145—4.. 0 v
.

‘ ., , ‘ ; ‘ . . apzfaWﬁﬁmww
méwww

. a,
iv.“ v . g 2..
we 2%... ..

«.51 .

 

 

.49.
£7 . $4! In?
2.31.1»: a s
a}. t‘ i .
v n 1
. mommy

 

33.: .
T .. ax»...

i .5 .
. ~v
.3 «419... .87

 

arm...” var.

 

., ‘ .. Embanwn... la? _ .mﬁnﬁw: .mwuwrsmﬁﬁ¢n$ﬁ

1 o 9 n .13.

mm? _ ‘ :4 awn: ,

: .mufumﬁéa . , . an:

 

 

THESIS

ﬁrm
:3 «7" 0(

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the"
thesis entitled

CRITERIA CONSIDERED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
HEALTH IN A RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT

presented by

Moran JC Hallsaxton

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Environmental Design

 

 

UWITtL/E‘ﬁ; V21“. @3232]:

 

Major Professor’s Sigéture
Z1 AC”! - ZfKDZ

Date

 

MSU is an afﬁnnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

nc-c-u-c-c-u-u-n-a-a-u---o-o--.-u-u-u-o-o-n-u-I-n-un.-u-o-o-o-c-a-n-.-o-o—o-u-o-u-n-o-n-.------n-u-o--------v—--u-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
APR
APR 1 5 2009 21 2009
2 7 7nnq
0 EU 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:lCIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

CRITERIA CONSIDERED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HEALTH
IN A RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT

By

Moma JC Hallsaxton

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Environmental Design

2007

ABS—TRACT

CRITERIA CONSIDERED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HEALTH
IN A RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT

By
Moma JC Hallsaxton
The focus of this study will be the evaluation of health of a residential interior
environment related to ﬁve human perceptions: sound. touch. sight. taste. and
smell. A survey was formulated and administered to twenty-four residential
homes in the Southwest Michigan area to examine the relationships between these
perceptions and the health of an interior residential environment.

Eight treatments were investigated along two factors: size and age of
homes. The null hypothesis (Ho) resulted to be true. the observations collected
and ranked according to the Friedman test will have no signiﬁcant numerical
differences as ranked from smallest to largest. If H0 is rejected. then at least one
treatment is different than the others. where p S 0.01 (Daniel, I978).

After the results of the survey were obtained and measured. analytical
comparison determined the healthiest age of a home built over the last century
was between the years of I965 to 1985. and the healthiest size for a home was
larger than 2.000 square feet determined p s 0.01. It was also established that
the worst or unhealthiest home was between the ages of I90] to I930. and I940
to I965. both with the unhealthiest size as being less than 1200 square feet.

The Ho was rejected with a 0.01 at 7 degrees of freedom.

Copy right by
Moma JC Hallsaxton
2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is a collaborative effort with the Landscape Architectural
Program and the School of Planning. Design and Construction. Different
professors and people that l have had contact with throughout the time spent
here at MSU have helped me with their support and challenges in stretching my
mind to further implement this study. My chair advisor. Dr. Jon Burley. provided
continual guidance and enduring assessment, as well as investigative critiques
with the evaluation of the statistical data. Another advisor. Mr. Terry Link.
generously contributed support and guidance for the variables of interest
regarding sustainable design. Committee member. Dr. Robert von Bernuth.
continued to support and encourage the ﬁnalization of this study. A grateful
thanks also goes to Phil Weinstein. Occupational Safety Compliance Ofﬁcer at
MSU. for allowing me to borrow the equipment needed for determination of air
quality. Another person who contributed signiﬁcantly and was not related to
MSU. Corbin Kinsbury. whom without. I could not have collected the data
needed for residential environments.

Special thanks for those whom made it possible for this excellent
Opportunity to learn and study MSU. Special thanks to my daughter. Lieza. my
father. Eric. and my close friends for the continual support and encouragement
during these years. Without their support. accomplishing this goal would have

been signiﬁcantly more difﬁcult.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... I
Organization of Thesis .................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 6
Assets to Healthy Environments ................................................................. 6
Sound ........................................................................................ 12
Physical Effects .................................................................... 15
Environmental Effects ........................................................... 17
Touch ....................................................................................... 20
Temperature and Humidity .................................................. 20
Sight ......................................................................................... 22
Natural Environmental Inﬂuence ........................................... 22
Natural Light ..................................................................... 25
Illumination ...................................................................... 30
Taste ......................................................................................... 32
Smell ........................................................................................ 34
Indoor Air Quality .............................................................. 34
Asthma ............................................................................ 37
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity ................................................ 38
Sick Building Syndrome ....................................................... 39
Toxins Related to Human Activity ......................................... 40
Mold ............................................................................... 42
Chemicals and Gases ........................................................... 44
Problem Statement ...................................................................... 49
Study Purpose ............................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 3
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................... 52
Data Source and Experimental Design .............................................. 52
Sense Classiﬁcation and Data Organization ........................................ 53
Analysis Methods ........................................................................ 56
Chapter Summery ........................................................................ 61

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ............................................................................................... 62
Equipment Used ......................................................................... 66
Accuracy Assessment with Ties ....................................................... 68

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION .......................................................... 72
Conclusion ................................................................................ 77
Limitations ................................................................................ 79
Additional Research .................................................................... 82

REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................ 87

APPENDIX A
A1. Five Sense Health Evaluations for Residential Spaces ..................... 101
A2. URCIHS .............................................................................. 105

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Identiﬁcation of Sound Levels ........................................................ 13
Table 2. Treatment Sound Data Ranked ..................................................... 62
Table 3. Treatment Touch Data Ranked ..................................................... 63
Table 4. Treatment Sight Data Ranked ...................................................... 64
Table 5. Treatment Smell Data Ranked ...................................................... 65
Table 6. Treatment Totals Ranked with Squared Totals ................................. 67
Table 7. Data Collection from Equations .................................................... 68
Table 8. Treatment Data Ranked .............................................................. 69
Table 9. Treatment Ranked Totals ............................................................. 71

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Illustration of Friedman’s Two-Way Analysis ................................ 58

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

“Architecture and urban design (space) may not determine human behavior. but
bad design can numb the human spirit. and good design can have powerful.

positive inﬂuences on human beings” (as cited from LeGates. 2003: 90).

Interior environments orchestrated by the knowledge. sensitivity. and expertise of
a designer can affect a person’s thoughts. feelings. and interactions within the
function of the space (Pilatowicz. 1995). One of the most important goals of an
interior designer in designing healing and restorative environments is to realize
environmentally sustainable construction processes with the materials involved.
This information can help to preserve and promote natural environments. as well
as human health. within the interior space (McDonough & Braumgart. 2003).
Such environments can help fulﬁll healthier physical. mental. Spiritual. and
emotional needs for every individuals from a variety of backgrounds and cultures

(Schweitzer et al.. 2004).

As humans interact within their environment. evaluation of this interaction can be
summarized by their senses of seeing. hearing. touch. smell. and taste (Guzowski.

2000). A person’s senses can help deﬁne. and communicate. with that person’s

world. It can also assist in interpreting the inﬂux of sensory information received.
The health of a residential interior environment is relational to this interpretation.
as well as to individual needs. When planning a residential environment.
emphasis needs to be placed on all aspects of the occupant’s life. A twentieth
century planner. Patrick Geddes. mentioned that “healthy life is completeness of
relation of organism. function and environment. and all at their best” (Bartuska &

Young. 1994: 40).

In 1992. Bronson Hospital in Kalamazoo. Michigan. became a participant of the
Pebble Project. Responding to evidence-based research. Bronson decided to
invest funds into promoting healthy interior environments that made use of
nature. art. music and light. Hospital administrators determined that such an
environment reduced patient stay and decreased hospital based infections

(nosocominal) by 11%. resulting in lowered hospital costs (Health Design. 2004).

In 1993. the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) formed a building
rating system. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). to support
and promote education about health and more cost effective building practices.
In 1993. concerned individuals organized an international movement to deﬁne
“sustainable construction” with an emphasis on ecologically sound practices for

the construction environment (Kibert et al.. 2002).

Statistics from 2002 indicated that while the construction industry represented
about 8% of the country’s gross domestic product. it will utilized over 40% of
materials for building and infrastructure construction (Levin. 1997). The total
operational construction process can consume over 30% of natural energy (Kilber
et al.. 2002: Bonda. 2003). produce 40% of atmospheric emissions. and instigate

25% of solid waste and water usage (Levin. 1997).

With the LEED rating system in place. more precise criteria have been expanded
upon for development and use during the construction process. The goal is to
encourage “reduce. recycle and reuse” of construction materials and to help
eliminate wasted energy consumption. With such building materials as concrete.
steel. wood and plastics (Gissen. 2002). LEED emphasized the removal of non-
environmentally safe materials during the manufacturing process and construction
installation (Kilber et al.. 2002). LEED also continued to emphasize sustainability
with building design. construction and operation. Operational concerns. where
related to the capability of energy conservation and cost. promotes higher
efﬁciency in air quality. construction sites. water. and material resources

(Bemheim. 2005).

The health of an interior environment may not only be impacted by the health of

the exterior environment. but also can be affected by energy utilization as

observed by the mechanical systems that supply light. air temperature control and
other building functions that consume energy (Gissen. 2002). It has become
evident that residential interior environments need to be more consciously
evaluated as to the future inﬂuence construction and ﬁnish materials may have

upon occupants’ health in the future.

Organization of Thesis

This thesis has ﬁve chapters following the Abstract. Acknowledgements and Table

of Contents. The information below provides a synopsis of each chapter.

Chapter 1. Introduction. reviews the history and value of sustainable
environments. This information acknowledges the documented history

sustainable construction and environments can have on individual health.

Chapter 2. Literature Review. examines previously documented information
regarding the health in interior environments as it relates to the health of an
individual. This documentation will include physical environmental elements as
well as human emotional. social. and physical inﬂuences. ln additions to a
discussion of evidence consistent with residential environment. this chapter will
also cover interior environments as they relate to health care facilities and ofﬁce

communities.

Chapter 3. Methodology. mentions the process of the statistical data collection
used and the results of the data collected. Methods used to examine and compare
the data are described. Accuracy assessment and viable criteria for the scientiﬁc
data collected will be determined. using the Friedman’s non-parametric two-way

equation.

Chapter 4. Results. mentions equipment used. data presentation. the accuracy and
determination for use. From the data collected. results were evaluated from eight

ranked treatment groups determining the major ﬁndings.

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Discussion. mentions statistical reﬂection resulting
from this research. Limitations discuss alterations to consider for continued
research. Additional research manifests future considerations for a more accurate

evaluation of healthy interior environments.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

“To think of the future is to break ahead from the past” (LeGates et al.. 2003. p.
170). This study emphasizes the need to look toward continual improvement for
the future with consideration for a healthier environment. Sustainable
environments can not happen without taking into account the interaction of
human beings within the environment. The previous chapter introduced the
purpose of sustainable construction. design. and the need for implementation into
residential interiors. This chapter will introduce the inﬂuences interior

environments have on human health as it relates to the ﬁve senses.

Assets to Healthy Environments

Design can have a large inﬂuence upon the quality of the environment by the
uniqueness it gives to the space. This quality can also determine the effectiveness
and appropriateness of achieving human health within the functional
environment. Human ﬁtness is deﬁned by the optimal condition for individuals
to adapt and integrate into their environments. Being ﬁt means being able to

adapt with balance to an environment which meet both the needs of the

environment and those of the individual (Bartuska & Young. 1994). Evidence
based data gathered in a recent survey by Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (2004) speciﬁed an individual’s perception of the healthiness of
the space is critical to achieve a balance between the individual’s physical health

and holistic attitude (Sherman et al.. 2004).

The concept to deﬁne the meaning of health or wellness can be difﬁcult. One
author. Opatz (1986). has used a perspective to include a personal satisfaction
involving six aspects of an individual‘s life with relation to signiﬁcance: physical.
spiritual. emotional. intellectual. social. and occupational (as cited by Savolaine &
Granello. 2002). Other authors would deﬁne a healthy person as one having
speciﬁc psychological. physical. and social images that can encourage that person
to strive toward life’s purpose and value (Hettler. I986: Sweeney & Witmer. I991:
Zimpfer. 1992). Another study indicated that healthier life-style activities can
encourage “health-enhancing” behaviors. which can lead to increased preservation

of people’s lives and goals (Savolaine & Granello. 2002).

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954) is a behavioral model that involves the study
of human motivation. specifying different levels of needs an individual can
progress through as life changes. Maslow identiﬁed behaviors based upon two

opposite human needs: deﬁciency and growth (Huitt. 2004). Maslow speciﬁed

that the deﬁcient need had to be met before proceeding to the next growth level.
At different times throughout a person’s life. needs may change as the person
adjusts and becomes a more self-fulﬁlled individual (Huitt. 2004; Bartuska &

Young. 1994).

The signiﬁcance of Maslow’s behavioral model is evident with the realization each
level has for growth and development in human life. Recognizing a person’s
needs and the level of those needs can help the designer plan better for a healthier
environment. The ﬁrst two need levels relate to physical needs: food. shelter.
safety. and security. Acceptance and belonging. as observed in peer relationships.
is the third (Huitt. 2004: Bartuska & Young. 1994). It has been observed that the
emotional and social needs. found within the feelings of safety and belonging to a
family system are basic to an individual’s health. This family inﬂuence can
encourage an individual’s sense of health and belonging. encouraging self-
conﬁdence. which is the fourth need. Realizing self-actualizati‘on. a sense of ﬁtting
into society is the ﬁfth (Guzowski. 2002). Self transcendence is the ﬁnal stage of
growth. when an individual wants to help others develop and reach their own
potential. This is evident in behaviors of healthier individuals (Mack. 1994:

Savolaine & Granello. 2002).

Studies have indicated that signiﬁcant and emotional places create meaning in

individual lives. for an individual “Home” is characterized by a sense of belonging.
and balance. “one with the world” (Guzowski. 2000: 321). The term “home” can
also produce an emotional familiarity among those who participate in allowing
the individual to be who they are. This emotional belonging can motivate the
individual’s participation with recognitions of past and present people.
experiences. and feelings (Manzo. 2005). This familiarity and sense of safety can
help alleviate mental fatigue. allowing individuals to feel more accepted and free

to be themselves (Staats et al.. 2004).

Feeling safe within an environment depends not only on the ability of the
observer to acknowledge what is in that environment. but also their ability to
interpret it. This interpretation is evidence of how the viewer organizes his
thoughts from what he sees (Lynch. 1960) as well as from previous memories and
experiences. As new images continually inﬂuence the viewer. the previous

interpretations can change as new environments are considered.

Ongoing research continues to reveal the inﬂuence design aspects can have on the
psychophysiological health and well being of occupants in a space. It has been
documented that poor design in health care setting can have physiological
consequences. such as hypertension. anxiety. delirium. and low pain tolerance.

This can cause patients in healthcare settings to take more pain medications

(\Xfrlson. 1972: Ulrich. 1984). Documented evidence has shown that visual
inﬂuence of a person’s environment. including architectural attributes. can modify
the shape of their interpersonal behavior (Nascar et al.. 1999). Other studies have
speculated on the effects of the relationship between residential interior
environments and an individual whose level of stress can be observed (Evans &
McCoy. 1998). Kennedy’s study (1990) indicated that stress can prolong recovery
from illness. as it decreases the immune system to ﬁght infection (as cited by

Ulrich. I991).

A study done by Mehrabian & Russell (1974) speciﬁed that some interior
environmental effects known to cause stress can be related to stimulations such as
strong smells. loud noises. bright lights and colors. especially reds (as cited by
Evans & McCoy. 1998). Other environmental conditions that can add to stress are
evident in lighting. temperature. noise and privacy out of a patient’s control
increasing a feeling of helplessness (Ulrich. 1991). or ambiguous spaces inviting
confusion. and spatial sensory depravation. as evident by lack of windows (Keep

et al.. 1980: Ulrich. 1991).

Evidence based data from Taylor et al. (1997). indicated an awareness that healing

environments can precipitate feelings of relaxation. calmness and motivation (as

cited by Schweitzer et al.. 2004). Healthcare related studies have determined that

10

certain environmental designs can encourage psychological support that allows for
decreased stress. It also can synergize the healing effects of medications and foster
recovery from other technological treatments (Ruga. 1989: Ulrich. 1991). Other
scientiﬁc evidence has shown stress-reducing environments encourage individuals
to increase social support. decrease distractions. and have a more direct contact
with ingredients of nature (Altman. I976: Ulrich. 1993; Evans & McCoy. 1998).
Data indicated the most successful positive inﬂuences have been: happy. laughing

and caring faces. animals. and elements in nature (Ulrich & Parsons. 1990).

