One study involving 33 green buildings (Kats, 2003) finds that the productivitybenefits are between $37 and 55 US dollars per square foot as a result of less sick timeand greater worker productivity.

Workers’ increased satisfaction, health and productivity in green buildings aremainly the result of better airflow, increased amounts of natural light and views, use ofless-toxic building materials and furnishings, reduction of glare, increased thermalcomfort, satisfying noise levels and individual controllability of systems (www.gbca.org.au). Wilkinson et al. (2011) pinpointed that thermal comfort and lighting are themain attributes linked to workers’ increased productivity and satisfaction in greenbuildings.

3. Research methodology3.1 Sample selectionThis research was conducted on 31 Green Star-certified buildings in Australia.The criteria for inclusion were: located in Australia; Green Star-certified; operating asan office in either the private or public sector and operational for 12 months or longer.To conduct the research, two different sample groups were selected: managers andemployees working in the building. The aim was to obtain data from a broad range ofpeople who interact with the buildings in various ways. At the commencement of thisresearch in late 2009, there were 107 Green Star-certified buildings in Australia thathad been operational for 12 months or longer. A letter inviting participation in theresearch was forwarded to the owners of all these Green Star-rated buildings.

JCRE13,3

170

3.1.1 Management data sample. Responses were received from 31 buildings andoffices agreeing to be part of the management survey sample and this accounted for29 per cent of the total population. The sample buildings were located in all Australianstates except for the Northern Territory[2] and represented most of the major cities(Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Canberra) thus providing agood coverage of current Australian trends. Their Green Star rating was based on“Office Design”, “Interiors” and “Education” categories, with all buildings having beenawarded four to six Green star ratings. About 11 buildings had a 4 star rating (BestPractice), 17 had a 5 star rating (Australian Excellence) and three had a 6 star rating(World Leader). The buildings are a mixture of privately and government-ownedbuildings. Questionnaires to the management were distributed to 107 GreenStar-certified buildings/offices via online surveys, phone interviews and face-to-faceinterviews depending on what suited them best.

3.1.2 Employee data sample. Respondents from ten buildings agreed to participate inthe employee online surveys, which accounted for 9 per cent of the total population. Thesample buildings were located in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Gold Coast. TheirGreen Star rating was based on “Office Design”, “Interiors” and “Education” categorieswith all buildings having been awarded four to six star ratings. Online questionnaireswere distributed through the organisation’s managers to their employees through theSurvey Monkeyw data collection tool. The total of employee responses was 351 witheach individual building having a response rate of a minimum of 30 per cent.

3.2 Questionnaire design3.2.1 Management survey. The questionnaire distributed to management askedquestions about the company’s general profile, motivation behind going green,satisfaction levels, functionality and what they considered to be the effect on employeeswho have been provided with such a workplace. One set of questions asked about howthey educate employees about how to use the building’s sustainability features; anotherset of questions asked if the management believed working in a green building hashelped to make employees more environmentally friendly. A range of question formatswas employed including a five-point (Likert) scale for the majority of questions; “yes/no”or “not sure” for others and a few required open-ended questions to be posed.

3.2.2 Employee survey. The employee survey, distributed online, asked questionsabout the respondent’s general profile, satisfaction levels, knowledge of how to usetheir green workplace environment, functionality and self-assessed health andproductivity impacts. One set of questions asked about the incidental benefits of agreen workplace environment and what additional aspects, if any, would help them tobe more environmentally aware. Responses to both sets of questions from both sideswere compared to determine if a gap exists between the perceived value of greenbuildings by management and by employees. The data were analysed to identify thetype of value being created by the green workplace environment and the strengths andweaknesses of green workplaces.

3.3 First round of researchThe first round of this research was undertaken by Kato et al. (2009) during 2008-2009.It is about 18 months between round one and two. This time lag was given in order toallow more Green Star-rated buildings to be built and occupied. The advantage


171

of round two is that more Green Star-rated buildings exist, thus enabling a bigger datasample to be used.

In round one, six buildings participated in the survey of management and threebuildings participated in the employee survey. The questionnaires had the samestructure and were distributed in the same format as in the second round of the research.The sample buildings in round one were located in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra,Adelaide and Brisbane. These participating buildings were amongst Australia’s 12 firstGreen Star-certified buildings, i.e. in the forefront of the green building revolution.Another difference between the data sample in round one and two is that there is a greaterrepresentative of 4 star-rated buildings in round two. In round one, four star buildingsonly contributed 16.7 per cent but in the second round, they comprised 35 per cent.

