Healthy Buildings

How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and

Productivity

JOSEPH G. ALLEN
JOHN D. MACOMBER

Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England
2020
  

Copyright © 2020 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College

All rights reserved
Cover artwork: Amin Yusifov / iStock / Getty Images Plus
Cover design: Jill Breitbarth

9780674237971 (cloth)
978-0-674-24608-9 (EPUB)
978-0-674-24609-6 (MOBI)
978-0-674-24610-2 (PDF)
The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:
Names: Allen, Joseph G., 1975– author. | Macomber, John D., author.
Title: Healthy buildings : how indoor spaces drive    performance and productivity / Joseph G. Allen,
John D. Macomber.
Description: Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2020. | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019044954
Subjects: LCSH: Industrial productivity—Effect of technological    innovations on. | Industrial
buildings—Health aspects. | Sustainable    buildings.
Classification: LCC HC79.I52 A55 2020 | DDC 363.11—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019044954
  

Contents

Preface: Why This Book?

I. THE CASE FOR HEALTHY BUILDINGS

  1.  Who Are We and Why Should You Care?

  2.  The Global Mega-changes Shaping Our World, Our Buildings, and Us
  3.  Why Are We Ignoring the 90 Percent?
  4.  Putting the Building to Work for You
  5.  Creating and Capturing Value

II. A HEALTHY BUILDING STRATEGY

  6.  The 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building

  7.  Our Global Chemical Experiment
  8.  Healthy Building Certification Systems
  9.  Moving from KPIs to HPIs
10.  Beyond the Four Walls
11.  What’s Now and What’s Next?
Conclusion: Buildings, Business, Health, and Wealth
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index
  

Preface
Why This Book?

Finding shelter is one of the most primal human needs, right alongside food
and water. But we are long past the time when shelter was a place to return
to after a day of foraging—when it meant a roof over our heads and not
much more. In that long-gone era, we spent all of our time outdoors. Today,
these “shelters” are the places where we live, work, learn, play, rest, and
recuperate. Over several millennia, humans have evolved from an outdoor
species into an indoor one.
Yet despite the fact that buildings are now central to our lives and
livelihoods, the quality of the air we breathe inside them is generally an
afterthought. Have you ever seen a news story about outdoor air pollution?
Yes, of course. Every day. Have you ever read a story about indoor air
pollution? Rarely, if ever. We spend a great deal of our time worrying about
outdoor pollution, yet it’s the indoor environment that has the greatest
impact on our health.
Most buildings today have been designed to optimize specific functions.
Their “health worthiness” is defined by a variety of building codes: there
are standards for sanitation, electrical wiring, fireproofing, lighting and
ventilation, access, and many other things. A quick glance at the history of
urban form suggests that aesthetics, comfort, and grandeur are important to
us as well.
At some level we all know that indoor environments influence how we
feel and perform because every one of us has experienced a poor-
performing indoor space, be it a stuffy conference room or a friend’s house
that makes you sneeze as soon as you walk in the door. There are office
buildings that give you an immediate and visceral reaction—“THIS is a place
I want to work,” or “Get me out of here.” What has been elusive is piecing
it all together.
We have good news to share: there are easy ways to make a building
“healthy.” Even better, Healthy Building strategies are good business
strategies. Because it turns out that the true cost of operating our buildings
is not energy, waste, and water (the drivers of the “green” building
movement); it’s the people inside. So when we make our buildings healthy,
we make the people in those buildings healthier and more productive, and
that translates into a healthier bottom line.
This convergence of health science, building science, and business
science is revealing what is perhaps the greatest untapped business and
health opportunity of our time.
As the green building movement transitions to the Healthy Building
movement, savvy business leaders can capitalize on this once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity by tapping into the science underpinning these three previously
siloed disciplines. As you will soon see, it turns out that Healthy Building
strategies are a win-win value proposition for all stakeholders: business
leaders, workers, investors and developers, and the public.
For business leaders: You know better than anyone that you are in a global competition for
talent. What you may not recognize is that you can use your building to attract and retain the
best and the brightest. And then, once your organization has invested so much in attracting
talent, you can manage your building to optimize the performance of that talent. This book
reveals the secret to capturing the value locked up in your building’s most important and
expensive asset: the people you hire. Are you using your building as a Human Resources tool?

For workers: Prospective employees ask questions about the nature of their responsibilities,
their boss, their salary, and how much vacation time they will get. Now it’s time to ask
questions about the one thing that will have the biggest impact on your health and performance:
the place where you will be working. What are your building managers doing to optimize your
indoor environment? Are they tracking indicators of environmental quality and taking
corrective action when something is “off”? Are they simply meeting minimum performance
requirements, or are they adopting strategies that promote your well-being? Are you
interviewing your building?

For investors and developers: The green building movement is giving way to the Healthy
Building movement, and for good reason. The green building movement was largely built
chasing monetary savings from energy savings. By one estimate, over $7 trillion in real estate
institutional capital tracks the performance of green buildings. Yet this investment was driven
by chasing 1 percent of the cost to operate our buildings—energy, waste, and water. But we
 don’t build buildings to save energy; we build them for people. Is your investment future-
proofed for the coming Healthy Buildings movement?

For all of us on this planet: Buildings affect our health through their intimate relationships with
our energy system and the changing climate. Global energy production is dominated by fossil
fuel use, and buildings consume 40 percent of that energy. In some places, like New York City,
it’s close to 80 percent. Energy-saving features in buildings therefore come with a health co-
benefit in terms of reduced emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Does your
building come with a public health benefit?

In this book we bring together 40 years of health science, building

science, and business science to explain why buildings matter so much for
our health and wealth. The three disciplines have been historically treated
as separate, but they are in fact inextricably linked. We provide the hard,
scientific evidence to make the business case for Healthy Buildings, while
showing in practical terms how buildings can be used to create this win-win
value proposition for owners, occupants, developers, and society. In this
book we will show you exactly how you can unlock this value proposition
by providing answers to questions that the market is asking:
What is a Healthy Building, anyway? How do Healthy Building strategies affect the
performance of my company? What is driving this movement? How will smart buildings
intersect with Healthy Buildings? How do we create and capture value by mapping investments
to benefits? Can we scale this globally?

These are just a few of the questions we will tackle as we show you how
to unlock the potential of your buildings to create economic value and
improve human health and performance.
 