A previous study by Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) recommended that restoration from
mental fatigue can be seen at different levels and for different lengths of time.
These characteristics can be evident with an increased attention capacity. cleared
thought processes. and prioritized life issues with considered action (as cited by
Berto. 2005). An example can be observed in one recent study about a coffee
shop (Waxman. 2006). The principal comforts desired by the patrons included

(in order) cleanliness. aroma. adequate lighting. comfortable furniture and view of
outside landscape. Theses inﬂuences allowed the visitors to enjoy the space and
feel comfortable whether socializing or by themselves. Part of the attraction grew

from individual life experiences and existing circumstances (Waxman. 2006).

Another study speculated that recognition of controllable elements within the
environment is needed for better understanding of their inﬂuence. Some elements

11

for consideration are: light. sound. precision air quality. deﬁnition of water purity.
consistent temperature and humidity control (Nascar& Presier. 1999). Other
elements can be the position of furniture and ﬂoor layouts as they relate within
the space and emphasize social interaction. Furniture ﬂexibility can increase an
individual’s control. as well as facilitating rearrangement for privacy when needed

(Ulrich. 1991).

With the knowledge that elements. and their placements within interior
environments can promote health. increased acknowledgement and
understanding is needed. Documentation regarding how humans. using their ﬁve

senses. interaction with interior environments is further discussed.

Sound

When considering the subject of acoustics. two parameters must be understood.
Frequency and wavelength are related to each other with the consideration of
how sound travels through air reaching the cochlear. The human inner ear hair
follicles transmit to audio-sensory nerves in the brain which determine the

intensity of the stimulation from the original component (Bell et al.. 2001).

Frequency is the rate per second (units of cycles per second. or hertz) the sound

12

travels through the median. The sinusoidal wave pattern repeats itself after a
completed cycle. which is related to the distance between sections of the wave.
This is known as wavelength (Cowan. 1994). Speed of sound can be affected by
air temperature and density of the median the wavelength is traveling through.
For example. at 70° F. sound will travel through air at 1.128 ft/second while in

seawater its speed is 4.920 ft/s (Cowen. 1994).

The human hearing range can be between 20 Hertz (low frequency wavelength
that could be more than 50 ft and 20.000 Hz (high frequency wavelength is less
than one inch). with the most sensitive range between 500 and 4000 Hz. As with
a piano. the middle C key is at about 250 Hz. and changing an octave
corresponds to either double or half that level (Cowan. 1994). Frequencies below
20 Hz display a resonance that sometimes can be felt more than be heard. A
frequency above 20.000 Hz is sometimes used as an ultra sound when cleaning

teeth (Cowan. 1994).

The basic level of sound is measured in decibels (dB). a term named after

Alexander Graham Bell. Some levels of sound have been measured to be as

follows:

13

Table 1. Cowan (1994) Identiﬁcation of sound levels

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noise Source Sound Level
Quiet 50 dB
Busy ofﬁce 60 dB
Sidewalk by typical highway 80 dB
Damaging to ears after 8 hours 90 dB

 

Platform by passing subway train 100 dB
Maximum levels in audience at rock 110 dB
concert
Aircraft carrier deck 140 dB (painfully loud)
Sources: Cowan (1994). Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Van
Norstand Reinhold. New York. p. 37. Not exact copy from book.

Bell et al. (2001). Environmental Psychology. Hartcourt College Publishers.
Fort Worth. Texas. p. 143.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two types of hearing loss that can cause permanent damage are seen as acoustic
trauma with immediate damage. or a type of gradual damage that can occur over
many years (Cowan. 1994). The immediate damage usually occurs with high-level
noise exposure with the frequency between the ranges of 2000 to 4000 Hz.
which can destroy hair cells in the inner ear and where hearing has the greatest
sensitivity (Cowan. 1994). This noise-induced hearing can be obvious with a lesser
sensitivity to consonant sounds and some difﬁculty understanding speech (Cowan.

l 994) .

Some stressors that are a continuous. low. recurrent part of everyday life can

affect a human’s mood. behavior. and health. These stressors. like noise. usually

14

go unnoticed because they are universal and part of our everyday life. (Bell et al..
2001). Ambient noise has been displayed as a buffer in ofﬁce environments with
consideration to increased job satisfaction and focus for organizational tasks
(Leather & Sullivan. 2003). Ambient noise at 50 dB is at the best level for speech
communication whether in doors or outdoors. while a noise level of 80 dB or

greater will make speech communication impossible to hear (Cowan. 1994).

Evidence has indicated that individuals exposed to noise at levels over 80 dB
during their years working may suffer long term hearing damage. no matter what
industry they work in (T umey. 2005). Effects of noise on individuals can be ﬁrst
evident with a level of 75 dB or greater which can begin to cause hearing loss
(Cowan. 1994). The EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) have indicated a lower limit of 85 dB and 70 dB respectively for auditory

impairment criteria in occupational environments (Cowan. 1994).

Physical effects

Other evidence indicated that noise can increase pain perception. contribute to
sleep deprivation. and possibly cause disorientation and confusion in the hospital
setting. as speciﬁed by Grumet (1993). Such noise can also increase blood
pressure. elevate the heart rate. and reduce patient satisfaction (as cited by

Schweitzer. 2004). One study. Bronzaft et al. (1998). indicated frequent

15

interaction with unexpected. loud noise could be with acute illnesses as well as
altered sleep patterns (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in 1974 has recommended that hospital noise levels maintain 45dB
during the day and 35dB at night because evidence indicates worsening health

results at higher levels (Schweitzer et al.. 2004).

An individual’s lack of ability to control noise could be related to feelings of lack
of environmental control. helplessness. and possible depression as mentioned by
Peterson et al.. (1993) and Bandura (1997) (as cited by Evans & Stecker. 2004).
Unpredictable noise or unfamiliar music can also negatively inﬂuence an
individual’s ability to perform complex mental tasks. memorize. and recall new
information (Bell et al.. 2001; Leather et al.. 2003). An example of this can be
seen in a study from Persinger et al. (1999) that indicated students had more
fatigue with less ability to concentrate during a lecture when fans were
continuously running at 60 dB. The student’s ability to concentrate greatly
improved when the fans were turned off (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001). Another
synonymous study by Crook & Langdon (1974) observed children who were less
able to read or hear certain sounds. and who concentrated less. where living in

environments with increased noise (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001).

Other research by Evans & Johnson (2000) studied the effects of noise in an Open

16

ofﬁce. Their study suggested the effects of noise can add to physical stress. with
indications of elevated levels of epinephrine. negative effects on cognitive
behaviors. loss of motivational attempts. and higher risk for musculoskeletal
disorder from lack of physical movement (as cited by Fumham & Strbac. 2002:
Nascar & Preiser. 1999). These indications conﬁrm the previous study of the
students during a lecture. as well as another study that implied silence would be
better than background noise or ofﬁce noise when immediate recall performance
was calculated (Furnham & Bradley. 1997). Poulton (1997) speculated the theory
that an individual’s inability to think or have “internal speech” can negatively

affect the human performance (Poulton. 1997. p-158).

Studies using music as therapy have shown positive physical. mental. and
emotional changes (Lau. 2000). In this random study from Barrera et al. (2002).
it was observed that music had a positive impact on children with cancer as
evidenced by reports of more comfort. better play. with positive communication
and interaction. and reduced anxiety (Sherman et al.. 2005). Results from studies
with Alzheimer patients indicated similar data were observed working with song
recognition. Patients’ melatonin levels increased precipitating a greater ability for
relaxation and regular sleep (Lau. 2000). Song recognition also encouraged their

communication and relationship skills with other individuals (Lau. 2000).

17

Environmental Effects

A level of sound change in the environment can be perceived by individuals as a
nuisance. and thus have a negative impact on their perceived quality of life. For
residential design. where private and public spaces are separate (Susanka. 2004). it

is important for the private space to be quieter and have a more relaxed feeling.

The acoustical absorption coefﬁcient is the ratio of the amount of noise absorbed
between one sound wavelength and the material absorbing the sound. The
higher the number. up to one. the greater the ability of the material to absorb
sound (Madsen. 2006: Cowan. 1994). Sufﬁcient sound absorption materials will
have absorption coefﬁcients greater than 0.4 while material’s that will reﬂect
sound will have coefﬁcients less than 0.15. Noise Reduction Coefﬁcient (NRC) is
an industry rating for absorption coefﬁcients over the human speech frequency
range (Cowan. 1994). The NRC. deﬁned by American Society for Testing and
Materials (AST M) Standard C423-90a. Standard Test Method for Sound Absorption
and Sound Absorption Coefﬁcients by the Reverberation Room Method. speciﬁes
the average of absorption coefﬁcients to be 0.05 for frequencies banded at 250.
500. 1000 and 2000 Hz. This is only effective for absorption in relation to
human speech or with sound frequencies mostly between 250 Hz and 2000 Hz

(Cowan. 1994).

18

When sound interacts with the environment. it can do four things. First. sound
can transmit through a substance such as porous carpet or thin wall. Second. it
can be absorbed by the object off of which it reﬂects. such as upholstered
furniture. or porous ceiling tiles (Cowan. 1994). Some of the quality of noise
absorption of an object depends upon frequency and wavelength size. Lower
frequencies are harder to absorb (below 250 Hz). and therefore the substance
used to absorb noise must be effective. Absorption materials are needed to
decrease echoes in spaces. which can precipitate wavelengths bouncing 40 to 50
ft. off the surface. Spaces with sound reverberation can increase noise levels up to

15 dB in an environment (Cowan. 1994).

The third and fourth interactions sound waves have with the environment are
reﬂection and diffusion. which are usually evident with hard surfaces such as tile.
wood. resin. drywall. etc. Reﬂection implies sound waves that rebound off a
surface. Diffused sound waves are those reﬂected off uneven or convexed

surfaces. allowing the evenly disbursement of sound (Cowan. 1994).

When planning interior residential ﬁnishes. the designer needs to consider the
location of household appliances and the noise level they generate in the space
used. For example. a kitchen food blender or a garbage disposal registers 7681

dB at 3 ft.. a microwave registers 56-58 dB at 3 ft.. while a hair dryer in a

19

bathroom measures 77-86 dB at 1 ft. (Cowan. 1994: 232). With this awareness.
further consideration needs to be given to the ﬁnish materials and their absorption
coefﬁcient. An example would be the choice of ﬁnish selections that inﬂuence the
reverberation of sound waves as they reﬂect off solid surfaces like brick. metal.
concrete. and glass (Sheridan & Van Lengen. 2003). An individual’s perception of
noise also needs to be evaluated for sound nuance levels of their interior
environment (Soneryd. 2004). Attention to interior noise levels can help with the
application of construction materials. as well as ﬁnish selections and equipment

locations.

Other sources of residential noise stem from the mechanics within the interior
environment. For example. ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems
generate noise from within the machine. as well as from the production of the air
circulating through the ducts (Cowan. 1994). Other residential noises may be
evident in the plumbing system. including water going through pipes. and fans or
electrical equipment as observed from TV’s or computers (Cowan. 1994). Even
though some construction processes do not specify increased insulation for interior
walls and ﬂoors. it is recommended that if dwelling or mechanical noise generates

more than 85 dB at 3 ft. it needs to be acoustically treated (Cowan. 1994).

20

Touch

Temperature and Humidity

Even though vision has a larger inﬂuence on our senses than touch. touch can help
us perceive the environment in a three-dimensional perspective. Touch can
establish weight, pressure. temperature. texture. and can help to complement the
visual illumination from the external world around us (Guzowski. 2000). Touch
of air on the skin not only can detect the humidity and temperature. but also the

cleanliness of the air.

There is not much scientiﬁc based evidence regarding touch as a sense for
environmental involvement. Environmental inﬂuences can be evident with
texture. as it impacts the aesthetics of the space and has a psychological effect on
human stimulation. For example. when sitting in a chair. a comfortable fabric
touched can facilitate relaxation. Texture can be seen in fabrics. wood grains.
carpet/ or area rugs. art and paintings. Other room ﬁnishes involving texture can
also be evident on counter tops. window treatments. wall coverings. light ﬁxtures.
glass. and other interior accessories. Examples of architectural elements involving
texture can be evident in kitchen cabinet and door styles. custom designed

banisters. mantels. and metal hardware.

21

Temperature changes. perceived through touch. can affect individuals in industrial
settings. evident by their physical symptoms of dehydration with loss of salt
(sweating). muscle fatigue. High temperatures for over a period of eight hours or
longer results in reduced performance as studied by Fraser (1989) and Sundstrom
(1986) (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001). Also with the increased temperatures. at 95
degrees or better. individuals feel less in control of the environment that can cause
more stress and deterioration in work performance (Bell et al.. 2001). Other
research indicated the most comfortable temperature requested by workers to be

between 68-72 degrees Fahrenheit (Ireland. 2007).

In another experiment. Grifﬁths & McIntyre (1973) evaluated the effect of
temperature variances of six degrees. Over a period of six hours the 32 subjects
noticed that the smallest amount of temperature change (0.5 degrees). indicating
that individuals ﬁnd controlled temperature changes more favorable (as cited by

Canter & Lee. 1974).

If indoor humidity is too low (less than 30%) it can cause individuals to feel they
have the ﬂu. The best interior relative humidity level is between 30% and 50%
(US EPA). The sensitivity an individual realizes toward humidity was observed
with Grifﬁths & McIntyre (1973) study involving the discrimination of relative

humidity conditions in relation to air temperature. Six groups of 18 subjects each

22

observed that humidity changes were most noticeable at higher temperatures.
This conﬁrmed the overall hypothesis that humidity can be directly perceived and
can inﬂuence the effects of comfortable air temperature on environments (as cited
by Canter & Lee. 1974). This experiment suggests that humidity control is also

needed to provide healthy. optimal conditions (Canter & Lee. 1974).

Sight

Natural Environmental Inﬂuence

Visual perception is one of the strongest senses. Visual interpretation can be based
on the stimuli placed upon the retina of the eye that sends neurological stimuli to
the brain: then the visual and psychological response is translated by the brain to
interpret the visual image (Bartuska & Young. 1994). Though visual images can be
related to values and previous experiences. there are some basic principles for
good design. Aesthetics. as deﬁned by \X’rlliam Blair (1980). speciﬁes that the
science of philosophy is concerned with quality sensory experiences. This indicates
the vision sensory as the primary mode on how individuals relate to their

environment (Bartuska & Young. 1994).

The most informative visual inﬂuence a residence can display is a window.

23

Windows have been known to promote visual stimulation in the environment
even when the window itself is not perceived (Stone & Irvine. 1994). The natural
light from the window infusing the space can add illumination and reﬂection.
When small. windows can create reﬂection off walls. ﬂoors. or other solid surfaces
that induce shadows. When windows are at angles. they can evoke playfulness
with reﬂections of varied shapes and sizes. When windows are large they can
introduce the outside environment inside with visual acuity to climate. landscape
and other aspects of nature (Guzowski. 2000). An individual can get a feeling of
warmth and closeness with the outside environment as the natural light
penetrates. Windows can provide protection from the elements. and from other
dangers. yet at the same time administer a feeling of safety by the vantage point
(Kaplan. 2001). The window can provide moments of fascination with its view of
the exterior and thus reducing mental fatigue. No preparation is needed for

viewing through the window: one just looks out (Kaplan. 2001).

The therapeutic value of windows was revealed in one study that indicated a
scenic window can increase intentional gathering. and encourage a restoration of
health (Stone & English. 1998: Stone. 2003). Windows can provide views that
promote well being by allowing for visual variety and interest (Guzowski. 2000).
as seen in the ephemeral landscape that changes as seasonal and climate
conditions change (Bartuska & Young. 1994). Other documentation has indicated
that viewing nature through a window had a healthy effect. promoting an

24

individual’s mental restoration and relaxation (Kaplan. 2001: Berto. 2005). The
Vidar Clinic in Stockholm not only used window illumination for light. but even
more to connect patients to the exterior environment in a therapeutic way
(Guzowski. 2000). The 1984 research regarding environmental design from Roger
S. Ulrich. suggested improved recovery time in the hospital setting for patients
who had a view of nature from a nearby window. compared to those who had a
view of a brick wall. This evidence proved a shorter recovery time. less
administration of medications for pain. and fewer negative references to a lack of
window from the patients when researching documented references (as cited by
Looker & Stichler. 2003: Wilsonm. 2005). Outdoor views also reduced anxiety
and pain. lowered blood pressure. reduced heart rates and improved moods of

staff as well as patients (Ulrich & Gilpin. 2003).

The importance of the effect of natural light from windows has also been
recognized in other European countries. In Germany. windows are a requirement
for individuals in workstations and. daylighting is a legal requirement in
workplaces in Finland and the Netherlands (Guwozski. 2000). Two other studies
were consistent with the requirement for daylighting for occupants in a work
environment. After spending six months with a window in their environment.
workers claimed a greater job satisfaction with more enthusiasm. as well as better
health and life satisfaction (Kaplan. 2001: Schweitzer et al.. 2004). More studies
mentioned by Kaplan (2001) indicated a view from the window facilitated a

25

feeling of well being and satisfaction from occupants of a residential environment.
Another study reviewing those individuals’ feelings found them to be more
energetic. focused. and competent (Kaplan. 2001). These emotional characteristics
can not only encourage the individual to enjoy the space more. but assist in
coping with life’s obstacles. as well as increasing basic health and well-being

(Kaplan. 2001).