4. Research findingsThis second round of research arrived at the same conclusions as did the first round(Kato et al., 2009), which is, that occupiers of Green Star-rated buildings and offices arehighly satisfied and positive about their workplace. However, upon further detailedexamination of the data, it becomes clear that there are certain areas which regularlycause frustration and negative experiences.

4.1 Health and productivityThe Green Star rating system emphasises the use of materials, systems and measureswhich promote healthy indoor environments such as increased outside air rates, carbondioxide monitoring, abundance of daylight, reduction of glare, individual comfortcontrols and reduction of volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde and mould (www.gbca.org.au). Based on such data, are the occupants of Green Star-rated buildingsfeeling healthier and more productive as a result of their move to a green workplace?

The findings from the first study and from this one are closely aligned. Neither ofthe studies fully supports the theory that a Green workplace creates healthier or moreproductive staff. However, this study does show responses that go a bit further in thatdirection. This study shows that employers believe that the Green office has a positiveimpact on health and productivity but employees are not convinced. Employers wereasked if the Green Star-certified building has helped to motivate their employees tobe more productive or to have positive impacts on their health and well-being. About89 per cent of the employers do believe their green office has a positive impact on bothproductivity and health.

By contrast, staff do not believe the green office environment has a positive impact ontheir productivity and health as much as their employers think. When staff were asked toshow how much they agree (or disagree) with the statements: “This office enhances myproductivity” and “I believe this office has positive impacts on my health and well-being”,the result was somewhat unconvincing. They are almost evenly divided into “Disagree”,“Not sure” and “Agree” groups. Given this somewhat mixed result, the validity of theotherwise accepted theory that Green buildings produce healthy and more productiveemployees is questioned. A more in-depth study of this aspect would be beneficial.

4.2 Office satisfactionWhen asked if the Green Star-certified office is better than expected “with all thingsconsidered”, the majority of managers and employees agreed that it is. Only a small

JCRE13,3

172

percentage of respondents (less than 10 per cent) said they disagreed with this statement.When comparing the result between management and employees, noticeablymanagement was the more satisfied. Staff were asked to write down their mostfavourite or least favourite features of their office. The results are shown in Table I.

For a more in-depth understanding of satisfaction levels, the physical green officeenvironment was divided into 13 items based on the Green Star rating of healthy indoorenvironment. Occupants were asked to rate their satisfaction level with their workplace(Figures 1 and 2). The “ability to change lighting, airflow, temperature, etc.” scored thelowest with only 22 per cent being satisfied in this area. “Stability of air temperature”was another area of low satisfaction levels at 38 per cent. “Level of privacy” also scoredlow with 43 per cent satisfied. The items with the highest satisfaction levels were“outside noise” (80 per cent satisfied); “artificial lighting” (66 per cent); “natural light”(58 per cent) and “glare” (56 per cent). These findings support those of the earlier study:not exactly the same but at a broadly similar scale.

In your opinion, what is the best thing about this office? Natural lightOpen plan and locationView

Please describe your biggest complaint about your office Air temperatureLack of privacyInternal noise

Table I.Most and least favourite

features – staff responses

Figure 1.Office satisfaction: air and

noise – staff responses

9%

42%

19%

24%

AirTemperaturein summer

AirTemperature

in winter

Stability ofAir

Tempereature

HumidityLevels

Air quality(stuffy, dusty,

odor, etc)

Officenoise

Outsidenoise

6%

8%

47%

17%

22%

6% 8%

30%

24%

32%

6% 11%

45%

30%

11%3% 4%

16%

24%

41%

15%8%

26%

54%

16%

4%

42%

25%

20%

5%

Very Comfortable Comfortable

Neutral UncomfortableVery uncomfortable


173

4.3 Incidental benefitsSurvey results also revealed that having a Green Star-rated building has producedcomplementary green incidental benefits.

Survey results (Figure 3) show that the majority of organisations use a number ofsustainability measures and activities above and beyond Green Star requirements with90 per cent of respondents identifying as adopting sustainability measures andactivities that are not required by the Green Star rating system. In the first round ofresearch, 100 per cent did this. The most common additional sustainability programidentified was providing recycling facilities with 89 per cent of organisations doingthis; the second most common sustainability program was to undertake green

Figure 2.Office satisfaction: view,light and privacy– staffresponses

A view fromthe nearest

window

Level of naturaldaylight

Glare fromwindows

Function ofartificial light

Your ability tochange lighting,

air flow,temperature, etc.