 PART I

The Case for Healthy Buildings

 
CHAPTER ONE

Who Are We and Why Should You

Care?
The first wealth is health.
—RALPH WALDO EMERSON

John’s Awakening
I was born to build. Before I could talk, I had trucks and bulldozers in a
cornmeal mini-sandbox in the kitchen. I regaled my infant sister by stacking
up cantilevered block structures from floor to ceiling. How much width can
we get off a single block base? How few units to reach the ceiling?
This aptitude for building is in my DNA, one could say. In 1904 my
great-grandfather left a big national construction firm to establish the
George B. H. Macomber Company. He built the first structural steel
building in Boston (it’s now called 79 Milk Street) and the Weld Boathouse
at Harvard before there was a bridge across the Charles River.
The firm passed from father to son in 1927, and then my own father
bought the family business in 1959. One of his early projects, the hexagonal
“waffle” slab floors at the Yale Art Museum, showcased his ability to think
in three dimensions across time. He had to imagine how the finished
concrete would look, where the reinforcing steel would go, and (upside
down and backward) how the plywood should end up so that he could
effectively strip it from the underside without ripping it apart.
My siblings and I bought the family business in 1990 and picked up
where Dad left off. I designed formwork for cast-in-place buildings, where
stairs might alternate above and below a continuous sidewall made of the
same monolithic concrete pour. No easy feat, but the logic of the puzzle
appealed to me, just as it had to my father.
 My father and I were both natural physical-world problem solvers, and
the projects we worked on included high-rise apartment buildings, data
centers, and total mechanical rehabilitation of operating hospitals or
museums where the walls themselves were part of the collection. I was the
chairman and principal stockholder of the George B. H. Macomber
Company for about 15 years, working alongside my siblings. We built
landmarks all over New England for clients including MIT, Fidelity, State
Street, Mass General Hospital, Children’s Hospital, the Isabella Stewart
Gardner Museum, and the Institute of Contemporary Art. We also built
dozens of office structures, apartments, and stores for commercial real
estate developers.
By 2006, the construction business had become exceptionally
competitive, adversarial, and low margin in Boston. I wanted to be a
builder, not a full-time litigator and collector of accounts receivable. So my
siblings and I sold the business, after four generations and 102 years, and I
embarked on a second career as a teacher.
When I first came to Harvard Business School (HBS), I taught two
courses. One was Real Property, which is essentially Real Estate 101: how
to finance, buy, and flip an office building. It’s taught in the Finance unit at
HBS and has an investor-focused orientation. My other course was Real
Estate Development, Design, and Construction, jointly listed with Harvard
Design School, which got more into the “bricks and sticks” aspect of the
industry. I found them both rewarding, of course, but there is not a lot of
new academic work going into the purchasing of ceiling tile or the
refinancing of an apartment building.
Then two things happened. First, HBS started offering executive
education in real estate in India. I was the program chair and I made many
trips to India to teach but, more importantly, to do research and write. The
subjects of my HBS case studies ranged from water franchising in Gujarat
in the Northwest to the redevelopment of informal housing in Mumbai, to
low-income housing development in Kolkata in the East, and infrastructure
finance nationwide.
It was quite clear that building promoters in India could not rely on the
state to provide reliable infrastructure like electricity, consistent clean water,
steady sanitation services … or even roads. What’s more, the tools I grew
up with—cash flow, concrete, hardhats, and structural visualization—
applied just as much to horizontal infrastructure as to my personal
experience in vertical buildings. (Most commercial real estate and
institutional construction is classified by the US Commerce Department as
“light general building”—even skyscrapers and museums—and it is mostly
vertical. The other category is heavy construction and civil works like
roads, power lines, pipelines, and airports, which are largely horizontal;
power plants and refineries also are in this “heavy construction” category.)
Beyond environmental issues, it was clear that the government could not
provide housing for everyone; but in certain configurations, the private
sector could. My HBS case study “Dharavi: Developing Asia’s Largest
Slum” is now used in dozens of schools and was featured in the Wall Street
Journal and other outlets. It looks at how public-private partnerships can be
used to improve housing for low- and middle-income groups.1
At the same time, I became more and more involved with the Harvard
University Center for the Environment and with the HBS Business and
Environment Initiative. I’m not qualified to discuss policy issues like how
much atmospheric carbon dioxide might lead to how much global warming,
and I don’t have the background to discuss COP 222 and the
implementation of the Paris accords. So how could I help move the needle?
It turns out that what I am highly qualified to think about is money and
construction: notably, how to get trillions of dollars of private capital off the
sideline to make high-impact investments in water, sanitation, roads, power,
and mass transit that will impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Public health is obviously directly connected to society’s success in
answering this call.
My research today focuses on cities and buildings. There are several
reasons for this: First, cities generate most of the world’s gross domestic
product. Second, cities also generate most of the world’s greenhouse gases.
Third, cities tend to be the political units that can act. Mayors and city
councilors are often closer to their voters, are held more accountable, and
can do a lot by thoughtful use of city contracts, zoning, codes, and more.
And finally, cities are the right size for private investors: they get how to
invest in a road or bridge or power plant or cell tower network at a city
scale in a way that’s near impossible to implement at a federal level in a
country any larger than Singapore, Israel, or Panama.
 Cities are, of course, all about the people who live and work in them. But
the hard assets create the framework for these people to thrive. So I look at
the design, finance, and delivery of hard assets, including energy and
transportation, water and sanitation, and information and communications
technology infrastructure. At the center of cities, of course, are buildings.
This led me to two frustrating paradoxes.
The first is the “infrastructure paradox.” One hears a lot about the
“infrastructure paradox” in meetings of infrastructure investors,
multilaterals like the World Bank, and academics. Here’s what it is.
According to Deutsche Bank, there are more than $50 trillion dollars of
financial assets invested in the fixed-income portion of the global financial
system (from wealthy individuals, pension funds, insurance companies,
endowments, and sovereign investment funds)—all seeking yield and
currently earning only about 3 percent returns (the current US Treasury
bond yields).3 At the same time, there are hundreds if not thousands of
seemingly worthy, cash-flow-positive, society-benefiting projects in the
infrastructure space. How can we match up the capital and the need to make
these projects “bankable”? My HBS course Sustainable Cities and Resilient
Infrastructure explores the opportunities, mechanisms, and controls for this.
A lot of it has to do with the perception and allocation of risk.
The second paradox is even more vexing. Call it the “healthy real estate
investing paradox.” As a society, we are wasting money on bad buildings
… and we are wasting lives in bad buildings. To be blunt, the air in our
buildings makes us sick and saps our productivity.
This paradox is not about uncertainties at the project level—defaults,
accidents, or cash flow problems. It’s about who needs to take what action
to make the right long-term engineering investments. Who needs to make
what choice to make the right operating decisions? Who benefits in the long
run from health—and can investors capture some of that benefit?
Until recently, the benefits of Healthy Buildings have been so abstract
that it’s been hard to make an investment case for them. Even now, the
incentives for lenders, landlords, tenant companies, and employees have not
been aligned. But new quantitative research shows in an objective and
reproducible way that our cognitive abilities, health, productivity, and well-
being are directly impacted by decisions in the engineering, operations, and
running of our buildings.
 This is an exciting new way to look at the business models underlying
the physical structures where we all spend our time. It’s a way to map
tangible health interventions onto our financial models. But before I could
make progress, I felt I needed to know more about the science of a Healthy
Building.
That’s why I sought out Joe.