Other studies have observed increased learning capabilities. Tennesen and
Cimprich (1995) indicated a study involving students with windows in a
dormitory speciﬁed greater attention to performance (as cited by Kaplan. 2001).
Evidence from the 1999 investigation by Heschong Mahone Group revealed that
natural light improved the learning capacity for students in a school district by

20% to 26% (\X/ilson. 2005).

In January of 1970. the United States Congress passed the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) with the goal of encouraging harmony between people and
their exterior environment in order to promote human health and well-being.
This act encouraged views of the natural environment from windows and helped
individuals to understand natural resources and ecological systems critical to a

healthy environment (Bartuska & Young. 1994).

26

Natural Light

On average. Americans may spend up to 90% of their time indoors. according to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Guzowski. 2000). Previous research
has shown it is important for individuals to increase time spent in natural sunlight
in order to maintain health. Some positive beneﬁts are a visual acuity of objects
within a space illuminated by daylight. Connection with natural daylight is
important for individual acknowledgement of their environment (Guzowski.
2000). The location of the sun helps an individual realize time of day and
seasonal changes. Sunlight or lack thereof can also reveal weather changes.
Orientation with the exterior environment is needed so individuals may realize
physical orientation. view distant objects from the windows. and experience
exterior orientation of colors and objects such as clouds. morning and night.
Without windows. none of these would be possible: therefore individuals need to
acknowledge natural environment and better understand the ecological changes

(Phillips. 2004: Guzowski. 2000).

Fritjof Capra (The Turing Point) has suggested that human health is related to our
physical. spiritual. and psychological feeling. as it relates to balance with the
elements in nature (Guzowski. 2000). Medical research regarding the physical

and mental effects of essential environmental factors indicate daylight as being

27

one of the most important. Some of information that research data have
demonstrated that close association with natural light can improve our
performance by increasing our ability to concentrate and focus. and magnifying
our interest level and sense of well-being. Daylight can also affect an individual’s
mood. cardiac rhythms. or hormones (Guzowski. 2000) and can strengthen visual

capabilities and decrease fatigue (Mahnke. 1993).

The lack of sunlight can precipitate some physiological conditions such as jaundice
(overproduction of bilirubin caused by the increased breakdown of red blood
cells). osteoporosis and rickets (resulting from lack of vitamin D) as well as
Building Related Illnesses (BRI) and Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) (Guzowski.
2000). It was discovered in the early 1900’s. that vitamin D from sunlight was
needed to decrease some physical related illnesses. Evidence indicates that
exposing hand and face to sunlight only ﬁfteen minutes per day can provide
sufﬁcient amounts of vitamin D to prevent some of above mentioned illnesses

(Guzowski. 2000).

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) was ﬁrst discovered by research done by Dr.
Norman Rosenthal in 1984. It is recognized that SAD occur often during the
seasons with less natural light. fall and winter. than those with longer sunlight.

summer and spring (Guzowski. 2000: Bell et al.. 2001). Symptoms of SAD are

28

evident in weight loss. fatigue. lack of energy. and carbohydrate craving. inducing
weight gain (Guzowski. 2000: Mehnke. 1993). Norman Rosenthal found that
full-spectrum light (which simulates sunlight). using 2500 lux (metric equivalent of
footcandles) three hours longer in the evening and three hours earlier in the
morning helped to decrease symptoms of depression (Mehnke 1993: Bower
1989). Other studies have indicated other physical conditions that respond well
to phototherapy as: dementia. insomnia. depression. panic disorders. bulimia

nervosa. and alcohol dependence (Guzowski. 2000).

Heschong (2003) noted other physical symptoms in his study regarding the
association of reduced daylight with SAD. They are: cardiac rhythms. sleep
disorders. melatonin production. biochemical and hormonal body rhythms (as
cited by Schweitzer et al.. 2004). Feelings of balance. as regulated by the inner
ear. and a sense of well-being can also be affected (Bell et al.. 2001). Not only are
there physiological changes due to lack of natural sunlight. but lack of windows
can increase loss of visual perception and cause disorientation when there is no

evidence of a horizon (Bell et al.. 2001).

The effects of a setting sun called “sundown syndrome” has been known to cause

detrimental behavioral problems in Alzheimer patients. The effects of memory

loss. speech aberrancy. agitation. combativeness. and verbal outbursts were the

29

typical disruptive behaviors displayed (La Garce. 2004). It has been researched
that Alzheimer’s patients have a deﬁciency in neurotransmitters in the brain.
During this investigation. the elevation of neurotransmitters from the natural
sunlight. at 5500 Kcal and 96 Color Rendering Index (CRI). was associated with
unruly behaviors by 50%. Such inﬂuences can have positive effects on the interior
environments of Alzheimer’s units by increasing the quality of life for these
patients. It decreases mechanical methods needed for control. and inﬂuences a
standardized environmental design for Alzheimer’s units and assisted care facilities

(La Garce. 2004).

The difference between indoor artiﬁcial lighting and natural lighting are
signiﬁcant. in illumination levels. light diffusion. uniformity. time variation. color.
and amount of ultraviolet radiation. as indicated by Zilber (1993) (cited by
Schweitzer et al.. 2004). When Hollwich. Dieckhues. and Schrameyer (1977)
studied the physiological effects of artiﬁcial lights on school children. they found
that children behaved with more hyperactivity and stress. as indicated by their

production of the stress hormone cortisol (as cited by Mahnke. 1993: 52).
USSR Academy of Medical Science reported physiological changes from natural

light included evidence of strengthened immune system with reduction in disease.

lowered pulse and blood pressure. increased reaction time and efﬁciency (as cited

30

by Mahkne. 1993: 48). Studies by Dr. Campbell and colleagues at Cornell
University indicated that exposure to bright lights could alter sleeping habits by
decreasing sleep time by one hour. and improve sleep efﬁciently by 78% to 90%

without changing the amount of time spend in bed (Guzowski. 2000).

The Policy and Planning Branch of Alberta Education in Canada found that
students who were exposed to full spectrum lighting had higher attendance. better
moods. less tooth decay and above average height growth. Another study by
Nicklas & Baily (1996) of Innovative Design found that students in daylight
environments out performed students without daylight by 5% to 14% (as cited by
Guzowski. 2000). Two studies done by Cunningham (1979) regarding the affects
of natural sunlight on behavior indicated increased positive attitudes from
individuals. and another study indicated natural sunlight resulted in improved tips
to waitresses. Cunningham perceived these results to signify natural sunlight

encouraged individuals to be kinder toward others (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001).

Illumination

Lighting research has been used to focus on the condition needed for quality visual
tasks. It has also furthered understanding of causes of visual discomfort. This

information can also be used for a better indicator of health. safety and energy

31

efﬁciency. Investigative evidence from Tobias & Cowan (1996) has conﬁrmed that
visual comfort can affect individuals’ moods and thus affect their performance
(Guzowski. 2000). The positive healthy inﬂuences from exterior lighting have
demonstrated brighter lights to decrease crime stated by Painter & Farrington
(2001). pedestrian fatalities claims. Sullivan & Flannagan (1999). and protection
for convenience store clerks mentions Loomis et al. (2002) (as cited by Boyce.

2004).

Brightness is determined by the reﬂection of light from the illumination of the light
source as well as the reﬂection Of the surface. Another perception of brightness
has to do with the amount of contrast the illuminated Object has against the
background (Bell et al.. 2001). The more the illumination. the easier it is for the
object to be seen. Certain tasks require a certain amount of foot-candles for the
task to be performed. Literature review speculates ambient light at 25-30 foot-
candles. where task lighting is at a level of 70-100 foot-candles (Pilatowicz. 1995:
Bell et al.. 2001). The average illumination from electrical lighting on a 30” high
work surface has been recorded to be 130-510 lux according to the standards from
Illumination Engineering Society (Chungloo et al.. 2001). Specialized tasks with
very little contrast as in a small procedure as in an Operating room would require

between 1000 to 2000 Lux (Bell et al.. 2001).

32

Color Rendering Index (CRI) is used as an indicator on how well colors are
represented with artiﬁcial light sources. as compared to natural light sources
(Mahnke. 1993). The CRI for natural light is 100. The higher the CRI of artiﬁcial
light. the “truer” is the represented color in the indoor environment (Mahnke.
1993). Therefore. engineers in Europe recommend a minimum of CR1 85 for
visual improvement of workers (Mahnke. 1993). Faber Birren (1961) realized the
same high CRI lamps of 750 lux provide enough illumination for desk tasks and

visual clarity as 1076 lux of cool white illumination (as cited by Mahnke. 1993).

Lucidity Of the interior environment would consider room height. window height
and size as guides to the amount and distance light will penetrate a room
(Guzowski. 2000). Placement of electrical lights can also depend upon the
placement and width Of the window in the space. Wider windows at higher
placement locations can provide better daylight illumination than tall and narrow
windows that provide a better view. but also more glare (Chungloo et al.. 2001).
The 2.5H rule assumes that light will be emitted into a room 2.5 times the height
of the window at a workstation height. Example is the distance of 5’-0” above
30”. workstation height above ﬁnished ﬂoor (AFF) times 2.5 (Guzowski. 2000).
The precise “light-to-reﬂection ratio” is 3:1 for furniture and walls (Mahnke. 1993.
p-40). A suggested reﬂection off the ﬂoor is 20%. 25% to 40% for furniture and

60% for walls. Ceilings are the highest at 80% to 90% (Mahnke. 1993).

33

Taste

Lakes and rivers are becoming more polluted from industrial and agricultural
runoff into the soil. and then into the water. Non-well water is usually disinfected
with chemicals such as ﬂuoride. and travels through potentially contaminated
pipes made of c0pper. galvanized or plastic under the street. There is a potential
for added chlorine in the water to react with dissolved organic material. causing a
carcinogen compound called chloroform (Bower. 1989). Some individuals are
very sensitive and vulnerable to the use Of chlorine in their bathing water. let
alone drinking it. Bathing with chemically treated water has been linked in one

study to increased cancer mortality (Bower. 1989).

Contaminants routinely found in drinking water can be microscopic animal and
plant particles such as bacteria. viruses. amoeba. molds. etc. Other contaminants
can be organic chemicals that dissolve in water such as ﬂuoride. pesticides. sulfates.
and salts. or vaporized substances when interacting with water such as chlorine: or
inorganic chemicals that can become carcinogenic such as heavy metals. nitrates or
arsenic (Bower. 1989: Laporte et al.. 2001). In 1998. the EPA has required water
treatment suppliers to inform their customers with annual quality reports indicate
levels of contaminates found in the water as well as a phone number to call for

further information (Laporte et al.. 2001).

34

Only 2.000 of the 82.000 plus contaminants found in potable water have been
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Act (Laporte et al.. 2001). Most
municipal water treatment plants are set up for disinfection of water and not for
puriﬁcation. less than 1% of the treatment plants in the US can actually remove
toxins. claims Friedman (Laporte et al.. 2001). The annual water treatment report
from the author’s area identiﬁed the pollutants found and how high those levels
were. It also indicated range of detection. The highest range of detection was the
same as the highest level the pollutants measured. A question comes to mind:
could the contaminants levels be higher than the range of detection? (Holland

BPW. 2005).

Pruss et al.. (2002) concluded that access to water is important for human
existence. yet it is also a great medium for illness and disease. mostly due to
poverty and poor sanitation habits (as cited by Eyles et al.. 2004). World Health
Organization (WHO) has determined that disease can result in 1.7 million deaths.
4% of the world’s population. This can be related to poor water sanitation and
waterborne diseases. speciﬁed Ezzati et al. (2002) (as cited by Eyles et al.. 2004).
The most common recent disease has been Cryptosporidiosis. mentioned by
Corso. et al. (2003). which is most commonly transmitted by animal to human by
oral-fecal contamination found in swimming pools and other pools of water. This
was recently seen in Milwaukee. \Xfrsconsin in 1993 causing 400.000 individuals to
be infected (as cited by Eyles et al.. 2004).

35

Smell

Causes of Poor Air Quality

It is evident that indoor air has about two to ﬁve times more condensed
pollutants than outdoor air (Bemheim. 2005). People spend a majority of their
time in indoor residential environments and are therefore subject to higher levels
of air pollutants (Sherman. 2004). Concern regarding the effects of Indoor Air
Quality (IAQ) on human health and safety is becoming more widespread.
Environmental Protection Agency has recorded poor indoor environmental
quality as the fourth largest environmental threat in the country (Stockbridge-
Pratt. 1999). The causes of poor indoor air quality can be categorized into three
separate areas. They are: indoor materials or products that promote emissions of
hazardous compounds. human movement and activities. and chemicals emitted
from building products (Pilatowicz. 1994). An environmentally sustainable
approach for maintaining healthy air quality has to include non-toxic building
design. incorporating adequate ventilation and maintenance of the mechanical

system circulating the air (Pilatowicz. 1994).

36

Indoor Construction Pollutants

Stipulations regarding Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) for residential environments have
considerably changed during the last century. as evident by State and Federal
regulations for construction. The energy crisis of the 1970’s encouraged homes to
be built more energy efﬁcient using tighter construction practices: less outdoor
ventilation. thus promoted higher levels of indoor air pollutants. Not only the
construction process. but also interior ﬁnishes and furnishings released gaseous
pollutants. Asbestos was often found in ceiling. ﬂooring tiles. and shingles in older
homes. This ﬁber. used also for wall insulation before 1978 has been recognized

as a lung carcinogenic (Pilatowicz. 1995).

Indoor air quality can be better controlled through elimination. separation and
ventilation (Bower. 1989). Ventilation. the transfer of outdoor air into the indoor
environment. can encourage the removal of interior hazardous chemicals as well
as the mixing of non-hazardous outdoor air into the interior space (Pilatowicz.
1995). These requirements are expected to improve air puriﬁcation with exhaust
ventilation located in combustible. humid spaces. and by installing more efﬁcient
cleaners and ﬁlters within the HVAC systems (Heat. Ventilation. and Air
Condition: Pilatowicz. 1995). The American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and

Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) indicate the guide for ventilation is minimal

37

air exchange of 0.35 air changes per hour (ACH). but not less than 15 cubic feet/

minute (cfm) per person in basic living spaces (ASHRAE 62-1999: 10).

Some examples of carcinogenic producing toxins used as building materials are
ﬁberglass insulations. and Volatile Organic Compounds. claims USEPA (1995).
California Air Resources Board (CARB. 2001). and Ofﬁce of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA. 2001) (as cited by Sherman. 2004). Another
example. formaldehyde. which can be found in composite wood products
(particle board and medium density ﬁberboard (MDF). is the highest emitting
source at a constant emission rate for up to 9 months. mentioned by Hodgson et

al. (2000) (cited by Sherman. 2004).

The difﬁculty with having less indoor air pollutants is that toxins can get trapped
into tight spaces where there is less air movement and ventilation (Bonda. 1998).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates the
causes of poor indoor air quality to be: 53% inadequate ventilation. 15% indoor
contaminants. 19% outdoor contaminants. and 13% unknown (Bonda. 1998).
Poor air quality has been shown in a study by Katsouyanni (2003) to be related to
adverse physical effects such as asthma. lung cancer. cardiovascular disease. chronic
pulmonary disease (COPD). diabetes. and stroke (cited by Eyles et al. (2004). A

study by Schwarz (1994) claimed Building Related Illnesses (BRI) related to

38

particulate matter in the environment has been linked to upper respiratory
infections as well as suppression of the immune system (as cited by Eyles et al..
(2004). The World Health Organization (\XIHO) ofﬁcials at the 2000 Air Quality
and Health seminar in Geneva revealed three million deaths worldwide are
caused by indoor air pollution (mentioned on CNN August 30. 1999. as cited by

Eyles et al.. 2004).

Asthma

Asthma can be an acute or chronic pulmonary airway obstruction distinguished by
the longer exhalation time taken during expiration (Merck. 1999). From 1982 to
1992. the death rate increased 40%. A combination of causes can precipitate
spasms of smooth muscle airways causing contractions. and increased secretions

(Merck. 1999). It can occur in adults and children (Merck. 1999).

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have reported that asthma is the fastest
growing. and leading cause of chronic illness among 0- years- Old to 14- years- old
children in the USA. Asthma increased 75% from 1980 to 1994 (Brugge et al..
2003) and affected over 17 million children and adults. Potential causes are as a
result of indoor pollutants such as radon. tobacco smoke. carbon monoxide.

fungi. bacteria. viruses. mites. pollens. and animal dander (American Lung

39

Association. 2002: Eyles et al.. 2004). Other studies identiﬁed by Gomzi (1999).
Rumch et al.. (2002). and Wamboldt et al.. (2002) have identiﬁed asthma
afﬁliated risk factors in children with concentrations of formaldehyde. nitrous
oxide. and particulate matter (as cited by Tavemier et al.. 2005). Rosenstreich et
al. (1997). Nafstad et al. (1998). and Institute of Medicine (2000) speciﬁcally
documented risk factors in the residential environment to include moisture.
improper heating and ventilation. and high dust levels (as cited by Brugge et al..

