Perceptions in the U.S. building industry of the benefits and costs of improving indoor air quality. (4th March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hamilton, M.; Rackes, A.; Gurian, P. L.; Waring, M. S.
• Is Part Of: Indoor air. Volume 26:Number 2(2016:Apr.)
• Page Start: 318
• Page End: 330
• Publication Date: 2015-03-04
• Subjects: Building energy use -- Ventilation -- Filtration -- Stated preferences -- Investment decision‐making -- IAQ impacts; Indoor air pollution -- Periodicals; Sick building syndrome -- Periodicals; Ventilation -- Periodicals; 613.5
• DOI: 10.1111/ina.12192
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-6947

Abstract

Abstract: How building stakeholders (e.g. owners, tenants, operators, and designers) understand impacts of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and associated energy costs is unknown. We surveyed 112 stakeholders across the United States to ascertain their perceptions of their current IAQ and estimates of benefits and costs of, as well as willingness to pay for, IAQ improvements. Respondents' perceived IAQ scores correlated with the use of high‐efficiency filters but not with any other IAQ‐improving technologies. We elicited their estimates of the impacts of a ventilation–filtration upgrade (VFU), that is, doubling the ventilation rate from 20 to 40 cfm/person (9.5 to 19 l/s/person) and upgrading from a minimum efficiency reporting value 6 to 11 filter, and compared responses to estimates derived from IAQ literature and energy modeling. Minorities of respondents thought the VFU would positively impact productivity (45%), absenteeism (23%), or health (39%). Respondents' annual VFU cost estimates (mean = $257, s.d. = $496, median = $75 per person) were much higher than ours (always <$32 per person), and the only yearly cost a plurality of respondents said they would pay for the VFU was $15 per person. Respondents holding green building credentials were not more likely to affirm the IAQ benefits of the VFU and were less likely to be willing to pay for it.