Absenteeism, performance and occupant satisfaction with the indoor environment of green Toronto schools

Indoor and Built Environment

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 511-523

  Issa, M H ^a   Rankin, J H ^a   Attalla, M ^b   Christian, A J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

^b TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD   (Canada)

Author keywords

Absenteeism; Green buildings; Indoor environment; LEED; Performance

Indexed keywords

ABSENTEEISM; ACOUSTICS; AIR QUALITY; AMBIENT AIR; ARTICLE; BUILDING; CANADA; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; GREEN BUILDING; HUMAN; ILLUMINATION; LIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDENT; TEACHER; THERMAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 80855136922     PISSN: 1420326X     EISSN: 14230070     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X11409114     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Issa M, Attalla M, Rankin J, Christian A: A methodology to investigate different usage aspects in Toronto schools: in CSCE Annual General Meeting and Conference, Saint John's, Canada, 2009.
2. Heschong L: Daylighting in schools: an investigation into the relationship between daylighting and human performance. California Energy Commission, 1999.
3. Heschong L: Windows and classrooms: a study of student performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission, 2003.
4. Heschong L: Windows and offices: a study of office worker performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission, 2003.
5. Fisk W: Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their implications for the US Department of Energy. E-Vision Conference, Washington, DC, 2000.
6. Miller N, Pogue D, Gough Q, Davis S. Green buildings and productivity. J Sustainable Real Estate. 2009 ; 1 (1). 1-31
7. Hathaway W, Hargreaves J, Thompson G, Novitsky D: A study into the effects of light on children of elementary school age-a case of daylight robbery. Planning and Information Services Division, Alberta, 1992.
8. Milton D, Glencross P, Walters M. Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidification, and occupant complaints. Indoor Air. 2000 ; 10: 212-221
9. Heerwagen J, Zagreus L: The human factors of sustainable building design: post occupancy evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center. Center for the Built Environment, UC Berkeley, 2005.
10. Turner C: LEED building performance in the Cascadia region: a post occupancy evaluation report. Cascadia Region Green Building Council, 2006.
11. Abbaszadeh S, Zagreus L, Lehrer D, Huizenga C: Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings: in Healthy Buildings Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 2006.
12. Paul W, Taylor P. A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and conventional building. Build Environ. 2008 ; 43: 1858-1870
13. Fowler K, Rauch E Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings. Washington, DC: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ; 2008 :
14. Lee Y, Guerin D. Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2009 ; 18 (4). 293-300
15. Kats G, Alevantis L, Berman A, Mills E, Perlman J: The costs and financial benefits of green buildings. Good Energies, Washington, DC, 2003.
16. Kats G, Perlman J, Jamadagni S: National review of green schools: costs, benefits and implications for Massachusetts. Good Energies, Washington, DC, 2005.
17. Kats G: Greening America's schools: costs and benefits. Good Energies. Washington, DC, 2006.
18. Kats G, James M, Apfelbaum S, Darden T, Farr D, Fox R, Frank L, Laitner J, Leinberger C, Saulson G, Williams S, Braman J: Greening buildings and communities: costs and benefits. Good Energies, Washington, DC, 2008.
19. EQAO: Education Quality and Accountability Office [Online]. Available at: http://www.eqao.com 2009.
20. City of Toronto. Toronto: Neighbourhood Profiles [Online]. Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/neighbourhoods.htm 2009.