2003).

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is deﬁned as intolerance to many chemicals
and other irritants at very low concentrations. Even though the number of
individuals with MCS is rapidly increasing: further studies need to be conducted to
determine the exact deﬁnition and causes of MCS (Bailer et al.. 2004). One study
suggested that this disorder may be a somatic disorder without evidence of any
medical cause (Bailer et al.. 2004). Individual related symptoms reﬂect
hypersensitivity to chemicals. as well as psychological traits including anxiety.
Poor Indoor Air Quality (lAQ) resulting from tighter construction may facilitate
chronic low levels of environmental chemical toxins that could trigger MCS. Gist

(1999) and Winterbauer (1997) have realized the lack of statistical data on the

subject. as well as lack of diagnostic criteria and treatment methodology. has
caused a controversy in the medical community regarding treatment (as cited by
Nussbaumer. 2005).

Sick Building Syndrome

Air pollution can have the most signiﬁcant effect on an interior environment. with
evidence of concentrations of pollutants 100 times greater than found in Open
spaces (Pilatowicz. 1995). With Americans spending more than 90% of their time
indoors. this can lead to a condition called “sick building syndrome” (585). First
discovered in 1970. its symptoms are acute or on-site discomfort while in the
building environment. Some investigations have suggested that microbial
contaminations in buildings caused from construction materials. building age. and
ventilation systems could be correlated with number of occupants and their

physical activities (Raw. 2000).

Some of the physical characteristics resulting from sick-building syndrome.
according to the World Health Organization. are: irritated sinuses. dry skin and
mucous membranes. erythema. mental fatigue or headache. upper respiratory
irritation including hoarse voice or wheezing. nausea. vertigo. and unclear
hyperactivity (Bower. 1989: Pilatowicz. 1995). Other occupationally related

physical symptoms are mental (somatic) conditions such as headache. nausea.

41

sleepiness and fatigue: allergic reactions like runny nose and eyes: persons affected

may remark about sensory changes. like taste. and odors (Bell et al.. 2001).
Toxins Related to Human Activity

Environmentally conscious space planning requires the assessment Of the
homeowner’s activities when considering the avoidance of inﬁltrates from
potentially toxic fumes. The increase in pollutants caused by human activities can
include: gas particles from cooking. smoking. combustion. water use and physical
activities. moisture in the bathrooms (EPA. 1994). Air ﬁlters and ventilation are
used for better control of odor from human bioefﬂuents. as well as other air

pollutants (Bower. 1989).

Carbon dioxide concentrations are meaningful in monitoring overall ventilation
rates. as is the concentration of other pollutants indoors. Carbon dioxide rates
indoors compared to outdoor spaces can indicate the quality of indoor ventilation
(ASHRAE. 62-1999). Indoor carbon dioxide levels in the range of1000 ppm or
less are not related to any health issues concerning carbon dioxide itself. but with
the perception of human odor. This concentration of carbon dioxide is equalivant
to the constant ventilation rate of 15 cfm/person where the outdoor

concentration is at about 350 ppm in a space engaged by sedentary adults

42

(ASHRAE. 62-1999). Studies have indicated that carbon dioxide concentrations of
about 650 ppm above outdoor concentrations identify 80% satisfaction
ventilation levels for human bioefﬂuents (ASHRAE. 62-1999). This difference
would also depend upon the physical activity produced by the occupant level.
which is indirectly responsible for the oxygen consumption. and food products

prepared and eaten (ASHRAE. 62-1999).

Indoor activities from human behavior have been known to spawn a considerable
amount of particulate substance. Recently. studies. one by Alvin et al.. (2000)
have indicated that exposure to indoor airborne ﬁne and ultra ﬁne particles can
affect human health (as cited by Afshari et al.. 2005). The activity that produced
the largest concentration of these particles was the use of pure wax combustible
candles with a size of particles being 241.000 particles/ cm3. The weakest one was
produced by a steam iron when ironing cotton. resulting in 550 particles/cm3.

(Afshari et al.. 2005).

Many pollutants in the air are 10 microns or larger and are very easy to remove
with a standard furnace ﬁlter. Pollutants that are 0.1 to 1.0 microns. like house
dust. are more difﬁcult. Bacteria can be fastened to larger particles such as human
skin ﬂakes (exceeding one micron in size). Animal dander can be 0.5 to 1.0

microns. and mold spores around 1.0 micron (Bower. 1989). Viruses are

43

commonly noticed in clusters and on other particles less than 0.1 micrometers in
size. Lung-damaging particles contained in the lungs can be 0.2 to 5 micrometers
(ASHRAE 62-1999). HEPA (high efﬁciency particulate accumulator) ﬁlters collect
99% of the particles at 0.3 microns or larger. They are Often made more pleated
in shape to increase the surface area. because they need to be denser for more air
resistance to capture the smaller air pollutants (Bower. 1989).

Macher (2001) has speciﬁed that house dust is a consortium of materials
originating from resources existing in interior environments deriving from pets.
plants. construction materials and ﬁnishes. furnishings. occupants. and outdoor air
(as cited by Rintala et al.. 2004). Viable fungi. claims Dales et al. (1997). have
become evident in dust occurring in damp homes. which. Bomedhag et al. (2001)
mentioned. has been proven to coincide with detrimental health effects (as cited

by Rintala et al.. 2004).

Fungi. as the most common type mold. and mildew are small unchlorophylled
plants that steal nourishment from other living animals and plants. They can also
get nourishment from decaying materials. such as wood or paint. commonly used
in the building process. Fungi can survive in environments with high relative
humidity levels. Higher than 70% can generate mold. mildew and other fungal
contamination (ASHRAE. 62- 1999). and has been known to cause severe allergic

reactions (Bower. 1989).

Mold

Mold grows better with high air moisture. nutrients (cellulose) and protection
from ultraviolet light such as sunlight. (Warsco. 2003). It cause allergic reactions
when the seed spores used for reproduction of the mold are inhaled. Most of the
seeds are very small. about one micron in size. easily airborne and very difﬁcult to
remove with common air ﬁlter (Bower. 1989).

Mold can be found inside the home environment under wet carpets. humidiﬁers.
or locations of standing water (Bower. 1989). or on plants. foods. and other
organic materials. It also exists in spaces with previous water damage like walls.
and other porous surfaces (Green Home. 2004). Certain types of molds produce
toxins. called mycotoxins. which can be found in living and dead organisms.
Symptoms of common allergic responses to molds are: sneezing. runny nose.
congestion in ears. lungs. and bronchus. with fatigue and weakness (Bower. 1989).
Large quantities of airborne molds can cause physical health problems related to
upper respiratory congestion. visual and skin irritation. central nervous system
(CNS) problems related to memory. headaches and mood changes. aches. pains

and possible fever (Green Home. 2004).

Four ways to increase a mold-free environment include: elimination of the source.

separation of mold from the interior environment. ﬁltration to eliminate

45

pollutants in the air. and ventilation to reduce the contaminants in the
environment (Warsco. 2003). Mold producing contaminants can come from
human consumption (breathing and perspiration). interior construction surfaces.

and airborne matter attached to interior materials (Warsco. 2003).

Control of indoor humidity. deﬁned as the amount of water vapor suspended
into the air (Richardson et al. 2005). can inﬂuence growth of other toxins that
could lead to harm for occupants. These toxins may include: fungus. spores.
bacteria. and house dust mites (Engvall. 2002). Mold and dust mites are not as
proliferative with humidity levels below 70%. With varied residential humidity
levels in different locations. relative humidity set at 40% will keep a home on the

average around 70% humidity (Bower. 1989).

Chemicals/ Gases

The largest source of indoor air contaminants. among the more than 4.000
chemicals found in the air is from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has claimed environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS) as human (Group A) carcinogen and estimates it causes 3.000 lung
cancer related deaths per year among nonsmokers (Indoor Air Pollution. 1992:

Warsco et al.. 2003). Adult related physical symptoms of upper respiratory

46

congestion include coughing and wheezing. headache. and conjunctival irritation.
to name a few. Airborne particulate matter containing ET S has also been
associated with impaired breathing. lung disease. exasperation of existing cardiac
and lung complications. and lowering defense systems. as well as a change in

immune systems (American Lung Association. 1992).

Luquette. Landiss and Merki (1970). as well as Russell et al. (1973). claimed that
cigarette smoke has toxins like carbon monoxide. formaldehyde. and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). which can result in physiological changes
evident by. increased heart rate. blood pressure and breathing rate (as cited by
Bell et al.. 2001). Higher concentrations of benzene have been evident indoors.
which can be a byproduct of smoking (Rehwagen et al.. 2003). For many years.
Hardoff et al. (1997) recognized that results from second hand cigarette smoke can
project tar and nicotine on non-smokers who are in the same room at a rate of
30% (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001). KOOp recognized that this can be more
evident since the effects on young children have been demonstrated in an increase

in upper respiratory complications (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001).

Carbon monoxide is the second major contaminant. which results from the end
product of combustion. Non-functioning heating sources. such as improperly
vented ﬁreplaces can produce carbon monoxide. as well as nitrogen oxide. and
sulfur dioxide. (American Lung Association. 1992). Attached garages can allow for

47

inﬁltration of carbon monoxide from automobiles. as well as other chemicals
stored in the garage (Bower. 1989). These asphyxiant gases replace the oxygen
attachment to the hemoglobin in the human body. thus it decreases the amount

of oxygen consumption by human tissues. Prolonged exposure can cause death.

Carbon monoxide is also a major pollutant related to automobile exhaust
producing levels from 25 to 125 parts per million (ppm). Beard and Wertheim
(1967) studied individuals with exposure over 90 minutes of carbon monoxide
ranging from 50ppm to 250 ppm and found that exposure at 90 minutes of
carbon monoxide at 50 ppm indicated signiﬁcant alteration in judgment on time

related tasks (as cited by Bell et al.. 2001).

Radon is the second principal cause of lung cancer after tobacco smoke. This
odorless. tasteless gas is emitted from decaying uranium that is naturally occurring
in the ground (American Lung Association. 1992). Radon can come into the house
from the foundation with a lowered indoor air pressure (Bower. 1989). High
concentrations of radon by the Off-gassing of uranium. occurring naturally in the
ground. can have the potential for lung cancer in individuals exposed over

prolonged periods of time (Pilatowicz. 1995).

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) are odorless gases associated with the
construction process. and products used for indoor ﬁnish products which are

48

emitted from most man-made materials at room temperature (Pilatowicz. 1995).
Studies from Lechner (1991) have indicated that high humidity and temperatures
have promoted microbial growth and accelerated the release of VOC’s from
indoor environments (as cited by Warsco et al.. 2003). Some of the chemicals
emitted are: formaldehyde. benzene. and perchloroethylene (Pilatowicz. 1995).
The most recognized sensitive chemical. formaldehyde. can be found in
construction grade particleboard. or medium density ﬁberboard (MDF) commonly
used as ﬂoor and wall boards in construction (Pilatowicz. 1995). VOC’s can also
be emitted by aerosols. household cleaning products. furnishings (urea-
formaldehyde). and ofﬁce materials like glues. copy paper. adhesives and

corrective ﬂuids (American Lung Association. 1992).

Other potential items that can produce toxins are: fragrances. paint fumes.
cleaning products and disinfectants. and plastic sealants found on the backing of
new carpet (Bower. 1989). Lead. another toxin. was used in paint products for
homes before 1950 (Pilatowicz. 1995). Pesticides (semivolatile organic
compounds). are another airborne household product that produces detrimental
physiological effects in the interior environment (American Lung AssOciation.

1992).

49

Biological agents are another high cause of interior air pollution. They can be
caused by house dust mites. arthropods (Le-cockroaches). pets. molds. and other
furnishings that contain protein. Common diseases caused from biological
pollutants may invade the human body. resulting in an infection. Hypersensitivity
to the toxic agent can cause autoimmune diseases and toxicosis. which occurs
when the body produces a toxic chemical with a direct toxic effect on humans.

(American Lung Association. 1992).

Chapter Conclusion

In 1972. hundreds of people in more than seventeen states reported upper
respiratory problems associated with household chemicals used in their homes.
The cause of most of these problems was due to the lack of ventilation. thus the
use of toxic chemicals that progressed to toxic fumes. (Ruckart et al.. 2004). In
56% of these cases. human error was the cause. followed by equipment error in
12% of these cases. It was found that 20% (128 events) had to evacuate their
homes. This amounted to more than 900 people. As many as 81% of the victims
reported over two adverse physical effects. with the maximum number being ﬁve.
Vertigo and Central Nervous System disorder were most frequently mentioned.
(20%). followed by upper respiratory (19%). Fifty-six percent were treated at the
hospital and released. Nine cases were fatal. with ﬁve deaths were related to
carbon monoxide poisoning. The four top toxic chemicals reported in these

50

incidents were: hydrochloric acid (general cleaning agent). sodium hypochlorite
(Bleach). chlorine (Disinfectant). and sulfuric acid (toilet bowel cleaner). This
report indicated the need for further education of the public about hazardous

materials existing in the home (Ruckart et al.. 2004).

Increased awareness stemming from statistical data and other studies have
produced clearer insight into human interaction with their interior environments.
Although some physical conditions may be related to other environmental
changes. such as diet (increased sugar) and more prepared foods with additives.
polluted indoor air quality can be more detrimental. because of a person’s
prolonged contact with the environment. Those most at risk are the individuals
who are already physically handicapped: those with cardiac or pulmonary
complications. or immunosuppressed individuals. as well as children and the

elderly (Bower. 1989).

In additional to the previous information. understanding the relationships
between the products involved in interior environments and their effects on
humans can help with the promotion of materials that have a positive inﬂuence
on health. Education is needed to involve individuals in making these choices.
helping them create environments that assist in mental and physical restoration.

and promote individual health and well-being.

51

Problem Statement

Although most sustainable construction processes can help to decrease waste.
energy and water consumption. there is little information about these techniques
as they relate to the health of humans occupying interior residential environments.
Some independent studies have speciﬁed the effects of sustainable materials and
design for other interior environments. which may also assist with determining of

healthy residential environments.

Research has involved the effects of natural light. mechanics of ventilation in
relation to indoor air quality (lAQ). and relationship of furniture in space as it
impacts work production and social interaction. There have also been studies of
the effects of IAQ in residential environments and its relation to the increase in
asthma and other pulmonary related illnesses in children. stemming from second

hand smoke and other toxins (Brugge et al.. 2003).

The effects of IAQ in interior environments can be said to be similar in both
commercial and residential environments. Because of the freedom of design for
residential environments. choice of interior elements could be more controlled.
Natural light. furniture placement and ﬁnish selections can be easily altered.

Questions come to mind as how to best inﬂuence the planning. design. and

52

construction elements in order to provide the healthiest environment. How does
one determine the inﬂuences these different design elements can have on the
occupant’s well being? What design elements of the interior space can maintain
the occupant’s health with consideration to beneﬁts from the exterior space?
What part of residential construction can affect the health of the occupant? Could

the age and size of a home impact the health of the interior environment?

Since there is little evidence regarding the signiﬁcance interior residential elements
can have on human health. I will provide information from a list of variables for
evaluating residential environments. These results may be useful with further

identiﬁcation and recommendations for healthy residential environments.

Study Purpose

The purpose of the research is to evaluate the health of residential interior
environments as it relates to occupants health.
This study. focusing on sensory evaluation of the environment. will address the
following Objectives:
0 Sound- to measure noise levels within the residential interior
environment: to consider the acoustic sensitivity of the ﬁnish surfaces

(soft vs. hard) in fabric. walls. ﬂoors. etc.

53

Touch- to determine texture of ﬁnishes as it relates to aesthetics and
spatial function.

Sight- to determine and observe the existence of natural landscape:
the amount of natural light: application of ﬁnishes and visual space
as it relates to function within the space.

Smell- to measure interior residential air quality pollutants and
discuss pollutants from construction. ﬁnishes. and furnishings: other
contaminants existing within the environment: as well as other

environmental consequences (i.e. - mold with increased moisture).

54

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

This research was coordinated with the equipment used from Michigan State
University and approved for the use of variables by UCRIHS (Appendix A2)
Details of data source. sense classiﬁcation. and analysis method will be covered in

this section.

Data Source and Experimental Design

This research was conducted with a list of variables involving the four senses that
were employed for the implementation and evaluation of interior residential
environments. This list was designed for one investigator to collect data on
twenty-four residential interiors with consideration to two factors: age and size.
The four separate age groups: 1900 to 1930. 1940 to 1965. 1965 to 1985. and
1989 to 2005. were examined and compared with two separate size groups. The
two size groups were under 1200 sq. ft. and over 2000 sq. ft. Three homes were
evaluated for each group developing eight groups evaluated in the Holland.