Level of privacy

Very satisfied Satisfied

Neutral UnsatisfiedVery unsatisfied

14% 16% 14% 15%6%

16%

33%

31%

14%7%

21%

29%

35%

8%

51%

21%

9%4%

42%

29%

11%4%

42%

25%

12%

5%

32%

33%

14%

7%

Figure 3.Environmentally friendlyactivities – managementresponses

100

80

60

40

20

0

(%)

PurchaseGreen Power

Carbon off-set Recycling ofpaper, glass and

plastic

On-sitecompost

of worm farm

GreenProcurement

Monitor energy,water and

material usage

JCRE13,3

174

procurement practices (53 per cent) and third most common was to monitor energy,water and material use age (46 per cent).

In the first round of research, providing recycling was also the most common thingto do (100 per cent), followed by use of Green Power (67 per cent) and the third mostcommon was procurement practices (50 per cent). The major difference now is thatfewer offices use Green Power with 67 per cent doing so previously compared toonly 30 per cent this time and previously 100 per cent provided recycling compared to89 per cent this time. Perhaps, going green is more mainstream now compared to whenthe first round of the study (Kato et al., 2009) was undertaken? The first study wasbased on six out of Australia’s first 12 Green Star-certified buildings compared toduring this study, where 107 buildings have become Green Star-certified. Looking atthis data, perhaps it suggests buildings owners and managers today may not be aspassionate about green as the early adopters.

Another explanation could be that in round one of the research, it considered only16.7 per cent of 4 Green Star-certified buildings compared to round two’s inclusion of35 per cent 4 Green Star-certified buildings. It should be recognised that it is more likelythat 5 and 6 Green Star-rated buildings would have a higher commitment to be green,i.e. an increased likelihood of purchasing Green Power, offer recycling facilities, etc.

Survey results (Figure 4) show that the majority of staff also actively participate withenvironmentally friendly activities in their Green Star-certified offices. More than half ofrespondents replied either “Always do” or “Yes often” for the categories of “Turn offcomputer monitor”, “Shut down computer at the end of the day”, “Reduce paper usage”and “Recycling”. The only exception is that a high percentage (71 per cent) responded“No and haven’t considered” for “Switching off all the power points”.

Does a green office mean greener staff? The previous study indicated quite stronglythat Green Star-rated offices do inspire employees working in the building to act moresustainable: 67 per cent of the employers and 86 per cent of the employees believedthat working in a green building has motivated them to be more environmentallyfriendly. In the study, employers continued to believe it does (74 per cent) whereas only

Figure 4.Environmentally friendly

activities – staff responses

80

60

40

20

0Turn off your

computermonitor

when youleave work

Shut downyour

computer atthe end of the

day

Switch off allthe power

points linkedto your desk

Reduce yourpaper usageby printing

double sided

Separategarbage from

recycling

Walk orcatch publictransport to a

meeting

No and haven't considered No, but thinking about doing

Sometimes Yes often Always do

(%)


175

33 per cent of employees thought so. About 86-33 per cent reduction is a big drop. Doesthis drop reflect the fact that, in the first round of the research (Kato et al., 2009),participants and their employees were amongst the first to have a Green Star-certifiedbuilding in Australia? Perhaps, this means that early adopters in general had morepassion and commitment towards sustainability. For these people, being in a greenwork environment appears to be highly motivational for them to become moreenvironmentally friendly. This might explain why, compared to the round two datasample where green has become less pioneering and more mainstream, people mightnot find their green workspace as inspirational in this later study.

So does a green office mean greener staff? A Green Star-certified office status itselfdoes not necessarily encourage staff to be environmentally conscious but moreresearch needs to be done in order to clarify this.

4.4 Communication and education strategiesThe findings reveal that even though most managers (74 per cent) educate theiremployees about how to use the office and its green features, a somewhat poorunderstanding exists amongst staff regarding the use of the building even after12 months of working there. For example, 42 per cent of employees report an “extremelypoor” understanding of “How to adjust the light” and 37 per cent of employees say theyhave an “extremely poor” understanding of how to adjust air temperature/ventilation(Figure 5).

The most common ways of educating employees was via the distribution of atenant/user guide (33 per cent), visual displays (29 per cent) and green inductionscovering the building’s green features (22 per cent).