Joe’s Awakening
Like John, I followed in my parents’ footsteps. Kind of.
My dad was a homicide detective in New York, and a good one—winner
of Detective of the Year in the mid-1980s. When he retired after 20 years on
the force, he started a private investigation company. He did the fieldwork
and my mom kept the books. So my late childhood and early adulthood
were spent being a private investigator. Although I never had a Ferrari like
Magnum, PI, I spent my days running across the five boroughs of New
York doing surveillance, undercover stings, forensic investigations, and skip
tracing. (“Skip tracing” is the industry term for the practice of tracking
people down to find out where they live, work, and generally spend their
time and money. The term comes from the practice of trying to trace the
whereabouts of someone who has skipped town.) My PI background is a
not-so-secret secret. But be forewarned: if this compels you to Google “Joe
Allen private investigator Boston,” you will stumble onto a scandal. That
Joe Allen is not me! No relation.
I did this private investigation work through college and after, and when
our best client signed my dad up to be their head of security, my brother and
I took over the business. I loved it. But I always knew I was a scientist at
heart. So while I was a PI, I started applying to graduate schools in
environmental science. And, to hedge my bet on the science career, I also
applied to the FBI.
I was darn close to heading to Quantico to become a Special Agent, too.
They liked my application and invited me to take a multihour written exam,
which I passed. I then submitted a 50-page dossier about everyone I ever
knew and interacted with (they contacted many of them, if not all). After
that I was selected to advance to the next round and was flown to
Philadelphia for an all-day grilling by a roundtable of FBI Special Agents.
This was followed by another exam, this one involving combing through
lengthy documents and piecing together a cogent argument on financial
fraud. I passed that, too.
My last two tests before heading off to become a Special Agent were
going to be easy—a polygraph test and then a fitness test. I’d been training
for months for the fitness test and was ready, so the polygraph was the last
real hurdle.
I failed it. Before you go thinking I was the first incarnation of Paul
Manafort hiding some secret life of crime, I was really the victim of an
unskilled examiner. In a polygraph exam, you’re hooked up to the machine,
and after the formal set of questions, the examiner comes around the table
and engages in small talk. You’re still hooked up to the machine, obviously,
but the ploy is to get you to think the test is over. Then, the examiner
continues the conversation. Well, my examiner started in on a series of
laughably preposterous scenarios designed to make me feel at ease about
opening up about some nefarious secrets I might be hiding.
“Hey Joe, I have a friend who’s got a friend who’s a dentist, and that guy
gets him prescription drugs on the side. It’s really not a big deal, so you can
just tell me and I’ll keep it confidential. Is that what you’re doing?”
Me: “Um, no,” trying to keep from laughing out loud.
“Hey Joe, I have a friend who is on an antigovernment internet forum
under a pseudonym. It’s no big deal, we’re all entitled to our opinions, right,
so why don’t you tell me and we’ll get back to the exam. Is that what you’re
doing?”
And on and on. We covered sex, drugs, rock and roll, communism, and
everything in between. Each topic followed the same pattern: “Hey Joe, my
friend is doing _____. It’s no big deal. Is that what you’re doing?”
Naturally, I formally appealed after I learned I had failed. My FBI
handler agreed with the appeal. As a result, the FBI literally flew in their
top interrogator from Iraq to retest me. (Didn’t he have better things to do?)
The guy they brought in was right out of central casting—a six-foot-six-
inch-tall hulking mass of a man with a mean scowl. He came in wearing his
ass-kicker boots, ready to beat the hell out of me mentally (while trying to
physically intimidate me).
We did the same tests, but this guy was skilled. None of the silly
scenario stuff. His approach was to be as intimidating as possible. But I
stayed calm, even when he got up and stood two inches from my nose and
yelled at me. He kept saying, “I know what you’re doing, so cut the
bullshit!” And all I could think was, “I don’t know what you’re talking
about, but weirdly I’m finding this fun!”
I stayed cool. I figured this was part of the test—seeing how I would
respond to intense intimidation. After it was all over, I was certain I had
passed, even as he continued his tirade while leading me out of the
examination room, screaming at me in front of hundreds of other Special
Agents and nearly hitting me in the back as he slammed the main door on
me. I thought this slamming of the door was the big finale of the test, so I
remained very calm and collected, thinking, “Nice try, but you can’t rattle
me.” I half-expected the door to reopen with him standing there smiling,
telling me I’d won, kind of like Willy Wonka at the end of the Charlie and
the Chocolate Factory movie.
Well, the door didn’t reopen. They failed me again. This time they failed
me for performing “countermeasures.” Which, of course, is ludicrous. I
have no idea what a polygraph countermeasure would be. I didn’t know
then and don’t know today. I did learn one thing that day though—I came
away with a healthy dose of skepticism about the misapplication of
“science.”
The crazy thing was, the same day I took and failed the polygraph for the
second time was the first day of classes for my graduate program in public
health. I guarantee I’m the only public health student ever to fail an FBI
polygraph in the morning and start graduate school a few hours later. I
sometimes wonder if I would’ve gone to that first class if the FBI had
passed me earlier that day …
I think I would have been a pretty good FBI Special Agent, but I’m
really glad that guy screwed up in failing me on that polygraph test. It led
me to my true calling and passion. Oddly enough, it was still in the field of
forensic investigations.
It was during one of my first forensic investigations of a “sick building”
that I first saw the power and potential of this burgeoning Healthy Buildings
movement. This was no ordinary case of sick building syndrome; it wasn’t
a stuffy cubicle farm where people sometimes report symptoms like
headaches, eye irritation, dizziness, or allergic reactions. I don’t mean to
diminish those types of sick buildings in any way, but this was a hospital
and the lives of four people were in jeopardy.
It was Grady Hospital in Atlanta in 2009. Four patients on the same two
floors had developed Legionnaires’ disease within the same month: a
classic disease outbreak scenario.
Before we go any further with how the Grady Hospital outbreak
unfolded, let me give you some quick background on Legionnaires’ disease,
a disease that to this day continues to impact many thousands of Americans
every year, in and around buildings. Legionnaires’ disease is pretty
common—7,500 cases are reported each year, but this is a gross
underestimate of the actual number of cases. Legionnaires’ disease is
underdiagnosed and underreported. It’s also a deadly disease—1 in 10
people who get it die.4
Legionnaires’ disease was first “discovered” after the infamous outbreak
at the convention of the American Legion at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in
1976. Over the course of a few days, 2,000 people became sick with a
severe, life-threating type of pneumonia. Twenty-nine of those people died.
The scariest part? No one knew the cause. The other 10,000 people who
attended the convention were, rightfully, in a panic about their own health.
This was front-page-of-Newsweek-type stuff. (In the age before the rise of
internet news, making the cover of Newsweek was a big deal.)
The disease was dubbed “Legionnaires’ disease” because of the location
of this outbreak—at the American Legion meeting, where members call
themselves Legionnaires. After several months of investigation, the US
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified the cause of the
outbreak: a bacterium in the building air-conditioning system that they
named—you guessed it—Legionella.
Legionella are naturally occurring waterborne bacteria that can cause a
pneumonia-like illness. Out in the natural world, where they are
everywhere, their numbers stay small. But given an environment where
water stagnates and where temperatures stay lukewarm, they proliferate.
That makes a few places in a building a nice home for Legionella. They like
to live, and grow, inside the biofilm in water pipes, inside cooling towers on
the roof of a building, or, in the case of that infamous American Legion
outbreak, in the condensate drains of air conditioners.
 Within a building (a hospital, for example), Legionella are also
commonly found in “dead legs” of a building’s plumbing system. Dead legs
are sections of the plumbing system areas where an old line was cut off, say,
during a renovation in which a water fountain was removed. Sometimes, for
reasons of efficiency, cost, laziness, or shortsightedness, rather than cutting
the water line all the way back to its joint in the plumbing system, the
building owner just caps the pipe where the fountain used to be and patches
up the wall. Thus, a dead leg is created.
The dead leg of the system is that extension of pipe that is no longer part
of the normal circulating water flow, so the water stagnates and stays
lukewarm. These are the perfect conditions for Legionella to grow. And
importantly, they grow in an area where they can’t be easily “attacked” by
residual disinfectant in the building’s water supply (traditionally chlorine),
and therefore they act as a source that continually feeds bacteria into the
main line of the water system.
But simply having Legionella in water doesn’t mean you’ll get sick from
it. The way we can get Legionnaires’ disease is by breathing in the bacteria.
So the mere presence of Legionella in a building doesn’t mean there’s a
problem; the bacteria must also be aerosolized, or released into the air in
tiny droplets. In the case of the American Legion outbreak, the bacteria
were aerosolized and distributed around the convention through the air-
conditioning system.
Since that time, we have done a much better job of controlling
Legionella in our cooling systems. (For the most part, anyway. Outbreaks
still frequently occur, like the outbreak in Disneyland in 2017 that impacted
22 people, or the outbreak in Portugal in 2014 that sickened 336 and killed
10.) And in most commercial buildings, there really aren’t many
opportunities indoors to aerosolize the water in any meaningful way, other
than through spray from the sink or postflush spray from the toilet. (Yes,
you read that right.) Hospitals, on the other hand, have a lot of opportunities
for aerosolizing water that other types of buildings don’t always have—
showers. (Hotels fall into this category, too, and there have been many high-
profile outbreaks in hotels.)
Now that you’re armed with the basics of Legionella, let’s go back to
Grady Hospital in Atlanta. When we sampled the water in the plumbing
lines, sure enough, we found Legionella in the water on the two floors
experiencing the outbreak.
To be fair, what happened at Grady Hospital wasn’t, and isn’t, all that
unusual. Legionella in buildings, including hospitals, is common. In fact, it
has been found in up to 90 percent of US hospitals, according to some
surveys.5 And having cases of Legionnaires’ disease isn’t all that unusual
either; remember, there are thousands of cases per year in the United States.
What was unusual about Grady Hospital was that four cases occurred on the
same two floors, in the same month. This was an outbreak.
The leadership team at Grady Hospital immediately recognized the
severity of the problem. After trying a few techniques that failed to fully
eradicate Legionella from the pipes on those two floors—like shocking the
water system with high levels of disinfectant—they hired the environmental
consulting firm Environmental Health & Engineering to take the lead. This
was the company I worked for right after getting my graduate degrees in
public health.
Our charge was to stop the outbreak. Pretty straightforward goal, but
pretty complicated in practice. (Of course, that’s why they hired us. As I
said to my team anytime we came across a tough project and there were
complaints about how hard or complex a particular project was, if it were
easy, they wouldn’t have called.) So there I was, newly minted “Dr.” Joe
Allen, with my fancy new degree, on a plane with the owner of the
consulting company, heading to Atlanta, Georgia, to help stop this outbreak.
The biggest problem, put to me by my astute wife as I packed my bags
for the trip, was this: “What the hell do you know about Legionnaires’
disease?” Solid question. She was right, of course. I had graduated from a
school of public health, but my dissertation was focused on toxic flame-
retardant chemicals found in products in your home and office. I had all of
30 minutes of formal lectures on Legionnaires’ disease in my graduate
coursework as part of an Introduction to Environmental Health seminar.
Now I was headed to work on an outbreak in a hospital where lives were at
stake. Was this gross negligence?
No, it wasn’t. I may not have had formal training on Legionella, true, but
I did have real expertise in my field, exposure and risk assessment science.
You may ask, “What does that even mean?” It means I was trained to
evaluate sources of exposures to chemicals and biological hazards;
understand how these toxics migrate through our air, water, and dust in
buildings; and figure out how they get into our body, what happens once
they are in our body, and how to mitigate the source of exposure. This, it
turns out, is precisely the skill set that comes in handy for investigating
Legionnaires’ disease—or any other sick building problem.
So I told my wife, “I got this. I’m just applying these exposure and risk
science tools to a new problem—bacteria in water.” I was saying this to
myself as much as to my wife. “I got this,” I said in my head, to build my
own confidence. And I had to be right, because the stakes were high.
But that was actually true then, and it’s still true today. I’ve added new
tools along the way, but what I did essentially describes my approach over
the course of my career: apply the fundamentals of exposure and risk
assessment science to any sick building problem. This has allowed me to
work with forensic teams to investigate and resolve hundreds of such
problems, from a breast cancer cluster in a commercial office building to a
concern about radon emitting from granite countertops. I’ve evaluated the
environmental causes of 11 infant deaths on a US military base and led an
investigation into the “Chinese Drywall” issue that plagued the Southwest
United States for several years around 2010.
But let’s get back to Grady Hospital. So there I was, sitting on that plane
to Atlanta next to my new boss, having read every single important
published research paper on Legionella since the 1970s over the past 24
hours. He had decades of experience doing this type of sick building work,
and together we were, and remain, quite a formidable team. By the time the
wheels touched down in Atlanta, we had a plan. Not just to stop the
outbreak, but to be sure it never happened again.
I can’t go into the details of what we did at Grady Hospital because of
confidentiality concerns—so far I’ve only given you publicly available
information—but I will tell you this: we stopped the outbreak. It was a
multipronged strategy that used a combination of point-of-use water filters;
additional shock treatments of the water system; a permanent chlorine
dioxide water treatment system; a rigorous monitoring campaign for
indicators of water quality like pH, temperature, and bacterial growth; and,
ultimately, upgrades to the hot water heaters and water circulation system.
The financial cost for all of this? Greater than $1 million but less than $5
million (I can’t disclose specifics). But that’s nothing compared with the
human toll and the cost in lost revenue from closing two floors of the
hospital for several months.
There were no new cases from the moment we were involved until the
moment the contract ended a few years later (and as far as I know, no new
outbreaks after we left). Of course, we didn’t do this alone. We had a team
supporting us, and we had a multistakeholder and multidisciplinary team
from Grady Hospital of administrators, nurses, infection control experts,
water disinfection experts, and doctors. And, most important of all, the
building engineers.
Building engineers and facilities managers are the true heroes of our
health. (As you’ll see, they are the reason why I often say, “The people who
manage your building have a greater impact on your health than you
doctor.”) At Grady Hospital, we spent countless hours in the belly of the
beast, poring over the plumbing plans and mapping the pipes in the
basement with these unsung heroes of Healthy Buildings.
I’m proud of our work at Grady Hospital. It was also a great period of
growth for me. I was trained in exposure and risk assessment science, but
what I didn’t get in my graduate studies at a school of public health was
formal training in a whole lot of building science. And yet, I was beginning
to see firsthand that solving the problems of sick buildings required a
merging of the skills of building science and health science. In the years
following this Legionnaires’ disease investigation, I learned building
science on the job by being part of, and leading, teams of building
engineers, mechanical engineers, toxicologists, epidemiologists,
statisticians, and exposure and risk experts, solving complex sick building
issues.
Consulting comes with an immediacy that is missing in academia, where
we end every peer-reviewed paper with the sentence, “More research is
needed.” In the real world, the question is, “Is it safe for people to be in that
hospital right now?” We are forced to make decisions with the best
information we have at that moment. For me, the final test on each project
was asking myself, “Would I give the same recommendation if my daughter
or wife worked in this building?” If the answer was ever no, I never gave
the all-clear.
Now, as a professor at Harvard, I’m trying to rectify what I saw as a
shortcoming in my own formal public health training. I teach a class that
merges building science and health science, to give our public health
students an understanding of the importance of the building that I never got.
And I operate with the same great sense of urgency that I learned in
consulting. I expect the same from everyone on my team. Written on the
wall in my lab is, “How will your research impact the world?” We publish
plenty of papers, teach many classes, and give frequent seminars. But how
we judge ourselves is all about impact.
Along the way I picked up new tools and skills. The most important of
these is the focus of this book: business science. And much like the Grady
Hospital Legionella outbreak, which opened my eyes to the power of my
training in exposure and risk, it was a different Legionnaires’ disease
project at a different hospital that opened my eyes to the importance of
paying attention to the economics of Healthy Buildings.
For this example, I can’t give you names, places, or dates, because I was
hired as an expert witness and the details remain confidential. But I’ll give
you big-picture details, with some names and places changed to protect the
client.
The setting was the same—a hospital experiencing an issue with
Legionnaires’ disease. But this time, someone died. (This is not that
uncommon with Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks. It turns out that, in
hospitals, about 40 percent of those exposed to Legionella develop
Legionnaires’ disease. This is what epidemiologists call the attack rate.
Then, once someone is sick [“attacked”], he or she has about a 10 percent
chance of dying from the disease. This is what epidemiologists call the
mortality rate.6)
As with Grady, I was hired as an expert to evaluate and advise the
hospital on the case. By this point, though, I was further along in my career
and a seasoned forensic investigator across many sick building issues,
having led several Legionella outbreak investigations and many dozens of
other projects. I reviewed the hospital’s approach and data and confirmed
that the hospital had taken appropriate corrective actions.
This hospital decided to settle the lawsuit with the patient’s family for
several million dollars. But what happened next shocked me. To this day, it
is stuck in the forefront of my brain, and it is one of the primary
motivations for my wanting to write this book.
 Someone had died. The hospital had just spent millions of dollars
settling this case, and a couple hundred thousand more on the many experts
who were involved in the investigation, me included. Being a good public
health scientist (and businessperson), I pitched the hospital on a proactive
Legionella risk management plan. Because of my experience with previous
hospital outbreaks, and the success of the plan we put in place at Grady
Hospital that led to no new outbreaks over four years, I was essentially
guaranteeing this hospital that they would not have another case of
Legionnaires’ disease while we were working for them.
The plan I pitched cost $20,000. That’s it. Against the backdrop of a
multimillion-dollar outlay (not to mention the damage to the brand from
bad press), I told the owner of the company I worked for that the proposal I
submitted was a done deal. In fact, we both thought we were underpricing
our service at $20,000. “This is too cheap for what we’re offering,” we
thought. We rationalized that this would simply be one of many Legionella
risk management plans the company could pitch to hospitals around the
country.
We were dead wrong. To my shock, the hospital balked at our proposal.
Why? They told me that the price was too high. What?! I was flabbergasted.
The public health scientist in me could not understand this in any rational
way. How could a hospital that had just had a patient die, a hospital that had
just spent millions, not go for a $20,000 plan that would guarantee it would
not happen again?
The answer, it turns out, is that I was naïve about the economic drivers
of decision-making in buildings and business. What I failed to recognize,
but learned after some digging, is that the millions of dollars in settlements
were paid by the insurance company, but our $20,000 risk management plan
would come out of the facilities budget.
An aha moment for me, for sure. The hospital wasn’t paying the
settlement to the family of the patient who had died. (Maybe in some way
through higher insurance premiums, but the reality is that this one case is a
small drop in the bucket in relation to the many factors that set their
insurance premiums.) But the $20,000? Well, it turned out that was a big
line item in the facilities team’s budget, and it wasn’t something they could
afford. After all, “patient health” wasn’t their charge—that was the purview
of the doctors and nurses, right?
 Thus came my introduction to the issue of split incentives. For this
hospital, the issue reveals itself in misalignment between the goals of the
facilities team and those of the business, and a split incentive between the
business and the insurer.
Of course, the issue of split incentives is not the exclusive domain of
hospitals. Split incentives pop up all over the place in this Healthy
Buildings conversation. Real estate investors, owners, developers, and
tenants all have different goals, which creates disincentives for investing in
Healthy Building strategies. It’s a topic that we will repeatedly come back
to in this book, along with ideas for how to present win-win solutions
designed to overcome split incentives.
Seeing these split incentives as a barrier to the adoption of Healthy
Building strategies over and over is the primary reason why I have made it
a goal to spend more time connecting my research on health to a business
argument.
This is why I sought out John.