Michigan area for a total of 24 treatments.

55

Five senses were used for health evaluation of the residential interior
environments. The four senses used for the list of variables were sound. touch.
sight and smell. For each sense. there was at least one question the investigator
used to evaluate the space. The level of testing was done at an elementary level
due to the experience of the investigator and time frame with which the

equipment was used.

Sense Classiﬁcation and Data Organization

Sound data was collected with a decibel reader borrowed from Michigan State
University. The data collected was at different times of the day and in different
locations of the home. The center of the main living space was used for this
evaluation. The lower the sound measured. the better the score. The sound level
determined for the outside was just outside the front entry. At certain
opportunities. the investigator was able to ask the occupant what part of the day

indicated the loudest amount of noise. and what the cause of that noise was.

Touch. as the second variable. was measured by the observation of the
investigator to rate the effectiveness and relevancy of the transition of materials as
they entered from one space to another. The measurement was determined by

the relation of the ﬁnishes to the function of the space. The four most relevant

56

spaces evaluated were: the living space. kitchen. master suite. and main bathroom.
The ﬁve ﬁnish considerations were evaluated on surfaces: ceilings. ﬂoors. walls.
countertops and fabrics on furniture. The scoring evaluation was determined as
one point for the correct application. and zero points for poor application. When
the ﬁnish was not present in the space being observed. “N/A” was used as the
score. The best score for this evaluation was the highest score. The high score
was then subtracted from 100 giving a low score. The best score needed to be the

lowest number in all the categories evaluated.

Three variables were used for the evaluation of Sight. The ﬁrst visual tool was
with the use of a light meter to determine the amount of natural light as measured
by foot-candles in the most common areas of the residence. The reading with the
light meter was at 36 inches above the ﬁnished ﬂoor at a distance of one meter
from the window. No artiﬁcial light was used. but only the light from windows.
The four main spaces used for touch were also used for foot-candle evaluation.
The data was averaged according to the foot-candle in each space divided by the
four spaces evaluated. The time of the day was not regulated. The best score was
the highest number. which was then subtracted from 100 giving the investigator

the lowest and best number to evaluate.

The second evaluation of sight was with the consideration to the percentage of

57

natural landscape vs. man-made scenery from a window at one meter from the
window. The same four main spaces were evaluated for this view. The
percentage of the natural landscape vs. the percentage of the man-made landscape
per window as calculated by the investigator. The average percentage was
determined by adding up the total natural landscape percentages calculated and
dividing by the total number of windows viewed. The best percentage obtained

was subtracted from 100 giving the lowest number for the best evaluation.

The last variable for sight was with consideration to the aesthetic observations of
the furniture. cabinets. appliances. and equipment needed to function within that
space. This was determined by the application as well as location of the materials
involved for the function of the space. Example of this is with the placement of
the furniture in the living space that invited social interaction. The rooms
evaluated were the same four main spaces used. One point was given for
adequate application and zero points for poor functional application. The data
was averaged for the ﬁnished numerical indicator then using the highest score

subtracted from 100 to indicate the lowest. best value.

The sense of smell represented the measurement of interior air quality. As before.
the four most used rooms were evaluated. The DUSTTRAK instrument was used

to determine respirable size particle concentration per mg/m3. The respirable size

58

rang is (Particulate Matter) PM 10 microns. PM 2.5 microns and PM 1.0 micron.
This helps with the detection of airborne contaminants of a particular size. not
weight. and does not to identify which particles were present (P. Weinstein.
personal communication. July 26. 2005). The lowest concentration registered

was the best score.

A photoionization detector. pprAE. is the most accurate detector of the
measurement of VOC gases. The normal levels are 200-500 ppb. The range
extends from one ppb to 2.000 ppm with the calibration of ten ppm isobutylene
gas. TSl Q-Trak Indoor Air Quality Monitor was used to measure carbon dioxide.
carbon monoxide. temperature and relative humidity. This can help with thermal

comfort and investigate IAQ.

The highest score used as the best score in during the data collection was
subtracted from 100 so that the lWest numbers indicated the best scores in all the

blocks measured.

Analysis Methods

After compiling and organizing the data. Friedman’s nonparametric statistical test

(Daniel 1978) was implemented to determine if there was a difference amongst

59

the treatments. Friedman’s test required that data collected was from random
samples and that nothing is known about the parameters of the variables of
interest. such as mean or standard deviation. The variables for the 24 treatments
were ranked by the lowest number indicating the healthiest and best results.
Treatment groups were consolidated according to age (four groups of them) and

size (two groups of them) for a total of eight grouped treatments.

Microsoft Excel spread sheet was used to sum the ranks for a treatment to detect
differences between homogenous subjects labeled “blocks”. The blocks. or
evaluation of the interior spaces for this research. may indicate some of the same
criterion with respect to each other and could be considered “experimental units”.
With the involvement of Friedmans’s statistical data for evaluating a hypothesis.
each treatment was ranked as observed by the sums of the columns. For each
treatment a rank was assigned having one as the lowest score. two the second.
etc. Only with a tied score was the mean number used as the ranking score. An
example of this could be where two treatments ranked as four. The tie rank score

would be 4.5 (ie. 4+5/2=4.5) as allocated to each tied scores.
For this experiment. the null hypothesis HO: O] = o; = O3. means no treatment is
signiﬁcantly different than another. To demonstrate the hypothesis false. at least

two of the treatments. or sum of the ranks (It) would not be statistically equal.

60

H] I NOT Ho (1)

According to Friedman (Daniel 1978) let b denote blocks. 1' the treatment. and k
the rank of the treatment. In the following equation. R will represent the sum of

the ranks in each column. The rows symbolize the blocks and the columns are the

treatments.

Figure 1. Illustration of Freidman’s Two-Way Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatments
Blocks 1 2 3 j k
I x x x xi j XI?
2 x x x x2j xk
3 x x x x3j xk
b Rb).

Note: AdOpted from Daniel (1978).

According to Daniel (1978). let Xij denote the number of samples categorized.
where b (b=1.2.3....k) is equivalent to the data collected in rows (block). category
j (j=1,2.3...k) in reference to columns (treatments). and k(k=l.2.3...k) as

reference to ranked data.

When b and k are numerically small. there needs to be a comparison or

signiﬁcance of Friedman’s equation with use of Chi-square. The determination of

61

rejection or acceptance of the Ho can then be determined. The calculated value of

X3 must be equal to or exceed the tabulated values in the Chi-square table with a

required level of signiﬁcance. When considering the appropriate degrees of

freedom. the tabled X992 value (99th percentile on chi-square) and tabled X952

value (95th percentile on chi-square) are valued as 0.01 and 0.05 critical values for

determining an alternative hypothesis (Sheskin 2004).

The number of degrees of freedom is calculated by:

df=k—l (2)

Friedman two-way analysis stipulates that the sum of the ranks are determined

and then squared. Those squared ranked sums are then summed as equation:

l2
Let: 2 <2 R. >2 (3)
J=1

If X,2 is greater or equal to tabulated Chi-square with k-l degrees of freedom. Ho

can be rejected at a level of signiﬁcance. The test statistic can be concluded

with:

62

k
X.2 = 12/ )3 <2 R. >2—3b(k+1) (4)
bk(k+1) J=1

(Daniel 1978)

X,2 will need to be adjusted if a tie occurs and will need to be adjusted by the

average for the rank positions that the tie occurs. Ties within a given block are

the ones that are of interest. Adjustment used with ties will be accommodated by

dividing X} by the equation:

b
I- Z Tb/bk (122-1) = (5)
b=1

(Daniel 1978)

Tb: 2 ﬂy 2 tb (6)

where tb equals the number of ties observed for a given rank.
To adjust for ties. we need to recalculate sz . the chi-square approximation with

an equation is:

x,2= 12*R2/(kb) (k+1) - 3b (l2+1) (equation 4) (7)

 

1- ties/ (kb)(b3-1)
(Daniel 1978)

63

For calculation with Chi-square. where indication of b and/or k are not tabulated

(Daniel 1978). one can then compare the X} for the signiﬁcance of the tabulated

Chi-square with k-l degrees of freedom. If a signiﬁcance difference exists between
at least two experimental treatments evaluated. Ho can be rejected. H1 : Not Ho
would be true indicating signiﬁcant statistical difference between the treatments.
Once the test indicates a statistical signiﬁcance and error rate isa . a multiple
comparison procedure is executed to determine which treatments are signiﬁcantly

different (Daniel 1978).

The signiﬁcance difference between blocks can be determined as:

[Rj— my] 2 2 f kb(k+1)/6 (8)

Z: a/ k (k-l). which is found on the Table of Normal Distribution (Sheskin

2004). Rj and R]. are treatment rank totals.

Chapter Summary

In summary. this chapter outlined the comparison of Friedman’s Two-way non-
parabolic equation using more than one treatment categorized and ranked.
Equation for ties was included with a need to signiﬁcant results for Chi-square. If
Ho was rejected. multiple-comparison procedure needs to be used with the

Friedman test to conclude which treatment ranked totals are different.

65

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

For this study. there are basically two factors measured. The ﬁrst factor size has
been grouped into two treatments: less than 1200 ftz. and more than 2000 ft’.
The second factor age. has been grouped into four treatments: 1900 to 1930. 1940
to 1965. 1965 to 1985. and 1989 to 2005. Each age group has been evaluated
with the two sizes mentioned. Three homes were evaluated from 14 variables

and averaged for each of the eight treatments.

Table 2. Treatment Sound Data Ranked

Space is less than 1200 ft2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1901-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1989-2005
# 17. 20. 10 # 2.11.15 # 23.3.22 #18. 7.12
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated
1a 39.5 8 37 7 33 4 34.6 5
lb 44.4 8 39 5 38 4 35.9 3
Space is greater than 2000 ft2
1900-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1998-2005
# 14.16.6 # 19.4.8 # 9.24.21 I! 13.1.5
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated
1a 32.3 2 35.8 6 31.44 1 32.54 3
1b 35.88 2 40.7 7 31.57 1 39.44 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1a- decibels inside residence

1b- decibels outside residence

66

 

 

This sound table references the grouping and ranking of the sound data collected.
This data results indicate the lowest decibels registered was from homes aged 1965
to 1985 over 2000ft2. Second lowest ranked was the larger oldest homes aged
1901 to 1930 over 2000ft2. Third were the newest homes aged 1989 to 2005

irregardless of size.

Table 3. Treatment Touch Data Ranked

Space is less than 1200 ft2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1901-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1989-2005
# 17. 20. 10 # 2.11.15 # 23.3.22 #18. 7.12
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated ‘
2 86.7 8 85 5 85 6 82 1.5
Space is greater than 2000 ft2
1900-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1998-2005
# 14.16.6 # 19.4.8 # 9.24.21 # 13.1.5
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated
2 84 4 ' 85.67 7 82.34 3 82 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2- total touch (max = 18)

Data collected for touch indicated the newest aged homes. 1989 to 2005.
irregardless of size indicated the best results. Ranked third indicates the homes

ages 1965 to 1985 over 2000ft2.

67

Table 4. Treatment Sight Data Ranked

Space is less than 1200 ft2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1901-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1989-2005
#17. 20. 10 # 2.11.15 # 23.3.22 #18. 7.12
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated
3 92 3 96 8 93 4 51.2 1
3a 59.6 8 47 4 35 1 49.6 5
3b 98.7 8 98 5.5 97 4 97.2 3
Space is greater than 2000 ft2
1900-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1989-2005
#14.16.6 #19.4.8 #9.24.21 #13.1.5
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated Ties
3 95.67 6 96.09 7 66.08 2 93.58 5
3a 53.34 6 57.5 7 38.34 2 43.75 3
3b 98 7 97.67 5.5 96.67 2 96.34 1 2

 

 

 

 

3- average foot-candles
3a- average percentage of natural landscape from window
3b- sum of numbers (max. = 4)

 

 

 

 

 

The ﬁrst and third best ranked homes are evident with the newest homes as the

best irregardless of size. Second ranked are the homes aged 1965 to 1985 over

2000ft2.

68

 

Table 5. Treatment Smell Data Ranked

Space is less than 1200 ft2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1901-1930 1940-1965 1965-1985 1989-2005
# 17. 20. 10 # 2.11.15 # 23.3.22 #18. 7.12
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated
5 0.06 7 O 4 0 8 0.04 5
Sal 0.11 7 0.1 1 0 8 0.1 6
5b 61.1 3 35 2 211 5 285 6
5c1 649 6 665 7 490 4 431 3
5d 10.4 7 15 8 4 1 6.29 3
5e 84.7 5 94 7 93 8 84 4
5f 11.3 6 12 7 9 4 18.1 8
5g 86.3 3 91 7 93 8 74.3 1
Space is greater than 2000 ft2
1900-1930 I940-1965 1965-1985 1998-2005
# 14.16.6 # 19.4.8 # 9.24.21 # 13.1.5
Questions data rank data rank data rank data rank
Evaluated
5 0.039 2 0.039 2 0.039 2 0.0494 6
5a1 0.089 3.5 0.089 3.5 0.085 2 0.0914 5
5b 25.58 1 82.84 4 659.7 8 544.92 7
5c1 681.1 8 617.2 5 52.67 1 174.42 2
5d 9.07 4 9.62 6 5.11 2 9.19 5
5e 78.57 2 78.7 3 77.4 1 84.9 6
5f 5.61 2 10.1 5 6.58 3 3.94 1
5g 87.43 5 90.94 6 87.37 4 82.77 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indoor air quality was tested on different variables

5- TSl Dust Track- average inside

5a1- Difference between outsideﬁnside
5b- pprAE- average inside
5c1- Difference between outsideﬁnside

5d- Q-Trak: Humidity- average inside
5e- Q-Trak: Humidity- outside

5f- Q-Trak: Temperature- average inside
5g- Q-Trak: Temperature- outside

Results from smell. indoor air quality. ranked better in homes over the age of

1965 and over 2000ft2.

69

 

 

IAQ Equipment Used

The best difference between the Dust Track results inside and outside was from the
homes aged 1965 to 1985 over 2000ft2. The difference was 75.5%. ranked
second. The best data for the least amount of particles present inside indicated a

tie for all home sizes over 2000ft2. except the most recent age. 1998 to 2005.

The ﬁrst rank was for homes smaller. 1940 to 1965. which could be due to the
lack of occupants in the homes. Mostly. all the dust particles inside the homes
were within .01 mg/m3. except the smaller older homes. MIOSHA prefers the
limit to non-toxic dust over an eight hour average to be 5mg/m3 (P. Weinstein.
personal communication. July 26. 2005). Though. none of the residents
investigated were at this level. repeated measurement in the ofﬁces at MSU have
indicated 0.050mg/m3 dust as average. (P. Weinstein. personal communication.

May 2. 2007).

The best data for the least amount of particles present inside registered by RAE
was for the older homes. RAE Normal levels are between 200-500 ppb. Newer
homes were higher: 1965 to 1985 over 2000ft2 was 660 ppb. and 1998 to 2005

over 2000ft2 was 545 ppb.

7O

Measurement of relative humidity (RH) was determined. which is the percentage
of water vapor in the air compared to the total amount of water vapor the same
air could hold in any temperature (Richardson et al.. 2005). The most common
limit recognized to prevent mold and dust mite proliferation is RH S 45% (Munir
et al.. 1995: Richardson et al.. 2005). Statistical results indicated the best homes
aged 1965 to 1985 over 2000ft2. The inside humidity measured 45.11 % RH with
a difference from outside of 68 % RH. On the average the smaller homes had

consistently higher rates.

Table 6. Treatment Totals Ranked with Squared Totals

Space is less than 1200 ft2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1901-1930 I940-1965 1965-1985 1989-2005

# 17. 20. 10 # 2.11.15 # 23.3.22 #18. 7.12

data rank data rank data rank data rank
Ranked
total 87 8 77.5 7 69 5 54.5 3.5
Squared
total 7569 6006 4761 2970

Space is greater than 2000 ft2
1900-1930 I940-1965 1965-1985 1998-2005
#

# 14.16.6 19.4.8 # 9.24.21 # 13.1.5

data rank data rank data rank data rank
Ranked
total 54.5 3.5 74 6 34 1 53.5 2
Squared
total 2970 5476 1156 2862

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

This table indicates the overall collection of data from treatment results. Homes
between the ages of 1965 tol985 over 2000 ft2 are evident as having the
healthiest interior environments. The worse ranked home was smaller than 1200

ft2 and between the ages of1901 to 1930.

Accuracy Assessment with Ties

Table 7. Data Collection from equations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Squares 33771
Blocks 14
Treatments 8
Part1 402.036
Chi-Square 24.0357

 

To determine X} the equation with fourteen blocks. and eight treatments is:

k
x,2 = 12/ 2 (ER, >2 -3b(k+1) (4)
bk(k+1) J=1

= 12 * (Z R; )2/ (14*8) * (8+1)

= 402.036

(Daniel. 1978)

72

To get the results for Chi-square (sz ):

= 402.036 - (3* (I4 * (8+1))) = 24.036

Table 8. Treatment Data Ranked

Ties for 14 blocks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 8 6
2 8 6
3 27 24
sum 42
total ties 4

 

 

 

 

The equation used below is the ﬁnal adjustment for Chi-Square.