When comparing the satisfaction levels of users based on the level of education, theyhad received about the buildings green features it was evident that the higher the extentof their knowledge of the green building features, the greater was their level ofsatisfaction. Managers who relied solely on the distribution to their employees of atenant/user guide scored less well in both general satisfaction and level of understandingof how to use the building’s green features. This finding suggests that interactive anddirect education such as building induction programs and workshops can be a muchmore effective way to communicate with staff than just distributing a manual.Knowledge appears to be an important factor in achieving higher staff satisfaction rates.Employees were asked if there was anything that would encourage them to act moreenvironmentally friendly in the office. According to the responses, understanding ofgreen feature system (20 per cent), visual signs (14 per cent) and incentives and rewards(13 per cent) would be the three most effective proposals if an employer wants toencourage staff to be more environmentally friendly in the office (Figure 6).

5. Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of Green Star-rated building5.1 Strengths

(1) High levels of satisfaction. There is a high overall satisfaction level amongstboth employees and managers. However, management is more satisfied thanare their employees (same results in round one of the research).

(2) What employees like the most about their green office. Abundance of naturallight, a spacious often open plan layout, convenient location and having a view.

JCRE13,3

176

(3) Health and productivity. Employers believe that the Green office has a positiveimpact on health and productivity but employees are not convinced it does.

(4) Producing green incidental benefits. A majority of managers use a number ofsustainability measures and activities above and beyond Green Starrequirements, such as:. Recycling pick-ups (89 per cent).. Green procurement practices (53 per cent).. Monitoring energy, water and materials usage (48 per cent).

However, comparing this data with round one of the research, it seems thatbuildings owners and managers today are not as dedicated to green as theearly adopters (round one). In round one for example, 67 per cent of buildingspurchased Green Power compared to only 30 per cent this time.

(5) Managers believe Green Star buildings improve green awareness amongst staff.Employers continued to believe a green office mean greener staff; however, onlya third of employees agreed with this.

Figure 5.Level of knowledge of

office’s green features –staff responses

6% 6%

20%

4%

20%

31%

28%

17%

40%

30%

6%4%

13%

25%

19%

37%

11%

18%

23%

42%

How to adjust lights How to adjusttemperature/ventilation

How to recycle waste Overall understandinghow to use the green

features

Outstandingunderstanding

Goodunderstanding

Generally OKunderstanding

Somewhatunsatisfactoryunderstanding

Extremely poorunderstanding


177

5.2 Weaknesses. Dissatisfaction in specific areas was evident. The biggest areas of complaint from

staff were lack of thermal comfort (the temperature), experiencing a lack ofprivacy and internal noise issues.

. Lack of education. Employees would benefit by receiving a more interactiveeducation such as Green building induction programs and workshops on how touse the office’s green features. Currently, many employees do not understandhow to use such green features and with that comes an increased level ofdissatisfaction as well as being likely to decrease the performance of the buildingby staff not knowing how to use it in the most efficient way.

6. ConclusionFrom the above findings, one can assume that Green Star-certified buildings andworkplaces have got the basics right. However, at the same time, there are specificareas which need fine tuning in order for green workplace environments to operate attheir fullest potential. This could be achieved, first, by paying more attention to theimprovement of thermal comfort amongst staff; second, by making sure the open planoffice allows for privacy and low internal noise levels. This study shows thatemployees really appreciate the sense of space and roominess of an open plan layoutbut at the same time complain strongly about lack of privacy and noise issues. This isan important issue to address. The third aspect for consideration is to make sureemployees understand how to use the office’s green features. Interactive educationalprograms have proved to be much more effective than, for example, the distribution ofa users’ guide.

Figure 6.“What programs wouldmake you moreenvironmentallyfriendly?” – staff responses

25

20

15

10

5

0

Bet

teru

nder

stan

ding

on

offi

ce's

gree

n fe

atur

es

Ince

ntiv

es a

nd r

ewar

ds

Vis

ual s

igns

Mor

e su

stai

nble

-con

ciou

sco

lleag

ues

Inco

rpor

ate

sust

aina

bilit

y in

toth

e st

aff

indu

ctio

n

Com

pany

wid

e su

stin

abili

tyev

ents

and

act

iviti

es

Bet

ter

envi

ronm

enta

lly d

esig

ned

offi

ce s

pace

Ack

now

ledg

emen

t and

fee

dbac

k

Oth

er

(%)

JCRE13,3

178

As consequence, organisations may achieve higher levels of staff satisfaction if theymake themselves aware of the pros and cons of the workplace environment from theworker’s perspective as well as from their own. As indicated in this study, there is aclear gap between the organisations’ and the workers’ perception of the advantagesand disadvantages of the green workplace. The better these differences are understood,the more likely, it is that a company will realise the maximum benefits of having agreen workplace environment. In addition, it is also important that these differencesare understood by green building industry practitioners who then are more likely to beable to create a green building or office which will work well from both themanagement’s perspective as well as the workers plus, of course, be highlyenvironmentally friendly – a mutually beneficial outcome for the business, the peoplewho work there and for the environment. Furthermore, the sooner more research isundertaken in this area, the sooner the key areas which today are generating mixedresults will be clarified and the next stage of this longitudinal research is currentlyaiming to provide this clarification.