Driving Research into Practice

We partnered up and have been talking with business leaders together for
several years now. It seems that with every new conversation, many of
these leaders are surprised to learn about all of the information and tools
that are at their disposal from the health and business worlds, information
that could greatly help them but that has not permeated beyond the halls of
academia—even some of what we consider the basics.
Here’s an example. Joe was at a conference giving a speech titled “The
Nexus of Green Buildings, Global Health and the U.N. Sustainable
Development Goals.” The presentation wound its way through scientific
data showing how buildings are at the center of our sustainable urbanization
efforts, covering everything from indoor health to environmental health. On
the latter point, Joe mentioned that buildings were major contributors to air
pollution, as most of the energy they use comes from fossil fuel sources.
The story necessarily brings in the basics of outdoor air pollution and the
health effects of one of the most studied air pollutants: PM2.5.
 At the end of the presentation, Joe was engaged by a C-suite executive
from a company that is involved in selling air filters for buildings. This
executive asked, with a straight face, “Is there any data on the health effects
of PM2.5?”
For those of us in the world of public health, this would be akin to
someone asking an astronomer, “Is there evidence that the moon goes
around Earth?” The scientific literature on PM2.5 could quite literally fill a
hundred-story building. PubMed lists nearly 7,000 scientific papers on
PM2.5 and health, with over 1,000 papers published in each of the past few
years. (That’s about 3 papers per day.) Here are some examples of what we
know about PM2.5:
Five percent of lung cancer deaths globally are attributable to
particulate matter (PM).7
Mortality rates increase by 7 percent for every 10 μg / m3 of PM2.5.8
Hospital admissions increase by over 4 percent for every 10 μg / m3
increase in long-term PM2.5.9
For reference, the current ambient exposure limit in the United States is
12 μg / m3, and the annual average in Los Angeles for the past few years
ranged from 13 μg / m3 to 19 μg / m3. In Beijing and New Delhi, PM2.5
concentrations have exceeded 1,200 μg / m3. (This notation is common for
talking about the amount, or concentration, of air pollution in the air. This is
read as, “10 micrograms of PM2.5 for every cubic meter of air.”)
Joe’s mouth was agape for a full 20 seconds. But that’s not the only time
this has happened. Here’s another equally shocking example, from someone
who controls the health of millions of people each day. Or rather, millions
of kids each day.
US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos did an interview with 60
Minutes in 2018 in which she said something that should make anyone
reading this book fall off his or her chair: “We should be funding and
investing in students, not in school buildings.”10
What?! As if the two aren’t directly related! There are over 200 scientific
studies documenting how the school building influences student health,
student thinking, and student performance.11 The facts are astounding:
 Cognitive testing of students shows a 5 percent decrease in “power of
attention” in poorly ventilated classrooms. The researchers equate this
to the effect of a student’s skipping breakfast.12
In a study of over 4,000 sixth graders, lower ventilation rates,
moisture and dampness, and inadequate ventilation were all
independently associated with a higher incidence of respiratory
symptoms. Inadequate ventilation was also associated with more
missed school days.13
A study of over 3,000 fifth-grade students showed that they had
higher math, reading, and science scores in classrooms with higher
ventilation rates.14
In a study of exam records for nearly one million school students in
New York City, the likelihood of failing an exam taken on a 90°F day
versus a 75°F day is 14 percent greater. The researcher estimates that
this leads to a 2.5 percent lower likelihood of the average New York
City student graduating on time.15
Third-grade students with “focus” lighting (1,000 lux, 6,500 K) for a
full academic year had a higher percentage increase in performance
on oral reading fluency than students in a standard lighting scenario (a
36 percent versus a 17 percent increase).16
A study of nearly 300 students found that mouse allergen was
detected in 99.5 percent of samples taken, and students with higher
exposure to mouse allergen had a higher likelihood of having allergy
symptoms and lower lung function.17
To be fair, DeVos is not alone in her lack of knowledge of the scientific
literature. Most people don’t have this type of scientific data at their
fingertips. But most people can be forgiven for not knowing; DeVos is in a
leadership position in an organization that depends on knowing this type of
stuff. And you, as a reader of this book, are likely finding yourself in that
same position—making key decisions about the health of people, and your
business, without yet having a full understanding of how health science,
building science, and business science can be leveraged to your advantage.
While these stories give us the opportunity to point to the folly of others,
really the only thing these two examples show is our own failing. That’s
right. We are the ones who should be laughed at. Here we are, sitting on
mounds of scientific data, laughing at others for not putting that data to use
when, in reality, nearly all of that data is locked up in dusty scientific
journals full of inaccessible jargon, caveats, uncertainty, and titles like this:
“Cytotoxicity and Induction of Proinflammatory Cytokines from Human
Monocytes Exposed to Fine (PM2.5) and Coarse Particles (PM10–2.5) in
Outdoor and Indoor Air.” This style of writing is great and informative for
scientists, and in fact necessary—it’s what we expect and want to see—so
we don’t mean to minimize the value of the scientific process. But it’s no
wonder that so much of this information can’t be put to use by practitioners.
Collectively we, the scientific community, need to work harder to translate
the hard science into accessible language and actionable recommendations.
With this book, we aim to correct this failing. We have read the scientific
papers and business case studies so you don’t have to. Our goal is to now
bring the rich science of our fields into the hands of practitioners and to
make sure any future Secretary of Education, or anyone else in control of
the health and productivity of millions of people in buildings, never again
utters a phrase like, “We need to invest in our people, not our buildings.”
How This Book Will Get Us There
To be clear, we won’t just talk about the academic literature. We’ll also
draw on our knowledge gained from years of practice working with leaders
in the building space. We will show you how to use all of this data and
information to your advantage, so you will see that when you focus on
optimizing buildings for health, your business wins, too.
We structured the book in two parts. In Part I, we make the case for
Healthy Buildings. In Chapter 1 we began by sharing some motivations for
our work together on this book and the value in having crosstalk between
our two disciplines—health and business. In Chapter 2 we describe the
challenges and opportunities in front of us all. To have a discussion about
the role of health and buildings without discussing the gigantic forces that
are shaping and reshaping this industry would be a fool’s errand. We show
how 10 global mega-changes are shaping our world, our businesses, our
buildings, and our health:

1. Changing populations
2. Changing cities
3. Changing resources
4. Changing climate
5. Changing role of the private sector
6. Changing definition of health
7. Changing buildings
8. Changing work
9. Changing technology
10. Changing values

They all converge on one point: Healthy Buildings.

Grounded in the global forces at work, we will quickly move to the
primary goal of this book: to make the business case for Healthy Buildings
in a straightforward manner. We present the irrefutable evidence that the
indoor environment is a key determinant of our health and productivity, and
show that a business strategy that focuses on the people in your building
drives bottom-line performance (Chapter 3). Then we show you how to put
the building to work for you (Chapter 4). We give you the economic
evidence demonstrating how even just one building factor—ventilation—
can lead to significant enterprise-wide gains, and show you how to create
and capture this value (Chapter 5).
Once you are well versed in these 10 global mega-changes and the
straightforward business case for Healthy Buildings, you will be right to
ask, “So what else matters, and what do I do now?” We know you’ll ask
that because everyone does.
In Part II, we expand our discussion of what it means to have a Healthy
Building and give you tools to operationalize A Healthy Building Strategy.
In Chapter 6 we bring to life the science behind the 9 Foundations of a
Healthy Building, putting the tools and knowledge of health science and
business science at your fingertips, complete with recommendations you
can implement today for each foundation. In Chapter 7 we explore the
products we place in our buildings and how they influence health, and then
we explore Healthy Building certification systems, the economics behind
them, and what we think are the key elements that should define any
Healthy Building certification (Chapter 8). Last, recognizing that we can’t
improve what we don’t measure, we move to a discussion about how to use
Health Performance Indicators, or HPIs, in tandem with Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) and new sensor technologies, to track the impact of your
Healthy Building strategy (Chapter 9).
We close our book with two chapters that are really about expanding the
winner’s circle around the Healthy Building movement. In Chapter 10 we
expand the Healthy Buildings conversation to include health impacts
beyond the four walls of the building. We will dive into the building-
energy-health-climate-resilience nexus and explore the business
opportunities, and challenges, around quantifying the social performance of
real estate and making decisions about resiliency in the face of a changing
climate. In Chapter 11 we explore how to scale the Healthy Buildings
movement from flagship projects to business as usual by asking, “What’s
now?” and “What’s next?” Finally, we conclude with a synthesis of the key
arguments and a clear demonstration of how everyone wins in this Healthy
Buildings movement.
 
CHAPTER TWO

The Global Mega-changes Shaping

Our World, Our Buildings, and Us
We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.
—WINSTON CHURCHILL

THE WORLD IS CHANGING around us, and buildings are at the

epicenter of that change. So much so that the decisions we make today
regarding our buildings will determine our collective health for generations
to come. Winston Churchill’s famous quote has never been more apt.
You may know that quote; many in the building world do. But you may
not know that Churchill wasn’t making some grand statement about the
societal impacts of our urban fabric when he uttered this now famous
phrase. After all, he lived at a time of abundant natural resources and
natural capacity to deal with pollution (or so they thought). Population
growth and urbanization were not occurring at the scale they are today.
What Churchill had in mind was something very specific and relevant to
him: how the parliamentary chamber had shaped Britain’s government, and
therefore its people (the “us” in “our buildings shape us”). This story, even
though it’s about the UK Parliament, is very interesting—and we promise it
will be useful to you. Stick with us for a few more paragraphs here.
The British Parliament is split into two houses—the House of Lords and
the House of Commons—and each has a chamber on opposite ends of the
Palace of Westminster. In 1943, the Commons Chamber was destroyed after
a German Luftwaffe sortie dropped incendiary bombs on it during the Blitz.
If you’re not familiar with the British Commons Chamber pre-1943 (why
would you be?), it was a fiercely intimate setting. Lawmakers sat shoulder
to shoulder on benches, within feet of their political adversaries. The Prime
Minister stood in the center. It was so small and intimate that the chamber
didn’t even have enough seats for all of its members.

FIGURE 2.1    Historical image of the British Parliament chambers. i.Stock.com/whitemay.

The intimacy was in fact its key feature. In this room, there was nowhere
to run or hide. You made your argument face-to-face with your colleagues.
Friend and foe alike could see fear or conviction in your eye. They could
smell your breath. The convenings were, by design, a raucous affair (and
often filled with colorful vitriol).
The fire from the Luftwaffe’s incendiary bombs tore through the
chamber, turning it to rubble. There was immediate discussion of replacing
it with a bigger, more expansive chamber hall. (One with enough seats for
all, for starters!) The idea of a vast chamber with semicircular seating was
floated.
That’s when Churchill made his famous declaration, “We shape our
buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.” Churchill recognized that
the building had shaped their debate, their society, them. The intimate
quarters of the Commons had shaped Britain. He was vehemently opposed
to the semicircle idea.
Now compare this with the US House Chamber.
Expansive, regal even, and lacking in intimacy: the semicircle that
Churchill disdained. The room is not a boxing ring like the British
Parliament. The US chambers inspire civil, comfortable, but wholly
detached debates. The people in the back are a hundred feet from the person
speaking. They definitely can’t see the speaker’s conviction, fear, or
passion. The building shapes the debate.
We all know it’s easier to say something bad about someone when
you’re not toe-to-toe with that person. That’s why as kids we used to say, “I
dare you to say that to my face.” It takes real conviction and chutzpah to
stand face-to-face with someone and spout vitriol. It’s easy to do it when
you’re across the room (or online). Speaking in the US House Chamber is
more akin to talking behind someone’s back.
Back in Britain, Churchill won the day. The British Commons Chamber
was rebuilt to its original form and is essentially a rectangular boxing ring
—still without enough seats for everyone. Eighty years later, the building
continues to shape the country.
We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape … our
health, our businesses, and our planet. So much so that of the ten mega-
changes shaping the world right now, buildings are at the center of them all.