X3 = l- (42/(14 * 8)(l4-1)) (4)
= 0.97115

24.036/ 0.97115 = 24.7496

><
ﬂIN)
ll

When considering the rejection of Ho where I? -1 = 7 degrees of freedom. the
reliability between the sum of the squares being as large as 24.7496 with p S 0.01

indicates that Ho can be rejected. Where a 0.05 at is 14.067 at (Ia-1) = 7 degrees

73

of freedom. and a 0.01 at df = 7 is 18.475. This result indicates a signiﬁcant
difference in at least one of the treatments evaluated.

When rejecting the Ho from Friedman analysis. it is best to know where the
difference occurred. Searching for the value of z helps to evaluate the comparison

between all the treatment results.

2 = a/ kHz-1) 0.05/8*7= 0.00089 = 0.001 (5)
When using 2 as:

Where 0.001- 0.05= 0.499 illustrating z = 3.08

Now knowing the value of z. the number can be used to insert into the equation
for multiple comparison to determine the least value needed for the differences

between the treatment rank totals (Daniel. 1978).

2 = f bk(l2+1)/6 = f14*8*9/6 (6)
= 3.08 [168

= 39.921

74

The following table indicates the differences between the sums of the ranks.

Table 9. Treatment Ranked Totals

Rank 1 minus other ranks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank 2
2 -19.5 Rank 3
3.5 -20.5 -1 Rank 5
3.5 -20.5 -1 Rank 6
5 -35 -15.5 -14.5 Rank 7
6 -40 -20.5 -19.5 -5
7 -43.5 -24 -23 -8.5 -3.5
8 -53 -33.5 -32.5 -18 -13 -9.5

 

 

These testing results recognized rank one is the treatment aged 1965 to 1985 over
2000ft2 as the best rank. This treatment is compared with the other seven
treatments to determine the greatest signiﬁcance. This difference is represented by
the homes between the ages of1901 to 1930 and 1940 to 1965 both under

1200ft2.

75

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The statistical data collected from this thesis clearly indicated that homes built
from 1965 to 1985 with over 2000ft2 were healthier. The results of this four-sense
evaluation indicated. with signiﬁcance or = 0.05. the least healthy homes were
those aged from 1903 to 1940. and 1940 to 1965 and smaller than 1200ft2 . Many

considerations come to mind as to what would cause these differences.

It appears that during the years of 1965 to 1985 the American work ethic was
strong. Most white collar individuals remained in their jobs for a lifetime. It was
uncommon to switch jobs unless something was drastically wrong. Quality of
workmanship was the prize of the laborer. Many products did not cost much.
and most materials were constructed in the United States. The concept of
“plenty” was prevalent. Petroleum for the automobiles seemed to be in endless

supply. As for potential for global warming and air pollution- “What is that?”
This is also the time where the “the bigger. the better” concept grew. The

wealthy wanted homes built to be the biggest and best and were able to afford

larger “white elephant” homes. These homes did not consider size in relation to

76

energy efﬁciency. Many homes had large rooms with many windows and high
ceilings. Not only were construction projects and labor for installation more
ﬁnancially efﬁcient. but also construction materials were more affordable. This
could allow the homeowner to spend more money for extravagant details. More
attention was devoted to having the best: and each room seemed to have one
designated function. These attributes could be seen in the fabric and ﬁnishes that
created a more extravagant environment while maintaining functionality of the

space.

Since land was plentiful. homes stood on larger lots. therefore homeowner’s did
not have to look at their neighbors through windows. Residents were able to
have more natural light with landscape views. Homes were closer to uninhabited
habitats which could produce natural soothing noises. such as birds singing. \Vrth
the homes set further away from the street. the impact of man-made noise could
be limited. This image could also produce an image of privacy. Privacy can help
with feelings of calmness and relaxation. These homes exhibited evidence of a
healthier interior environment. even at a time when a consideration for a healthy

environment was not recognized during the construction process.

This thesis data indicated evidence that even in the home with the best natural

light. there was only enough illumination for ambient lighting. The best average

77

was measured between 35-50 foot-candles in the homes between the ages of1965

to 1985. The third ranked were residents aged 1985 to 2005 and over 2000ft2.

It was not until 1984 that Ulrich discovered the positive inﬂuence windows had
on the health of hospital patients. and Rosenthal realized the effects of full-
spectrum light on SAD patients. Human need for natural daylight was not well
understood before that time and was not taken into account in the construction
process for home built before 1985. But after that date. and more recently.
research on the effects of daylight helped persuade builders that larger. more

inﬂuential homes should have taller windows that would let in more natural light.

Interior visual inﬂuences became stronger during these years not only with the
promotion of decorating as an occupation. but as more impressive architects
emerged with Post-Modernism. After the simplicity of Modernism. the Post-
Modemism era tried to add detail using building construction as variety and
communication to the public (Wikimedia.com). Ornamental woodworking
inﬂuenced homes to have more vernacular. custom details including: balconies.
porches. and other embellishments. More wood interest ﬂourished. as evident in
the interior designs of Frank Lloyd Wright and the Arts and Crafts movement.
Wood concepts from other famous designers. Ray and Charles Eames and George

Nelson. also inﬂuenced interior residential and furniture design.

78

The realization of afﬂuent interior environments in relation to human size became
obvious. An example of this is the location of the furniture in the public living
environment. Furniture placement inﬂuenced the ease of social interactions as
well as visual balance for comfort and relaxation. This impact could be seen with
texture. color. scale. light. and space as it ﬂowed from one room to another. The
emphasis of the outside environment blending with the inside environment is
evident with designs from Frank Lloyd Wright. More time and interest were spent
on colors. shapes and furniture location interacting with interior architecture. as
observed with Eliel Saarinen’s home at Cranbrook Institute of Art. Bloomﬁeld
Hills. MI. His wife color-coordinated the book covers on the shelves to match the
rugs on the ﬂoor. and upholstery fabric on the chairs. As these great design

concepts proliferated. distinguished individuals desired to have more.

These data indicated the homes from 1985 to 2005 were best for aesthetic
persuasion. and homes from 1965 tol985 over 2000ft2 ranked 3“. Increased
production and awareness of ﬁnish selections. as well as construction and design
processes could have persuaded homeowners to seek more knowledge and better

choices after 1985.

Homes during 1965 to 1985 were larger. which may have required larger. and

thus better. HVAC systems supporting improved circulation. The building process

79

did not demand tighter construction that could have increased ventilation from
the outside air. This would have reduced the interior air pollutants. as well as

dust and moisture concentrations. thus adding to a healthier environment.

The idea mentioned above is not indicated in these treatment data. The largest.
newest home was ranked sixth. One of the homes tested had carpet installed just
the day before. The homeowner then indicated that the HVAC vents had not
been cleaned since construction. when the heat was on most of the time. These
coincidences remind the evaluator of different variables that were not considered
during data collection. It would be interesting to continue this study with
uninterrupted dust particle readings to indicate how long the particles last. when

they would decrease. and at what rate that would happen.

In considering the sense of taste. the quality of interior water was used for this
evaluation. Difﬁculty in determining additional criteria for the water before it
entered the home caused recognition of inaccurate data. Variables that could
inﬂuence water are: location and condition of water before it enters treatment
plants. treatment plant’s ﬁltration system in the area. pipes used for water to
travel to the home. pipes within the home. ﬁltration system of water within the
home. Another consideration was the age of the homes. Very few. if any. of

these homes twenty years ago considered the need for ﬁltration or puriﬁcation

80

system for the water entering the home. The concept of water being impure. or
contaminated was not even considered. which is quite different from today.
Because the homeowner has no control over water entering the home. healthier

water by puriﬁcation needs to be considered as water enters the home.

Conclusion

Evidence collected from this thesis has heightened awareness that further inquiry is
needed to consider the health of different elements used in residential interior
environments. This information could persuade design professionals to
contemplate sustainable construction applications and products. drawing on their
knowledge and development of design practice. Sustainable implementations
existing in health care facilities and ofﬁce environments already offer scientiﬁcally
based evidence. These spaces were considered ﬁrst by focusing on increased
human production during work (ofﬁce). as well as physical healing for quick
release of patients from healthcare settings. It has been only in the last couple of
years that more attention has been given the construction of homes. where

individuals also spend much of their time.

The LEED-Homes. developed by USGBC. has just this year ﬁnished its pilot study.

There are nine areas of focus used to gain points for certiﬁcation. This study

81

compliments LEED-Homes in areas of Energy and Atmospheric efﬁciency. Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEQ). Materials and Resources. Sustainable Sites.
Innovation and Design Process. and Public Education. Most of the points are
gained by recognition of energy and waste conservation. IEQ promotes purer
quality by stipulating decreased moisture and toxic gases with the instillation of
efﬁcient ventilation and insulation. Site location encourages effective landscaping
for insulation as well as increased natural light. Sustainable design needs to start
with the concept of the building style as it is recorded on paper. This can
promote sustainable construction materials. processes and ﬁnishes. Unfortunately.
at this present time. sustainable products and processes have a greater up-front
cost to the homeowner. Increased education can promote a better understanding
of the long-term savings. as well as encourage smoother transition for continued
energy conservation. This study further veriﬁes the necessity for healthier

residential environments as a complement to sustainable construction.

Environments that positively inﬂuence emotions can also have a healthier impact.
Holistically. psychological perceptions can alter physiological changes. For
example. an individual in a high stress occupation is more prone to hypertension
and heart attacks. Altering design to promote positively engaging interior
environments can improve psychological and physical health. Promoting

Maslow’s level for social needs can be encouraged by considering to furniture

82

placement to encourage social interaction: by providing a view of more natural
light with privacy or a picturesque view. and by decreasing unwanted sounds.
Environments designed to promote the uniqueness and giftedness of the occupant
can further fulﬁll their need for self-actualization. Promotion of individual needs
by interaction within the environment can encourage healthier psychological

changes.

Truly environmentally healthy designs can be instituted where the designer creates
an environment that promotes health for the occupant. depending upon their
physical. psychological or social needs. With consideration to this thesis. and the
ﬁve senses mentioned. design and construction could be formulated with
evidence-based data to recognize healthy attributes for the encouragement and
maintenance of healthy interior environments. For example. a design for an
individual’s home with SAD disease could specify a lot of tall windows. using
mostly southern exposure. three sky-lights facing the south. and light bulbs that
were at least 5500°K. These effects would increase the full spectrum amount of
light in a room and decrease SAD symptoms during the faleinter months when

there is less natural light.

83

Limitations

Data collected from this study results from the homes located in and around
Holland. Michigan. It could be said that this data signiﬁcance can only be speciﬁc
to a certain location. Further evaluation needs to be constructed for data
collected from homes in another part of the country. or even another country. in
order to have a more diverse perspective on the interior criteria and construction

needed to promote healthy interior residential environments.

The only treatment considerations to the homes researched was with the diversity

of age and size. There may be some other treatments not considered.

Some of the homes evaluated were not occupied and had been empty for

months. It would be interesting to determine how the statistical data collected
would be altered depending upon longevity and activity of occupants present.
The literature review also mentioned a relation between human pollutants and

the number of occupants in the home. as well as the activities within the home.
Sound changes under the inﬂuence of temperature. humidity. and the medium the

sound wave travels through. Sound changes measured for this study were not as

accurate without these considerations. This information was not considered. as

84

inside and outside measurements took place at sporadic times of the day. This
brings to mind the cause of the sound variation. whether it is due to the outside
wall construction or the density of the medium the sound traveled through.

There was also a lack of consideration as to whether a speciﬁc time of the day was
noisier. In the vacant homes a true determination of the correct amount of

indoor sound. could not be speciﬁed. considering medium. or lack thereof.

Because of the scope of the data collected with the resources available. it was not
possible to establish controlled environment for a more accurate determination of
natural light. Foot-candles measured were at non-speciﬁc times of the day. Other
limiting factors not considered: window height. size. location in relation to the

sun. time of the day. season. and amount of window reﬂection or tint.

Urban or rural locations of the homes were not observed for differences. This
would inﬂuence the amount of natural landscaping viewed. as well as the amount
of natural light. Exterior locations could also limit the residential size and height.
The ﬂoor level of a urban home could alter window data. Smell could be more

obvious in urban environments. and thus inﬂuence IAQ.

Room size with ceiling height was not considered for observation in relationship

to visual aesthetics or window height. Differences in the amount of natural light

85

and sound could be evident. depending upon the ﬁnishes speciﬁed. Aesthetic
comfort could be altered by ﬁnish speciﬁcation and relation of furniture in space.
A smaller sized room may only have enough furniture for two people vs. larger

space for social interaction with six to eight people.

Function of space evaluated was not indicated. Obvious spatial function was
recognized. but consideration to multiple functions was not addressed. A room
that has multiple purposes may have ﬁnishes that are indicated for more than one
function. An example of this can be seen with a kitchen that is used for cooking as
well as for adult socialization and interaction with children doing homework. The
multiple functions of this space with design could indicate a large island with non-
porous surfaces and seating. increased illumination. and more square footage for

storage.

HVAC equipment within the homes was not considered as to age. size. ﬁltration.
quality and function. The variation of this equipment could alter the
measurements of the IAQ. Consideration also needs to be given to humidity and

temperature levels and regulation.

The Q-Trak measurements taken are a good indication of the amount of particles

within the air. but not to the particles collected in materials and to their location

86

within the homes. Perhaps the locations used the most would indicate the most
particles within the atmosphere. Some determination has been with porous
materials that harbor more airborne particles. Materials located in certain areas in

the home and the use of those spaces was not considered with this study.
Additional Research

The evaluation from this study dictates further study in these areas to improve the

accuracy and knowledge of health related design principles.

The additional research for the effects of sound from electronic equipment as
evident with surround sound TV’s. cell phones. computers. and other electronic
devices. Consideration about how these devices inﬂuence human health either

through noise or touch.

One concern that the author has realized being in a home using Energy Star was
the increased interior level of noise. Though the non-porous. solid surfaces were
used to decrease absorption of chemicals. toxins or other harmful materials. noise
reverberated off these surfaces. Some area rugs on the center of the ﬂOor. and
some fabrics on the furniture provided softer surfaces. The decreased absorption

of sound could decrease feelings of relaxation and thus add more stress. This

87

raises the question of the deﬁnition of sustainable and environmental protection
from noise pollution. Study the evidence of noise as it relates to interior
sustainable ﬁnishes and considers an investigation that needs to recognize the
signiﬁcance of an individual’s perception of the noise with consideration for

sustainable planning (Soneryd. 2004).

A study is needed that relates to the design signiﬁcance of walls. custom storage.
private and public spaces as they interact with ﬁnishes. sound and light. It would
be interesting to understand how important separation of space feels in relation to
function. and what differences there need to be in relation to function of the

space toward sound and light.

More research about the conservation of energy with consideration to the design
criteria when specifying window placement. water and heat usage. placement of
private vs. public spaces. or location of other functioning spaces. An example of
this can be the conscious placement of windows higher and mostly on the
southern exposure for increased natural light. More natural light is healthier in

spaces where more daytime activity takes place.

A study to understand the relationship of the size of furniture as it relates to size

of the space and humans. Questions come to mind: Could there be a health

88

effect related to the placement of furniture in a room? Could the size of the room

in relationship to the size of the occupant promote health? Is big really better?

The psychological impact of a healthy environment needs better research.
Questions not considered in this thesis arise. If Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
speculates that different levels of needs are indicative of different ages. does the
perception of a healthy environment change with the age of the individual? What
would those changes be and are they related to physical or mental health? How
would home design change relative to the individual’s level of health? Could this

be the same for every individual regardless of culture and race?

Not enough studies have indicated whether a view of natural environments is a
source of pleasure to all individuals regardless of ethnic diversity. Individuals
could consider exterior environments differently. depending upon the
environment they were raised in. Design plans would need to consider views. as
well as natural elements impacting the interior space. Frank Lloyd Wright’s use of
rocks and water close to the home may not be enjoyable for every individual.
More research to determine the best energy efﬁcient. cost conscious source of
home heating. This data collected could be used to educated builders and
homeowners about HVAC systems that are sustainable and more efﬁcient. This

education would also better acknowledge a need for better ventilation. as well as

89

outdoor/indoor air exchange. quality systems with ﬁlters that decrease dust

particles. gases. and regulate temperature and humidity.

More research about the effect of alterations in temperature and humidity can
have on individual health related issues: viruses. ﬂu like symptoms. etc. It would

be beneﬁcial to know what the healthiest temperate and humidity is for health.

It would be important to have better understanding about the interactive factors
involved within interior environments. This could be with materials and/or
construction processes. As one recent study indicates. signiﬁcance of the
absorption rate of materials speciﬁed can alter apparent air quality and possibly
decrease ventilation rates (Sakr et al.. 2006). An example of this can be how

plants can help to purify the air and increase absorption of toxins.