Notes

1. Green Star is a comprehensive, national, voluntary environmental rating system thatevaluates the environmental design and construction of buildings in Australia.

2. When this research was conducted, there was one Green Star-rated building in NorthernTerritory which had not yet reached its 12 months operation mark.

References

Clements-Croome, D. (2000), Creating the Productive Workplace, 2nd ed., E & FN Spon, London.

Fisk, W.J. (2000a), “Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and theirrelationship with building energy efficiency”, Annual Review of Energy and theEnvironment, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 537-66.

Fisk, W.J. (2000b), “Review of health and productivity gains from better IEQ”, Proceedings ofHealthy Buildings, Helsinki, August 6-10, pp. 23-34, SIY Indoor Air Information, Oy,Helsinki (invited paper).

Green Building Council Australia (2006), The Dollars and Sense of Green Buildings: Building theBusiness Case for Green Commercial Buildings in Australia, Green Building CouncilIndustry Publication, Sydney.

Kato, H., Too, L. and Rask, A. (2009), “Occupier perception of green workplace environment:the Australian experience”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 183-95.

Kats, G. (2003), The Costs and Benefits of Green: A Report to California’s Sustainable BuildingTask Force, Capital E Analytics, Washington, DC.

Kumar, S. and Fisk, W.J. (2002), Promoting Workplace Productivity and Health: Final Report,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

Leaman, A., Thomas, L. and Vandenberg, L. (2007), “‘Green’ buildings: what Australian buildingusers are saying”, Ecolibrium, The Journal of Airah, Vol. 11, pp. 22-30.

Palmer, M. and Mariscal, A. (2002), Green Buildings and Worker Productivity: Review of theLiterature, San Francisco Environment, San Francisco, CA.

PCA (2001), Sustainable Development. A Roadmap for the Commercial Property Industry,Property Council of Australia, Sydney.


179

Rask, A. and Kato, H. (2008), Enhancing Performance of Green Buildings: Report 2008. Occupiersof Green Star Rated Building Experience on How to Make the Best Use of It,Bond University’s Mirvac School of Sustainable Development in collaboration with theGreen Building Council Australia, Gold Coast, available at: www.bond.edu.au/prod_ext/groups/public/@pub-burcs-gen/documents/genericwebcontent/bd3_015058.pdf

Singh, A., Syal, M., Grady, S. and Korkmaz, S. (2010), “Effects of green buildings on employeehealth and productivity”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100 No. 9, pp. 1665-8.

Wilkinson, S., Reed, R.G. and Jailani, J. (2011), “User satisfaction in sustainable office buildings:a preliminary study”, Proceedings of the 17th PRRES Pacific Rim Real Estate SocietyConference, Gold Coast, Australia.

Woods, J. (1989), “Cost avoidance and productivity in owning and operating buildings”,Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 753-70.

Internet sources

www.gbca.org.au

About the authorsLynne Armitage qualified initially as a Chartered Surveyor in general practice in the UK. Since thenshe has worked in both the public and private sectors in the areas of corporate property advisory,commercial property valuation, international development (World Bank/AusAID) and landmanagement in Australia, the UK, SE Asia and Namibia. She has held academic positions inproperty, land management, valuation and urban development at five universities in three countriesand was a member of the Surveyors’ Board of Queensland. Her research interests fall into three mainareas – the value of built heritage, sustainable land management practice, commercial propertymarket process – linked by people’s relationship to place.

Ann Murugan has a background in management of a not-for-profit organisation working inthe area of nature protection. She currently works at Bond University, Australia, as a ResearchAssistant investigating sustainable commercial office building. Her main research interest lies inthe inter-relationship of human factors and the built environment. Ann Murugan is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Hikari Kato is a Postgraduate Fellow at the Institute of Sustainable Development andArchitecture at Bond University, Australia. Her research interests include interior design and itsimpacts on humans in sustainable buildings. Before going to Bond, Hikari earned a Masterdegree in Real Estate (MRE) from the University of New South Wales, as well as anundergraduate degree (BA) from the University of Sydney and a diploma from ParsonsThe New School for Design in New York. She has been an Accredited Professional of GreenBuilding Council of Australia since 2007.

JCRE13,3

180

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

green offices

Documents