The First Four Mega-changes: Changing Populations,

Changing Cities, Changing Resources, and a Changing
Climate
Think about this: we are living on a planet of over 7 billion people, a
number that is rapidly moving to 9 billion. And as a group, we are getting
older. Much older. Driven by advances in global health that have
significantly extended the average life expectancy, the shape of the age
distribution of the human population is changing dramatically. In 1900, 4
percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Today we are at 16
percent, headed toward 20 percent in 2050. Many countries in Europe, such
as Italy, France, and Germany, already have 20 percent of their population
over the age of 65, and in Japan they are at 28 percent. More striking is
what’s happening at the upper end of human longevity. On a global scale,
100 years ago very few reached the age of 80 (0.2 percent), but today it’s an
order of magnitude greater (2 percent), and we are on pace to hit over 4
percent by 2050.1
The global population is also on the move. For the first time in history,
more of us live in cities than do not. To put this in perspective, consider
India, where it is projected that over 400 million people will move into
Indian cities by 2050.2 Four hundred million! That’s roughly the equivalent
of adding a city the size of Paris every two months from today through
2050. That’s a lot of new buildings. In fact, 70–80 percent of the
infrastructure needed in India to meet this demand is not yet built.3
The capacity to meet this demand in India and around the world is
strained by limits on our natural capital. Simply put, we have overshot the
capacity of Earth’s systems. Gone are the days of “Dilution is the solution
to pollution,” when we thought we could forever dump pollutants into our
air and water and watch as they dispersed, thinking that the problem was
solved. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, written in 1962, was our first
wake-up call about the perils of this approach.4
Nearly 60 years later we have had another wake-up call, and this time it
has to do with our consumption of natural resources and the changing
capacity of Earth to sustain life. You have likely heard that we currently
consume 1.5 Earths. For those of us in the United States, it’s more like four
Earths. Famed Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson warns in his book Half-Earth
that the loss of biodiversity from overconsumption and overdevelopment is
such a monumental catastrophe that we need to reserve half of Earth right
now.5 For anyone about to argue that this is some tree-hugging notion of
leaving nature pristine for nature’s sake, you’re wrong. Wilson argues that
nothing less than the survival of the human species is at stake. Taken
together, the constant release of pollutants and overuse of natural stocks and
space mean that our current overconsumption of resources is not
sustainable.
But you didn’t buy this book for a lecture on natural capital. You bought
this book because of your interest in buildings. Guess what? Likely no
surprises here—buildings play a dominant role in depleting these resources,
and Healthy Buildings can play a role in counteracting this depletion.
Buildings represent the largest consumer of materials of all industries on
Earth.6 And after the building dies, where does all of that converted natural
capital go? Most of it becomes landfill waste, used once and then buried
forever. Demolition debris from buildings in the United States generates
more waste than the total amount of garbage (municipal solid waste) that
goes into landfills each year.7
The impact of the collision of these first three mega-changes—
population growth, urbanization, and resource consumption—is
compounded by a fourth mega-change: global climate change. Buildings
play a key role here, too. Approximately 80 percent of global energy comes
from fossil fuel combustion, and as consumers of 40 percent of that energy,
buildings influence our health indirectly by contributing to (or in the case of
energy-efficient buildings, by reducing) the amount of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases produced by our energy generation.8
Climate change will alter social dynamics, population migration,
ecosystems, and agriculture and ultimately cause a cascade of adverse
health impacts. John Holdren, the scientific adviser to US President Barack
Obama for eight years, summed it up best at a recent Harvard University
Center for the Environment event,9 paraphrased here:
The climate is changing.
The cause is human activity.
Impacts are already emerging.
Adverse impacts are baked into the system.
The extent of future impacts depends on what we do now.
Taken together, these first four mega-changes—changing populations,
changing cities, changing resources, and a changing climate—are the
consequence of this era of human-dominated influence on the environment
—dubbed “the Anthropocene.” The profound impact of human activity on
Earth’s life-support systems is fundamentally shifting how we must think
about how our decisions concerning our built environment affect our natural
environment and, ultimately, our health.

The Fifth Mega-change: Changing Role of the Private

Sector
An observer might assume that it’s a core function of government to
recognize the threat posed by these first four mega-changes and to plan
ahead, presumably using logic, science, cost-benefit analysis, taxing power,
bond-issuing capabilities, and consensus to create the infrastructure we all
need—roads, bridges, power, water, sanitation, parks—to get to outcomes
we all want: jobs, homes, schools, hospitals, arts, and more for a healthy
citizenry.
Yet there is no escaping the glaring inability of government, in particular
federal government, to do any of this. Political stalemates from Brazil to
Nigeria to Malaysia to Italy underscore the gap. Right here in the United
States, our political gridlock prevents us from making a long-overdue
investment in infrastructure, despite widespread agreement from both
political parties that this is necessary and a sound economic investment.
The same infrastructure investment is needed from Bolivia to Ethiopia to
Myanmar, but financial shortfalls prevent action. The popular press is full
of accounts of how bad air in Delhi or Shanghai sickens people every day.
If we are not going to have a planet of dirty slums, what can the private
sector do to invest in and improve these situations? It turns out the answer
is “quite a lot.” And we’ll show how in this book.

The Sixth Mega-change: Changing Definition of Health

The old definition of health as “the absence of disease” is rightfully being
replaced with something more like this from the World Health
Organization: “state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being,
and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”10 Businesses are getting
into the mix. Companies are recognizing that there is value in not just a
disease avoidance strategy for their employees but also a health promotion
strategy. In academic and medical jargon, this is articulated as moving from
studying pathogenesis, or the origins of disease, to studying salutogenesis,
or the creation and promotion of health. (The term “salutogenesis” was
coined by medical sociology professor Aaron Antonovsky.)11 It’s great PR
and HR strategy, and to many companies this is central to their core values,
but the main driving incentive is economic.
Consider this: in an article published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association, consistently ranked as one of the top medical and
scientific journals in the world, our Harvard colleague Ashish Jha and
others report that the United States spent a staggering 17.8 percent of its
gross domestic product on health-care costs. This is twice as high a
percentage as those of 10 of the other highest-income countries around the
world, despite American utilization rates being similar (and many health
outcomes being demonstrably worse).12 In the United States, where most
people’s health care is tied to their employment and the employer
contributes to the costs of that care (often upwards of $14,000–$20,000 per
employee per year), companies should have a strong economic incentive to
keep their employees healthy.13
It shouldn’t be shocking to learn, then, that companies spend millions on
some form of health or wellness programs. But when you look at all of
these efforts to promote the health and productivity of employees, you will
be shocked (shocked!) to learn that, for many companies, there is no
mention of buildings in their wellness strategy. But we see signs of change
in the air. Two prime examples: Harvard and Google.
In 2016, Harvard Business School and the Harvard T. H. Chan School of
Public Health held a joint colloquium. This was unusual for Harvard: to
convene a significant number of alumni, faculty members, researchers, and
industry experts from two separate professional schools. (Most people
might think this type of thing happens every day, but it is not routine and
took special effort.) The topic? The possible contributions of both
disciplines to the concept of “a Culture of Health,” which was billed as a
“Business Leadership Imperative.” The colloquium was funded by the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, drawing together CEOs and academics
alike to consider how businesses could take intentional action to drive
health results across four domains: consumer health, employee health,
community health, and environmental health.14 Both of us participated, and
executives from many of the companies we work with every day were
there, too.
The event was a resounding success. One key deliverable: a massive
online open course called Improving Your Business through a Culture of
Health. The goal was to offer free lectures to anyone in business around the
world interested in learning how to build a culture of health.
That course went off in the spring of 2018, and it was a success: nine
weeks of content with some of Harvard’s most renowned experts delivered
to thousands of online students. The course covered many aspects of how
health can drive the bottom line of your business. Buildings were
mentioned, but they weren’t a focal point.
Now that is changing. The Building a Culture of Health program is
adding Healthy Buildings as a key focus area, and we have created a new
executive education program at Harvard specifically focused on Healthy
Buildings, in addition to incorporating this topic into other programs, such
as the Advanced Leadership Initiative. Most importantly from our
perspective, this knowledge will now reach the next generation of leaders—
our students. Harvard has established a new joint degree program between
the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Harvard T. H. Chan School
of Public Health. Further, we have been teaching “home and away” lectures
on each other’s campuses—with John teaching real estate finance to Joe’s
public health students, and Joe teaching Healthy Building science to John’s
business students. The key point here is this: hundreds of future executives
and design and health leaders are being trained to understand the power of
Healthy Buildings and learning both rigorous science and comprehensive
finance tools.
This change is not just happening within the confines of academia.
Change is in the air at major global companies, too.
No organization is more adept than Google at creating a brilliant
workplace culture that continues to attract talent and produce outstanding
innovations year after year. So when Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of
Google, wrote a book with Jonathan Rosenberg called How Google Works,
we read it with intense interest.15 Along with everyone in the world, we
hoped to pick up insights from the person who worked with Sergey Brin
and Larry Page, the cofounders of Google, to create this technology
juggernaut.
It turns out the “secret sauce” at Google is a focus on … people. And it’s
a focus on a particular set of people—the “smart creatives,” as they call
them.
Imagine our delight when we read this sentence in the opening chapter of
the book, which tells you how to get the most out of these smart creatives:
“The only way to succeed in business in the 21st century is to continually
create great products, and the only way to do that is to attract smart
creatives and put them in an environment where they can succeed at scale”
(p. xv). The book doesn’t explicitly mention buildings (we wish it did), but
Google has sent a clear message through its actions that the environment in
which people work matters.
In other outlets it has made it crystal clear that the building, and the
people in them, is at the heart of a healthy, thriving, and innovative
business. Take this story. During a project meeting with students and
technologists from the University of California, Berkeley, Page pulled out
his particle counter to show them something. (You read that right—“his”
particle counter. In other words, Page owns an air-quality sensor and
apparently carries it around with him!) As Google recounts, Page then
began to pound a piece of carpet in front of this group to show everyone
how the airborne particle numbers dramatically spiked. The message: we
are all walking around in these potentially toxic little dust clouds—in other
words, our environment matters.16
The high levels of particles in the demonstration were shocking, and the
implications were immediately clear to everyone watching. That included
the Google Real Estate and Workplace Services team. When the founder
brings up air quality in a public presentation, it sends an important signal
that this is a priority. No wonder, then, that this is how the team views their
work: “For Google real estate teams, buildings are the product and the
people in them are our users,” as Kate Brandt, Google chief sustainability
officer, told us. “Our goal is to build sustainability in from start to finish,
prioritizing our planet and the health and wellbeing of future occupants.”17
When your CEO carries around a particle counter, it tends to sharpen
your focus. Change is quite literally in the air at Google.