Most research about water seems to indicate a potential for increased
contaminants. There could be more research about the other factors that come in
contact with water that could inﬂuence the purity. This brings to mind other
uncontrollable variables that could inﬂuence water health. What if the water was
from a well instead of city water? What if individuals had water ﬁlters or
softeners that indicated a lower amount of contaminant? What if the pipes
constructed from the water source to the home indicated more contaminants and
the home owner was not aware of the differences?

9O

Much research has been done regarding the inﬂuence of color on individual
emotions. Because color is a wavelength interpreted by the sensors in the cones
of the eyes. which is then transmitted to the brain for clariﬁcation. subjective
information is given. Still. research regarding the psychological inﬂuence of color
as it relates to the functions within residential environments needs more

consideration for better design and inﬂuence on individual health.

More research is needed on the ability of the interior environment to provide an
emotional engaging awareness. The interior factors that could determine certain
emotional experiences from an individual are not clearly understood. Music and
smell might inﬂuence certain emotions. Maybe there are emotional impressions

that certain visual ﬁnishes can evoke.

This research considered the interior residential environments with evaluation
tools relating to the ﬁve senses. There could be research about the consideration
of a healthy interior environment when an individual lacked one of their senses.
Some considerations could be: what can be done to better communicate healthier
environments? This then precipitates the question. what other ways are there to

determine the safety of residential interiors?

91

REFERENCES CITED

Adamson. G. (2005). Beyond the architecture lesson 5: Build it on the inside.
Healthcare Design. 5. 20- 26.

Altman. I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey. CA: Brooks
Cole.

Afshari. A.. Matson. U.. & Ekberg. L. E. (2005). Characterization of indoor sources
of ﬁne and ultra ﬁne particles: a study conducted in a full-scale chamber. indoor
Air, 2. 141-150.

American Lung Association. American Medical Association. US Consumer Product
Safety Commission. and US Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Indoor air
pollution: Introduction for health professionals. Document #455.

American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers. INC.
(1999). ASHRAE Standard 62-1999. ventilation for acceptable air quality. p 1-27.

Anderson. K.. & Strich. G. (1992). The use of standardized questionnaires in
building-related illness (BRI) and sick building syndrome (SBS) surveys.
NATO/CCMS Pilot Study on Indoor Air Quality. Oslo: National Institute of
Occupational Health, 47-64.

Bailer. J.. Rist. F.. WitthOft. M.. Paul. C.. & Bayert. C. (2004). Symptom patterns
and perceptual and cognitive styles in subjects with multiple chemical sensitivity
(MCS). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24. 517-525.

Bandura. A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Banwell. P.. Brons. J.. Freyssinier-Nova. J. P.. Rizzo. P. & Figueiro. M. (2004). A
demonstration of energy-efﬁcient lighting in residential new construction. Lighting

Research and Technology. 36. 147-164.

Barrera. M. E.. Rykov. M. H.. & Doyle. S.L. (2002). The effects of interactive
music therapy on hospitalized children with cancer: A pilot study.
Psychoonocology. 11. 279-388.

Bartuska. T. J.. & Young. G. L (Eds.). (1994). The Built Environment: A Creative
Inquiry into Design 8 Planning. Menlo Park. California: Crisp Publications. Inc.

92

Beard. R. R. & Wertheim. G. A. (1967). Behavioral impairment associated with
small doses of carbon monoxide. American Journal of Public Health. 57. 2012-
2022.

Beers. M. H. & Berkow. R. (Eds.). (1999). The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and
Therapy. Whitehouse Station. N.J.: Division of Merck & Co.. Inc.

Bell. P. A.. Greene. T. C.. Fisher. J. D.. & Baum. A. (2001). Environmental
Psychology. Fort Worth. Texas: Harcourt College Publishers.

Berto. R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional
capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25. 249-259.

Bernheim. A. (2005). What you can’t see: building occupant health related to IAQ
is a vital part of the sustainability picture. Contract. 47. 179-181.

Bilchik. C. S. July/August (2002). A better place to heal. Health Forum Journal.
p10-15.

Birren. Faber (1961). Color Psychology and Color Therapy. New Hyde Park. New
York: University Books.

Bomehag. C. G.. Blomquist. G.. Gyntelberg. F.. Jarvholm. B.. Malmberg. P..
Nordvall. L. Nielsen. A.. Pershagen. G.. & Sundell. J. (2001). Dampness in
buildings and health. Indoor Air. 11. 72-96.

Boyce.. P. R. (2004). Lighting research for interiors: the beginning of the end or
the end of the beginning. Lighting Research and Technology, 36. 283-294.

Bonda. P. May (2003). Why design green matters? ASlD ICON.

Bonda. P. (1998). Chemistry class. lS DesignNet. Retrieved on December 12. 2004.
from http://www.isdesignet.com/Magazine/Mar’98/eco.html.

Bower. J. (1989). The Healthy House: How to Buy One. How to Build One. How
to Cure 0 “Sick” One. New York: Carol Communications.

Bronzaft. A. L. Ahem. K. D.. McGinn. R.. O.Connor. J.. & Savino. B. (1998).
Aircraft noise: A potential health hazard. Environment and Behavior. 30. 101-113.

Brugge. D.. Vallarinl. J.. Ascolillo. L. Osgood. N. D.. Steinback. S.. & Spengler. J.
(2003). Comparison of multiple environmental factors for asthmatic children in
public housing. Indoor Air, 13. 18-27.

93

Burge. P. S. (2004). Sick building syndrome. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine. 61. 185-190.

Campbell. S. S. et al.. (June 1995). Light treatment for sleep disorders. Consensus
Report. 111. Alerting and activating effects. Journal of Biological Rhythms. 10. 129-
132.

Canter. D.. & Lee. T. (Eds.). (1974). Psychology and the Built Environment.
Tonbridge. Kent. UK: Architectural Press Ltd.. ﬁrst printed Whitefriars Press Ltd.

CARB (2001). Toxic Air Contaminant Identiﬁcation list. Air Quality Measures
Branch. California Air Resources Board. Up-to-date information available at
http://ww.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id.htm.

Center for Health Design. Sound control for improved outcomes in healthcare
settings. Concord. CA: Joseph. A. & Ulrich. R. Retrieved November 01. 2004.
from http://www.healthdesign.org/research/pebble.

Chungloo. S.. Limmeechokchai. B.. & Chungpaibulpatana. S. (2001). Energy
efﬁcient design of side-window for daylighting application in Thialand. Seventh
International lBPSA Conference. Brazil. August 2001.

CNN.com (August 30. 1999). Air pollution kills. but deaths can be prevented.
Retrieved July 26. 2004. from
http://www.cnn.corn/NATURE/9908/30/air.pollution.enn/

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. CABE/ICM. (August
2003). Attitudes toward hospitals. Online document at:
http://www.healthyhospital.org.uk/news/news.html.

Corso. P. S. et al. (2003). Cost of illness in the 1993 Waterbome Cryptosporidium
Outbreak. Milwaukee. Wisconsin. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 9. Retrieved July
26. 2004. from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ElD/vol9no4/02-0417.htm.

Cowan. J. P. (1994). Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. New York. NY: Van
Nostrand Rienhold.

Craig. 8.. Bourassa. A.. Ruest. K.. Hill. D.. & Marshall. S. (2000). Air quality in
interior environments. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved
electronically January 12. 2007. from
http://www.cmhc.ca/publications/en/rh-prﬁndex.html.

94

Crook. M. A.. & Langdon. F. J. (1974). The effects of aircraft noise on schools in
the vicinity of the London Airport. Journal of Sound and Behavior. 21. 206-226.

Cupchik. G. C.. Ritterfeld. U.. & Levin. J. (2003). Incidental learning of features
from interior living spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23. 189-197.

Cunningham. M. R. (1979). Weather. mood and helping behavior: Quasi
experiments with the sunshine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37.
1947-1956.

Daniel. W. W. (1978). Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin
Co.

Dale. F. D. (1982). Patterns of preference in the indoor environment. Unpublished
honors thesis. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Michigan.

Dales. R. E.. Miller. D.. & McMullen. E. D. (1997). Indoor air quality and health:
Validity and determinants of reported home dampness and moulds. Int. Journal of
Epidemiology. 26. 120-125.

Diez Roux. A. V. (2003). Residential environments and cardiovascular risk.
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 80. 569-
589.

Engvall. K.. Norrby. C.. & Norback. D. (2002). Ocular. airway and dermal
symptoms related to building dampness and odors in dwellings. Archives of
Environmental Health. 57. 307-314.

Engvall. K.. Norrby. C.. & Sandstedt. E. (2004). The Stockholm indoor
environment questionnaire: a sociologically based tool for the assessment of
indoor environment and health in dwellings. Indoor Air, 14. 24—33.

Engvall. K.. \Xﬁckman. P. & Norback. D. (2005). Sick building syndrome and
perceived indoor environment in relation to energy saving by reduced ventilation
ﬂow during heating season: a 1 year intervention study in dwellings. Indoor Air.
15. 120126.

Environmental Protection Agency’s electronic reference formats recommended by
Air Quality Index. A guide to air quality and your health. Retrieved December 12.
2004. from http://www.epa.gov/aimow/aquibroch/aqi.htrnl.

Evans. 8. H. (1981). Daylight in Architecture. New York. NY: McGraw-Hill
Publications Co.

95

Evans. G. W. & Johnson. D. (2000). Stress and open-ofﬁce noise. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 85. 779-783.

Evans. G. W. & McCoy. J. M. (1998). When buildings don’t work: the role of
architects in human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 18. 85-94.

Evans. G. W. & Stecker. R. (2004). Motivational consequences of environmental
stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24. 143-165.

Eyles. J.. & Constii. N. (2004). What’s at risk? Environmental inﬂuences on human
health. Environment. 46. 24-40.

Ezzati. M.. Lopez. A.. Rodgers. A.. Vander Hoom. S.. & Murry. C. J. L (2002).
Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. The Lancet.
30. October 2002. retrieved June 18. 2004. from
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/02art9066web.pdf.

Fraser. T. M. (1989). The worker at work. Bristol. PA: Taylor & Francis.

Fumham. A. & Bradley. A. (1997). Music while you work: the differential
distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts
and extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 11. 445-455.

Fumham. A. & Strbac. L (2002). Music is as distracting as noise: the differential
distraction of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of
introverts and extroverts. Ergonomics. 45. 203-217.

Gissen. D. (Eds.). (2002). Big 6' Green: Toward Sustainable Architecture in the 21"
Century. New York. NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Gist. G. (1999). Multiple chemical sensitivity: The role of environmental health
professionals. Journal of Environmental Health. 6. 4-6.

Green Home Environmental Products electronic formats recommended How to
treat mold in the home. Retrieved December 12. 2004. from
http://www.greenhome.com/info/articles/the_air_we_breathe/8/.

Grifﬁths. l. D.. & McIntyre. D. A. (1973). Subject Response to Relative Humidity at
Two Air Temperatures’ Colloque lntemational du CNRS Quantitative Prediction
of Physiological and Psychological Effects of Thermal Environment in Man Centre
(21’ Etudes Bioclimatiques. Strasbourg.

96

Gomzi (1999). Indoor air and respiratory health in preadolescent children.
Atmospheric Environment. 33. 4081-4086.

Guzowski. M. (2000). Daylighting for Sustainable Design. New York. NY:
McGraw-Hill Co.. Inc.

Hardoff. D.. Pamarthi. J. F.. Feldman. J.. & Jacobson. M. S. (1997). Altered lipid
proﬁles in passive smoking urban adolescents as indicated by urinary continine.
International Journal of Adolescent Medicine 6' Health. 9. 181-186.

Hedge. A.. Erickson. W. A.. & Rubin. G. (1994). The effects of alternative smoking
policies on indoor air quality in 27 ofﬁce buildings. Annals of Occupational
Hygiene. 38. 265-278.

Heschong. L (2003). Windows and Classrooms. Fair Oaks. CA: Heschong Mahone
Group.

Hettler. B. (1986). Strategies for wellness and recreation program development. In
F. Leafgren (Ed.). Developing campus recreation and wellness programs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hodgson. A. T.. Rudd. A. F.. Beal. D.. & Chandra. S.(2000). Volatile organic
compound concentrations and emission rates in new manufactured and site-built
houses. Indoor Air. 10. 178-192.

How to treat mold in the home. Green Home Environment Superstore.
Retrieved December 12 2006. from
http://www.greenhome.com/info/articles/the_air_we_breathe/8/.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (1995). Seeing. hearing and smelling the world
(5“1 ed.). Chevy Chase. Maryland.

Huitt. W. G. (2004). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology
Interactive. Valdosta. GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved March 22. 2005.
from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/coVregsys/maslow.html.

Institute of Medicine. (2000). Clearing the air: Asthma and indoor air exposures.
Washington. D.C.: National Academy Press.

Ireland. J. (2007). Residential Planning and Design. New York: Fairchild
Publications. Inc.

97

Joseph. A.. & Ulrich. R. January (2007). Sound control for improved outcomes in
healthcare settings. The Center for Health Design funded by Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation. Retrieved February 18. 2007. from
www.heaIthdesign.org/research/reports/sound.php.

Kaplan. R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: psychological beneﬁts.
Environment and Behavior. 33. 507-542.

Kaplan. R. & Kaplan. S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Katsouyanni. K. (2003). Ambient air pollution and health. British Medical Bulletin.
68. 143-156.

Kibert. C. J.. Sendzimir. J.. 5‘ Guy. G. B. (Eds). (2002). Construction Ecology:
Nature as the basis for green buildings. London & New York: Spoon Press.

Koop. C. E. (1986). The health consequences of involuntary smoking. A report of
the Surgeon General. Rockville. MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Public Health Service. Centers for Disease Control. Center for Health
Promotion and Education. Ofﬁce of Smoking and Health.

Kroelinger. M. D. (2005). Daylighting in buildings: guidelines for design
professionals. Retrieved September 05. 2006. from
http://www.informedesign.umn.edu.

La Garce. M. (2004). Daylighting interventions and Alzheimer’s behaviors: a
twelve-month study. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 21. 257-269.

laporte. P. 8.. Elliott. E.. & Banta. J. (2001). Prescriptions for a Healthy House.
British Columbia. Canada: New Society Publishers.

LaTorre. M. A. (2003). The use of music and sound to enhance the therapeutic
setting. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 39. 129-132.

Lau. M. March 23. (2000). Sound health: Health professionals tuning into music
therapy. NurseWeek. 1-4.

Leather. P.. Beale. D.. & Sullivan L (2003). Noise. psychosocial stress and their
interaction in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23. 213-222.

Lechner. N. (1991). Heating. Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods of Architects. New
York. N.Y.: Wiley.

98

Lee. S.. Haghighat. F.. & Ghaly. W. S. (2005). A study on VOC source and sink
behavior in porous building materials: analytical development and assessment.
indoor Air. 15. 183-196.

Leech. J. A.. Raizenne. M. & Gusdorf. J. (2004). Health in occupants of energy
efﬁcient new homes. indoor Air. 14. 169-173.

LeGates. R. T. & Stout. F. (2003). The City Reader (3rd Ed.) New York: Routledge.

Levin. H. (1997). Systematic evaluation and assessment of building environmental
performance (SEABEP). paper for presentation to “Buildings and Environment”.
Paris. 9-12 June. 1997.

Looker. P. A. & Stichler. J. F. (2003). Healing environments. Marketing Health
Services. 23. 12-13.

Loomis. D.. Marshall. S. W.. Wolf. S. H.. Runyan. C. W.. & Butts. J. D. (2002).
Effectiveness of safety measures recommended for prevention of workplace
homicide. JAMA. 287. 1011-17.

Luquette. A. J.. Landiss. C. W.. & Merki. D. J. (1970). Some immediate effects of a
smoking environment on children of elementary school age. Journal of School
Health. 30. 533-536.

Lynch. K. (1960). The image of the City. Cambridge. Mass. and London. England:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the President and Fellows of Harvard
College.

Macher. J. M. (2001). Evaluation of a procedure to isolate culturable
microorganisms from carpet dust. indoor Air. 11. 134-140.

Mack. M. L (1994). Understanding spirituality in counseling psychology:
Considerations for research. training. and practice. Counseling and Values. 39.
15-31.

Madsen. J. J. (2006). Acoustics: Absorb. block and cover. Buildings. 100. 57-60.

Mahnke F. H. & Mahnkie R. H. (1993). Color and Light in Man-made
Environments. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.

Manzo. L C. (2005). For better or worse: exploring multiple dimensions of place
meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25. 67-86.

99

Mayer. F. S.. & Frantz. C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a
measure of individual’s feeling in community with nature. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 24. 503-515.

