Health, Energy and Thermal Comfort.

This study examined the impact of providing thermal control systems on occupants’ wellbeing in two particular European contexts, including a Norwegian cellular plan office with high levels of thermal control and a British open plan office with limited thermal control. The former provided each occupant with a personal office, within which openable windows, blinds, door and the ability to control the temperature was provided. In the Norwegian approach, personal differences in perceiving the thermal environment were respected and the architectural design of the building allowed each individual to set the thermal environment. In contrast, limited openable windows were provided for occupants seated around the perimeter of the building in the open plan office. The main strategy in the British approach was to provide a uniform thermal environment for all occupants according to the standard comfort zone. Natural ventilation was the main system, while in the Norwegian practice a combination of natural ventilation and air conditioning was in operation. As a result, the energy use of the Norwegian practice was much higher than the British practice. A field study of thermal comfort was applied. Survey questionnaires, environmental measurements and interviews were conducted. The Norwegian occupants reported much higher health rate up to 40% compared to those in the British practice. The follow up interviews revealed the importance of lack of thermal control on occupants’ wellbeing. A balanced appraisal was made of energy performance and users’ health between the two buildings.