The Seventh Mega-change: Changing Buildings

Have you seen a car ad on television that shows the noisy chaos of the
world outside the car before it pans to the driver inside the quiet, luxurious
interior of said car, protected from the elements outside? The message
you’re supposed to take from this juxtaposition is that this car is “tight”—
sealed off from the world outside and all its perils.
This sealing up is done for a few reasons: it provides a quiet interior, for
sure, and it makes your air-conditioning and heating more efficient because
the car is less “leaky.” But it also comes with an unexpected side effect: the
pollutants inside the car have nowhere to go, leading to a buildup of
potentially toxic pollutants emitted from materials inside the car, and a
buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the car’s occupants. We
regularly see levels of CO2 inside cars that are as much as four to five times
higher than what we allow in buildings.18 Ever get sleepy while on a long
drive with the family or friends? The high carbon dioxide levels in your car
are contributing to that—it’s one of the reasons why you’ve likely heard the
recommendation to roll down your windows if you feel sleepy while
driving.
Buildings are the same. Like humans, they need to breathe. But, as with
cars, we’ve done one hell of a job over the past 40 years of cutting off their
air supply.
For over a hundred years there have been efforts to figure out the proper
amount of fresh air that needs to be brought into a building. Beginning
around the time of the energy crisis in the late 1970s, we did our best to
tighten our building envelopes and reduce ventilation rates in an effort to
conserve energy. The goal for our homes and offices and schools was to
make them less leaky. (We’ll talk about this in detail in Chapter 4.)
We were very successful in these efforts. Kudos to the energy engineer
pioneers in the 1970s for helping to alleviate the energy crisis in buildings.
But maybe they should’ve consulted some health scientists along the way.
The result of sealing up our buildings, as you likely guessed from the car
story: a buildup of pollutants indoors. And with it, the birth of a
phenomenon known as Sick Building Syndrome. So there you have it—if
you don’t feel well in a building, you can thank a set of energy engineers
who decided that the best way to tackle the energy crisis was to choke off
your air supply.
Sick Building Syndrome first started appearing in the literature and news
in the early 1980s. What is it? We’ll use the Merriam-Webster definition
here because it is pretty good: “a set of symptoms (such as headache,
fatigue, and eye irritation) typically affecting workers in modern airtight
office buildings that is believed to be caused by indoor pollutants (such as
formaldehyde fumes or microorganisms).”19
The few edits we would make are these:
 Sick Building Syndrome doesn’t just affect workers in a building; it
can affect visitors, too.
Sick Building Syndrome doesn’t just occur in “modern” buildings; it
can occur in any building.
Airtight buildings are often the culprit, but other factors can create a
sick building, such as a water leak that leads to mold or Legionella,
and others that we’ll explore in the 9 Foundations of a Healthy
Building in Chapter 6.
While formaldehyde fumes and microorganisms are two examples of
indoor pollutants, there are many causes of a sick building beyond
these. (Also, sorry for the nerdiness, but “fumes” are technically solid
particles suspended in air, like fumes from metalworking or even
smoke; formaldehyde is a vapor or gas.)
Sick Building Syndrome can be attributed to time spent in
underperforming environments where the symptoms often resolve
after leaving that underperforming environment.

The Eighth Mega-change: Changing Work

Greg O’Brien, CEO of the Americas at JLL, a leading commercial real
estate services firm, succinctly captured the essence of our eighth mega-
change when he told us this: “Driven primarily by the Digital Revolution,
the nature of how, when and where employees work is undergoing a seismic
shift.”20 The gig economy is expanding, more companies are offering flex
time and work-from-home options, and some companies have gone to
“hoteling,” where employees don’t get a fixed desk but rather get assigned
on upon arrival each day.
In their Harvard Business Review article “Thriving in the Gig
Economy,” Gianpiero Petriglieri, Susan Ashford, and Amy Wrzesniewski
report that there are approximately 150,000 employees engaged in this type
of part-time or independent contractor work in North America and Western
Europe alone.21 Guess which type of worker this is affecting most? The
authors of that article cite a McKinsey report that found that knowledge
workers and creative workers are the fastest-growing segment of the
freelance economy—in other words, the smart creatives that Google and
others are in a global competition for.22 They also happen to be the exact
type of expensive workers for whom the building has the biggest impact on
the bottom line. Enhance their performance and you will enhance your
business performance.
So how can you protect these workers? In a presentation at Harvard in
2017, the head of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, John Howard, lamented the difficulties involved in studying this
group of workers. How can we study and help workers if we don’t even
know where they are? The US Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has weighed in too, indicating its concern that employers
may not be meeting all of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
requirements with temporary workers.23 Essentially, some companies may
be “off-shoring” some risk by not having workers do certain work on-site,
or by only employing them temporarily. Who, then, is responsible for their
work environment? The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
says the temp agency and the company have joint responsibility. That’s fair,
but what about the many people working in the gig economy, who aren’t
operating through a temp agency? These questions are unresolved.
And what about relatively new approaches to work that are gaining
traction, such as hoteling and open floor plans? Both can save companies
massive amounts of money, as they allow them to maximize space use. It is
certainly cheaper to allocate 100 square feet of office space per person than
the more typical 250 square feet. There are also savings from only having to
build and maintain one large area instead of paying for interior corridors
and countless walls, doors, and air supply and air return components. And
for many jobs, work can be done remotely from home or a coffee shop with
only occasional and temporary space in the office needed.
But it comes with risks. If not done right, the experience can drive away
talent or hamper productivity. A recent publication by our Harvard Business
School colleague Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban has attracted much
interest.24 In their study of workers in a corporate headquarters transitioning
to an open floor plan, they found a decrease in social interaction and an
increase in email use, the opposite of what was predicted.
Research shows that one of the keys to making open floor plans
successful is to provide a variety of work environments to match the variety
of work styles of different individuals, and to account for the changing
nature of their day-to-day work. Put more simply, some people prefer a
quiet library space and some like the loud coffee shop environment, and
some days you need time to concentrate alone and some days you need to
collaborate. The building is your best friend in helping to create these
environments—and these needs go well beyond aesthetics.
Businesses are not just sitting around watching these “seismic shifts”
occurring. As one would expect, they are adapting in a strategic way.
O’Brien at JLL has seen this firsthand, telling us, “This changing world of
work is impacting real estate decisions. Businesses are responding with
workplaces centered on the human experience, with employee health and
well-being as a core component.”25

The Ninth Mega-change: Changing Technology

To date much of the industry’s description of its buildings relies on
anecdotes and subjective surveys. Architects and developers can be the
most visible, offering beautiful descriptions of their designs and personal
stories about how the building makes people feel better. Here’s one colorful
quote from a developer that is featured in a Harvard Business School case
study that John and his colleague wrote: “Fortune-Creating Vedic
Architecture is the world’s most ancient system of architecture. It is the
knowledge of how to construct and design buildings in accord with Natural
Law, in perfect harmony with all the laws of nature. Laws of nature are the
universal principles of intelligence with nature that administer, with perfect
order, everything from our human physiology to the whole galactic
universe.”26
Sounds good as a marketing pitch, and at some level it’s hard to argue
with—who wouldn’t want to design a building “in perfect harmony with all
the laws of nature”? But is it backed up by hard data? Is any of this
quantifiable or verifiable?
The answer is yes. With the proliferation of low-cost environmental
sensors and wearable technologies, both of which can objectively measure
the performance of humans and the environment to a high degree of
specificity, we can get to a point where we move from qualitative to
quantitative. Buildings are now entering the “big data” era. Much like the
field of genetics, which has rapidly transformed with the advent of new
metagenomics tools that let us understand that our DNA is much more
interesting than our discrete genes, the field of building science is changing
thanks to new technological tools. New sensor technologies are making the
invisible visible, allowing us to see, in real time, how buildings and the
indoor environment fluctuate from minute to minute. It used to be the case
that evaluations were done annually (if at all), at which time a course
correction could be made. Now, this can be instantaneous, with
environmental sensors communicating directly with the building
management system to provide an autonomous reaction to changing
conditions indoors.
The outstanding question is whether these new “smart” buildings will be
smart and healthy. Big companies are betting that they will be both: “In a
world where self-driving cars are becoming reality, people expect to be able
to interact with buildings beyond basic heat and air conditioning,” per
Rebecca Boll, Chief Technology Officer for Digital Buildings at Schneider
Electric. “The Internet of Things and artificial intelligence are making it
possible for buildings to sense and self-adjust to improve the occupant
experience and create a healthier environment.”27 A Chief Technology
Officer talking about health is a market signal not to be ignored.