McDonough. W. & Braungart. M. (2002). Redeﬁning green (Electronic Version).
Perspective. Spring 2003. Retrieved May 21. 2007.
from http://F:\McDonough_com%20%20Redeﬁning%2OGreen.htm

Mehrabian. A. & Russell. J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

Moeller. N. (2005). Sound masking in healthcare environments. Healthcare
DESigno 59 29'35.

Nafstad. P.. Oie. L. Mechl. R.. Gaarder. P. l.. Lodrup-Carlsen. K. C.. Botten. G. et
al. (1998). Residential dampness problems and symptoms and signs of bronchial
obstruction in young Norwegian children. American Journal of Repsiratory Critical
Care Medicine. 157. 410-414.

Nascar. J. L. & Preiser. W.F. (1999). Directions in Person-Environment Research
and Practice. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Nicklas. M. H. & Bailey. G. B. (1996). Analysis of the performance of students in
daylit schools. In Proceedings of the 22st National Passive Solar Conference.
Boulder. CO: American Solar Energy Society.

Nussbaumer. L L (2005). Multiple chemical sensitivity. implications. 3. 1-6.

Ofﬁce of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) (2001). Air Toxics
Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part iii. The Determination of
Chronic Reference Exposure Levels-22 Chemicals. OEHHA. California
Environmental Protection Agency. Up-to-date information available at
http://oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/.

Opatz. J. P. (Ed). (1986). Wellness promotion strategies: Selected proceedings of
the eighth annual National Wellness Conference. Dubuque. IA: KendalVHunt.
Painter. K. A. & Farrington. D. P. (2001). The ﬁnancial beneﬁts of improved street
lighting based on crime reduction. Lighting Res. Technology. 33. 3-12.

Pellerin N.. & Candas. V. (2004). Effects of steady-state noise and temperature
conditions on environmental perception and acceptability. indoor Air. 14. 129-
136.

100

Peterson. C.. Maier. S.. & Seligman. M. E. P. (1993). Learned Helpiessness. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Persinger. M. S.. Ludwig H. W.. & Koren. S. A. (1999). Background sound pressure
ﬂuctuations (5dB) from overhead ventilation systems increase subjective fatigue of

university students during three-hour lectures. Perceptual 6' Motor Skills. 88. 451-
456.

Phillips. D. (2004). Daylighting: Natural Lighting in Architecture. Oxford.
England: Architectural Press.

Pilatowicz. Grazyna. (1995). Eco-interiors. A Guide to Environmentally Conscious
interior Design. Canada: John \Xfrley & Sons. Inc.

Pommer. L. Flck. J.. Sundell. J.. Nilsson. C.. SjOstrOm. M.. Stenberg. B.. &
Anderson. 8. (2004). Class separation of buildings with high and low prevalence
of SBS by principal component analysis. indoor Air. 14. 16-23.

Poulton. E. C. (1977). Continuous noise masks auditory feedback and inner
speech. Psychological Bulletin. 88. 3-32.

pprAE Plus VOC Detector Monitor. Retrieved April 18 2007. from
http://www.raewywtems.com/~raedocs?Data_Sheets/pprAE_Plus.pdf

Pruss. A.. Kay. D.. Fetrell. L. & Bartram. J. (2002). Estimating the burden of
disease form water. sanitation and hygiene at a global level. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 110. 537-42.

Raw. G. J. (2000). How do we know what people think of their building?
Proceedings of Healthy Buildings. 1. 41 ~52.

Redlich. C. A.. Sparer.. J. & Cullen. M. R. (1997). Sick-building syndrome. The
Lancet. 349. 1013-1017.

Rehwagn. M.. Schlink. U.. & Herbarth O. (2003). Seasonal cycle of VOC’s in
apartments. indoor Air, 13. 283-291. .

Richardson. G.. Eick. S.. & Jones. R. (2005). How is the indoor environment
related to asthma? Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 52. 328-339.

Rintala. H.. Hyvarinen. A.. Paulin L. & Nevalainen. A. (2004). The detection of
streptomycetes in house dust- comparison of culture and PCR methods. indoor
Air. 14. 112-119.

101

Rogan. R. O’Connor. M. & Horwitz. P. (2005). Nowhere to hide: awareness and
perceptions of environmental change. and their inﬂuence on relationships with
place. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25. 147-158.

Rosenstreich. D. L. Eggleston. P.. Kattan. M.. Baker. D.. Slavin. R. G. & Gergen.
P.. et al. (1997). The role of cockroach allergy and exposure to cockroach allergen
in causing morbidity among inner-city children with asthma. New England Journal
of Medicine. 336. 1356-1363.

Ruckard. P. 2.. Orr. M. F.. & Kaye. W. E. (2004). Hazardous-chemical releases in
the home. Journal of Environmental Health. 67. 14—19.

Rumchev. K.. Spickett. J.. Bulsara. M.. Phillips. M.. & Stick. S. (2002). Domestic
exposure to formaldehyde signigicantly increases the risk of asthma in young
children. Europe Respiratory Journal. 20. 403-408.

Russell. M.. Cole. P.. & Brown. E. (1973). Absorption by non-smokers of carbon
monoxide from room air polluted by tobacco smoke. Lancet. 1. 576-579.

Sakr. W.. Weschler. C. J.. & Fanger. P. O. (2006). The impact of sorption on
perceived indoor air quality. indoor Air. 16. 98-110.

Savolaine. J. & Granello. P. F. (2002). The function of meaning and purpose for
individual wellness. Journal of Humanistic Counseling. Education and
Development. 41. 178-190.

Schwarz. J. (1994). What are people dying of on high air pollution days?
Environmental Research. 64. 26-39.

Schweitzer. M.. Gilpin. M.. & Frampton. S. (2004). Healing spaces: elements of
environmental design that make an impact on health. Journal of Alternative and
complementary medicine. 10. S-71-S-83.

Sheridan. T. & Van Lengen. K. (2003). Hearing architecture: Exploring and
designing the aural environment. Journal of Architectural Education. 57. 3744.

Sherman. M. H.. & Hodgson. A. T. (2004). Formaldehyde as a basis for residential
ventilation rates. indoor Air. 14. 2-8.

Sherman. S. A.. Shepley. M. M. & Vami. J. W. (2005). Children’s environments
and health-related quality of life: evidence informing pediatric healthcare
environment design. Children. Youth and Environments. 15. 186-223.

102

Sheskin. D. J. (2004). Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical
Procedures (3rd Ed.). Boca Raton. Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Simonds. J. O. (1994). Garden Cities 21: Creating a Livable Urban Environment.
New York. NY: McGraw-Hill. Inc.

Soneryd. L (2004). Hearing as a way of dwelling: the active sense-making of
environmental risk and nuisance. Environmental and Planning D: Society and
Space. 22. 737-753.

Staats. H. & Hartig. T. (2004). Alone or with a friend: A social for psychological
restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
24. 199-211.

Stockbridge-Pratt. D. (1999. May 30). Breathe easy: A healthy house is an
energy-efﬁcient house. says innovative builder Brain Pruett. Sarasota Herald
Tribune. p11.

Stone. N. J. (2003). Environmental view and color for a simulated telemarketing
task. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23. 63-78.

Stone. N. J. & English. A. (1998). Task type. posters. and workspace color on
mood. satisfaction. and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18.
175-185.

Stone. N. J. & Irvine. J. M. (1994). Direct or indirect window access. task type.
and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 14. 57-63.

Sundstrom. E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in
oﬁices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Susanka. S. (2004). Home by Design. Newtown. CT: The Tauton Press. Inc.

Sullivan. J. M. & Flannagan. M. J. (1999). Assessing the potential beneﬁt of
adaptive headiighting using crash databases. University of Michigan Transportation
Research institute Report UMTRi-99-21. Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan.
1999.

Sweeney. T.J.. & Witmer. J.M. (1991). Beyond social interest: Striving toward
optimum health and wellness. individual Psychology. 47. 527-540.

Taylor. S.. Repetti. R.. & Seeman. T. (1997). Heath psychology: What is an
unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin? Ann Rev. Psychology.
48. 411-417.

103

Tennessen. C. M. & Cimprich. B. (1995). Views to Nature: Effects on attention.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15. 77-85.

TSI DUSTI’RAK Aerosol Monitor. Retrieved April 18. 2007. from
http://www.tsi.com/Product.aspx?Pid=11

TSI Q-Trak Plus Indoor Air Quality Monitor. Retrieved April 18. 2007. from
http://www.tsi.com/Product.aspx?Pid=19

Tobias. M. & Cowan. G. (Eds). (1996). The Soul of Nature. New York: Penguin
Books.

Travemier. G. O. G.. Fletcher. G. 0.. Francis. H. C.. Oldham. L A.. Fletcher. A.
M.. Blacklock. 6.. Stewart. L. Gee. l.. Watson. A.. Frank. T. L. Frank. P..
Pickering. C. A. C.. & Niven. R. Mc. L. (2005). Endotoxin exposure in asthmatic
children and matched healthy controls: results of IPEADAM study. Indoor Air. 15.
25-32.

Tumey. T. (2005). Noise at work. The Safety 8 Health Practitioner. 23. 36-39.

Ulrich. R. S.. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: theory and recent
scientiﬁc research. Journal of Health Care Interior Design. 3. 97-109.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. A brief guide to mold. moisture.
and your home (EPA 402-k-02-003). Washington. DC: US Government Printing
Ofﬁce.

United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission Ofﬁce of Radiation and Indoor Air (6604J) (1995).
The inside story: A guide to indoor air quality (EPA # 402-k-93-007). Washington.
DC: US Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Wallenius. M. A. (2004). The interaction of noise stress and personal project stress
on subjective health. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24. 167-177.

Winterbauer. S. (1997). Multiple chemical sensitivity and the ADA: Taking a clear
picture of a blurry object. Employee Relations Law Journal. 2. 69-104.

Wamboldt. F. 5.. Ho. J.. Milgrom. H.. Wamboldt. M. 2.. Sanders. B.. Szeﬂer. S. J..
& Bender. B. G. (2002). Prevalence and correlates of household exposures to
tobacco smoke and pets in children with asthma. Journal Paediatric. 141. 109-115.

104

Warsco. K. & Lindsey. P. F. (2003). Proactive approaches for mold-free interior
environments. Archives of Environmental Health. 58. 512-523.

Waxman. L (2006). The coffee shop: Social and physical factors inﬂuencing place
attachment. Journal of Interior Design. 31. 35-53.

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). Environmental impact of buildings.
Retrieved October 29. 2006. from http://www.wbdg.org/design/sustainable.php?

Wikimedia Commons. Postmodern architecture. Retrieved April 19. 2007. from
http://www.answers.com/topic/postmodern-architecture.

Wilson. A. (2005). Making the case for green building: health and productivity
beneﬁts: building green is an opportunity to use resources efﬁciently while creating
healthier buildings. College Planning 8 Management. 8. 6-8.

Wu. P. C.. Li. Y. Y.. Chiang. C. M.. Huang. C. C.. Lee. F. C.. & Su. H. J. (2005).
Changing microbial concentrations are associated with ventilation performance in
Taiwan’s air-conditioned ofﬁce buildings. lndoor Air. 15. 19-26.

Zimpfer. DO. (1992). Psychosocial treatment of life-threatening disease: A
wellness model. Journal of Counseling 8 Development. 71. 203-209.

105

APPENDIX

106

Appendix A

Table A1. Five Sense Health Evaluations
For Residential Spaces

1-Sound-
Measure the decimals of the loudest sound outside the home at the
present time. Also. measure the decibels of the same sound inside
the house in the center of the main living area.
Decibels Inside

Decibels Outside
This measurement will help to determine the “sound nuance” inside

the house to outside the house.

Ask the participant:
Time of day of loudest noise

Type of noise heard

 

2-Touch-
Using surfaces of the environment (ceiling. ﬂoor. fabric. walls and
countertops). walk through the main living area. kitchen. and master
bedroom and bathroom in the home to determine the transition of
the surfaces mentioned above and how they ﬂow from one space to
the other. Determine if the surfaces used in the environment were
the right application for the space once in the space and consider the
function of the space. Give one point for each space if the
application was correct and felt good. and the transition was
acceptable with adjacent spaces. Give zero points if not comfortable.

Main Living Area

Ceiling Floor Fabric Walls Countertop
Kitchen

Ceiling Floor Fabric Walls Countertop
Master Suite

Ceiling Floor Fabric Walls Countertop
Bathroom

Ceiling Floor Fabric Walls Countertop

107

Table A1. (con’t)

3-Sight/light-
Using a light meter. measure the foot-candles of light from the
center of the main living area. kitchen. master bedroom and
bathroom at waist height (36” high) using no electricity. Add up the
number of foot-candles and divide by the number of rooms
evaluated to determine an average. A system will be developed to
be sure that the measurement of the light meter in each space will be
at the same height.

 

 

 

 

Main Living Area Kitchen
Master Suite Bathroom
3a-Sight/Scenery-

From certain windows in the home. stand back one meter (three
feet). and determine the percentage of the view to be natural and
the percentage of the view to be man made. Find the average for
the spaces by adding up the total percentages and divide by the
number of windows viewed. Rooms used will be: main living area.
kitchen and master bedroom and bath. All rooms in each space will
be viewed and evaluated.

Main Living Area-

 

 

Kitchen-

 

Master Suite-

 

Bathroom

 

 

108

Table A1. (con't)

3b-Sight/Anthropometrics
This evaluation concerns the movement of the human body to
perform a task with efﬁciency and comfort in the space intended.
Each space will be evaluated by the listed criteria below. One point
will be given for an effective application and zero points for not.

Main Living Area- Seating area that allows for social interaction as
well as individual tasks. centered around at least one focal point.

 

 

Kitchen- A basic triangle is visualized between the stove. refrigerator
and sink for the best effective use of space.

 

 

Master Suite- The scale and placement of the bed with respect to the
master bathroom and closet placement.

 

 

Bathroom- Flexibility and available space that allows for movement
with consideration to placement of the sink. shower and toilet.

 

 

4-Taste-
Check the amount of total dissolved solids in the water in the house
by sampling the water from the kitchen sink. The water collected
will be tested fro concentration of particles. This will help to
determine purity of water in the home. Type of pipes in the house
will also be a consideration.

Sample collected in a new. clean container
Type of pipes in the house

Attached evaluation of water collected

 

109

Table A1. (con’t)

5-Smell-
Determine the air quality by standing in the center of the main living
area. kitchen and master bedroom and bath. The use of held hand
meters will help to determine the purity of the inside air. The Qtrak
can measure C02. CO. temperature and humidity. The TSI Dust
Track and RAE will measure PPB (particles per billion). This will help
to determine the concentration of foreign particles in the air. Each
device will be held in the center of the space to determine a reading.

Main Living Area-
Qtrak
TSI Dust Track RAE

Kitchen-

Qtrak
TSI Dust Track RAE

Master Suite-

Qtrak
TSl Dust Track RAE

Bathroom-

Qtrak
TSI Dust Track RAE

Outside air-

Qtrak
TSI Dust Track RAE

Information about the home to be evaluated:

City home is located in
Year home was built Square feet
Number of people living in the home
Number of pets living in home

 

Evaluated by Date

110

Table A2. Consent Form For Research Survey
Five Sense Health Evaluations

I am a graduate student at MSU. I am conducting a survey speciﬁc to my
thesis. I have a four-page research survey that I would like to use on this house. I
am going to use some hand held equipment for measuring sound and particles in
the indoor air. temperature and humidity. A light meter will be used to determine
the amount of natural light in interior spaces. I would like to obtain a sample of
water from the kitchen sink to determine the amount of particles in the water.

The data collected will be conﬁdential and used only for the purpose of
this thesis. No addresses for the participants will be documented or given out.
Therefore. there will be no information regarding the location of the home. or
value of the home be publicly released. No one will be notiﬁed of any
information that will effect the property value of the home. There will be nothing
left behind. and no tool collected will touch the homeowner. or the interior
environment. except the ﬂoor. Therefore. there are no risks or beneﬁts to the
homeowner. The purpose of this research survey is to collect and measure real
data for my thesis.

This participation on your part is totally voluntary. You may choose not to
participate at all. or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer
certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or
loss of beneﬁts. One copy of this consent form will go to you.

If there is anything found that is to be harmful to your health. you. the
homeowner. will be made aware of the concerns noticed. Because the researcher
is not an expert. the homeowner could be advised to seek expert advise if a
concern for public safety arises. This research survey is solely for the purpose of a
thesis. Broad. general results may be published.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant. or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this research study.
you may contact- anonymously. if you wish:

Peter Vasilenko. PhD. Chair of the University Committee on Research

Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: 517-355-2180.

Fax: 517-432-4503. email: ucrihs@msu.edu or

regular mail: 202 Olds Hall. East Lansing. MI 48824.
Investigator: Dr. Jon Burley. PhD

College of Planning. Design and Construction

MSU. E. Lansing. MI 48824

517-353-7880 email: burleyj@msu.edu
Researcher: Moma Hallsaxton. MSU Graduate student

I voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
Participant Date

111

   

Illlllllllllllllll