The Tenth Mega-change: Changing Values

The tenth mega-change is the uptick of focus on environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) in the investing world. If you haven’t heard this phrase
before, the idea behind it is this: the investment decisions we make are not
only economic decisions; they are also ultimately decisions about our
values. If we invest in companies that do bad things (for example, tobacco
companies or big industrial polluters), then we are contributing to the harm
they cause. If we invest in companies that do good, then we are contributing
to the benefits they bring. It’s that simple.
Investors are demanding that their investments be put toward companies
that do good. And we’re not talking about individual investors with
relatively modest savings and investments. As individual investors, we have
chosen to account for ESG in our investment strategies, and maybe you
have, too. And we’d all like to think that, collectively, our modest
investment decisions are having an impact. That may or may not be true,
but what is definitely true is that when the big investment players start
talking ESG, companies sit up straight and start listening. We’re talking
about the big pension funds and state-run sovereign wealth funds—like
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and the Japanese Government Pension
Investment Fund—that control trillions of dollars of investment decisions
globally. In an article in Harvard Business Review, Robert Eccles and
Svetlana Klimenko reported that, as of 2018, 1,715 investment companies,
representing $81.7 trillion in assets under management, have signaled a
commitment to incorporate ESG into their investment decisions.28
That’s why BlackRock, another gargantuan player in the investment
world, with more than $6 trillion of assets under management, sent
shockwaves through the investment community in 2018 when it sent a letter
to all of the CEOs in its portfolio that basically said this: we want to know
what your social purpose is.29 Shortly thereafter, in 2019, nearly 200 CEOs
who are part of the Business Roundtable, representing some of the biggest
companies in the world—Apple, JPMorgan Chase, Walmart—got together
to redefine the purpose of a corporation. The goal? The end of the era of
shareholder primacy. The group wrote a statement that said that in addition
to creating shareholder value, a corporation “must also invest in their
employees, protect the environment and deal fairly and ethically with their
suppliers.”30
Wow. Imagine that. Rather than focus on the usual quarterly
performance metrics, 200 of the leading business executives in the world
decided it was time to focus on long-term ESG, too.
The movement is picking up momentum. Consider the follow-up op-ed
in 2019 by Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce (Saleforce’s mission is
“doing well by doing good”): “Every C.E.O. and every company must
recognize that their responsibilities do not stop at the edge of the corporate
campus. When we finally start focusing on stakeholder value as well as
shareholder value, our companies will be more successful, our communities
will be more equal, our societies will be more just and our planet will be
healthier.”31
What does this mean for buildings? We can learn a lot about what this
means by first reflecting on the green building movement of the past 20
years. Building a “green” building used to be a leading edge and
progressive approach; these days it is simply business as usual in many
markets. (We discuss the green building movement in detail in Chapter 8.)
The invisible hand demanded green buildings because they are a good
investment. And the market responded. Well, now the invisible hand is
signaling that it is time to invest in healthy people and healthy businesses.
This has left the real estate market wondering, “What is the social
performance of real estate assets?” It turns out that the positive social
performance can be a line-item in your financial statement already. Better
buildings come with a health co-benefit that can be quantified back to a
financial value. We explore this in depth in Chapter 10, but the takeaway
for now is this: being able to quantify the social performance means that
this can be added as a line-item in the financial statement, tying real estate
decisions into impact-weighted investing. Buildings will undoubtedly be
front and center in this era of changing values for business. Are you ready?

The Solution: Healthy Buildings

We opened this chapter by saying that the decisions we make today
regarding our buildings will determine our collective health for generations
to come. In the face of these 10 mega-changes, in which buildings are at the
epicenter, this is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that Healthy
Building strategies represent a solution to many of the challenges brought
on by these mega-changes. And this gets us to the central premise and
promise of this book: Healthy Buildings represent, without exaggeration,
one of the greatest health—and business—opportunities ever.
 
CHAPTER THREE

Why Are We Ignoring the 90

Percent?
In a modern society, total time outdoors is the most insignificant part of the day, often so small that it
barely shows up in the total. The finding that emerges is that we are basically an indoor species.
—W. R. OTT

“WHY ARE WE IGNORING the 90 percent?” This is the question with

which Joe likes to start most presentations, to get the audience thinking
about the importance of the buildings we live and work in for our health
and the bottom line. There are two parts to his equation: time and money.
Let’s start with time: studies have found that in North America and
Europe we spend 90 percent of our time indoors.1 It isn’t a perfect formula
—some jobs have you out and about more, and kids tend to spend a little
more time outside than adults—but for most of the developed world, it is
more accurate than you might think. (In some places and in some seasons,
that 90 percent is actually an underestimate. Joe once quoted the 90 percent
figure while presenting in Abu Dhabi and heard chuckles in the audience—
in the United Arab Emirates, it can be more like 99.9 percent indoors for
some people.)
To put this 90 percent figure in perspective, it’s useful to think of what it
means in terms of our own lives. By the time we hit 40, most of us have
spent 36 years indoors. Try it for yourself: take your age and multiply it by
0.9. That’s your indoor age. If we are lucky enough to live to 80, most of us
will have spent 72 years inside! We spend nearly all of our time indoors—
so much so that Velux, a Danish company that specializes in skylights,
cleverly branded us as “the Indoor Generation.”2 When we look at it this
way, in terms of years, it becomes obvious and intuitive that our indoor
environment would have a disproportionate impact on our health.
 So let’s break down that 90 percent and see where we spend our time.
(Note that this section is based on research in the United States; the specific
numbers will vary from country to country, but the basic facts don’t change
in most parts of the world.) We tend to split our time among our homes, our
offices, our cars, and an assortment of other indoor places like restaurants,
stores, gyms, and airplanes. For kids, this looks very different. By the time
they graduate from high school, they will have spent 15,600 hours inside a
school. (Incidentally, as Harvard professor Jack Spengler likes to point out,
schools are one of two types of buildings where we force people to spend
time indoors. The other is prison.)
Sometimes we think that all we really need to do to advance the Healthy
Buildings movement is mention this “90 percent” fact. After hearing that,
how could anyone conclude that the indoor environment does not impact
our health? Heck, we spend a third of our lifetimes in one little box on this
planet—our bedrooms!
Here’s a weird but helpful way to think about all of this indoor time,
courtesy of Rich Corsi, dean of engineering and computer science at
Portland State University, an outstanding building scientist with a clever
take to put this in perspective: “Americans spend more time inside
buildings than some whale species spend underwater.”3
What?! It’s kind of hard to wrap your head around this—that whales
spend more time on the surface than we, as land mammals, spend outdoors
—but it’s true. We would never go about trying to understand whales by
studying the air they breathe when they are at the surface; we study them
where they live, underwater.
And yet that’s exactly what we do with humans. For all this time spent
indoors, we tend to focus much more on outdoor air quality than on indoor
air quality. Check any newspaper or news site on any given day and you are
likely to see a story about the hazards of outdoor pollution, but how often
do you see a story about building health?
Our regulatory system is also geared toward the outdoor environment,
too. In the United States we have the Clean Air Act, which set National
Ambient Air Quality Standards establishing limits for the six so-called
criteria air pollutants: particles (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, ozone, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide.4 Many other countries
have similar standards for outdoor air pollution.5
But what about a “National Indoor Air Quality Standard”? No such
thing. The only things akin to this in the United States are the legally
enforceable limits set by the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) for exposures to pollutants indoors. But before you
start thinking that this means we’re all set, you should know that very few
scientists, if any, would argue that the OSHA limits are truly protective of
health. Even OSHA admits this. From its own website: “OSHA recognizes
that many of its permissible exposure limits (PELs) are outdated and
inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health.”6 That’s because
OSHA was created in 1970, at which time “permissible” exposure limits
were set for many chemicals based on a report from 1968, and those
existing, unprotective limits were grandfathered into the new law. And as
for new permissible exposure limits, OSHA has only created 16 since 1970.
The last one was in 2006, for hexavalent chromium, a toxic heavy metal
that is linked to respiratory cancer, asthma, skin irritation, and liver and
kidney damage. This is not protecting us. And quite frankly, if you
encounter any of these regulated hazards in an office building at the OSHA
“permissible” limits, something is really amiss.
Why Are We Ignoring the 90 Percent? Part II—Money
The second 90 percent that we are ignoring is the true cost of operating our
buildings: the people inside. Most companies spend as much as 90 percent
of their budgets on human resources, a figure largely driven by their salaries
and benefits—and as we’ll see in Chapter 4, their productivity.
The 3-30-300™ rule of real estate was created and popularized by the
global facilities management company JLL.7 It’s intended to show a
company’s relative per-square-foot costs across three factors—utilities, rent,
and people. The rule goes like this: for every $3 a company spends on
utilities like electricity and heat, it spends $30 on rent and $300 on payroll.
This realization can make a focus on miserly utility spending, say, for
ventilation, look pretty silly if the expensive assets—the humans—are not
functioning at their best.
This rule of thumb can be corroborated through multiple sources. For
example, the Building Owners and Managers Association International
2018 Office Experience Exchange Report indicates average office gross
rents of $30.35 per square foot for private-sector office buildings, average
utility costs of $2.14, and total space per employee of 288 square feet
(inclusive of corridors and lobbies).8 As offices get smaller, a number like
250 square feet per person is becoming more typical. From a salary point of
view, in Massachusetts, the gross wages for job titles like advertising sales
agent, tax preparer, and computer user support specialist—the kind of
people who would make up the bulk of typical office users—are about
$65,000 per year, per US Bureau of Labor Statistics.9 After including other
costs paid by the employer, the fully loaded cost per employee would be
about $75,000 per year. This divided by 250 square feet works out to $300
per square foot per year as the compensation component. While the 3-30-
300 rule of thumb is a generalization and a simplification, the order of
magnitude is appropriate and useful. Some professions pay much more.
When higher salaries are considered, the impact of productivity becomes
greater and the impact of energy savings becomes even smaller.
Just as we pointed out earlier in the context of how much time modern
people spend indoors, once again the building industry discussion has
missed the key 90 percent—the impact of the big expense, the people.
Financial types tend to focus on the 10 percent: the rent and utilities spend.
Don’t get us wrong, these costs are critically important, but this has been
the sole focus of the building sector for far too long. Think about it this
way: the entire green building movement, with billions of square feet of
office space registered globally, was largely built to chase a small subset of
that 10 percent—the 1 percent costs of energy, waste, and water when
looked at in terms of total cost of occupancy.
The reason for this focus on the 1 percent is largely that these are easy
targets. They are easy in two ways. First, it’s simple to calculate a return on
investment based on energy savings. If you invest in an energy recovery
ventilator, for example, an owner can quickly see that the upfront capital
costs for the equipment will be recouped in a few years. It’s a
straightforward calculus—executives can literally do the math on the back
of an envelope. (To be fair to those who do energy modeling, it’s not
exactly “easy” in the absolute sense; considerable sophistication and
expertise go into building these models, but it is certainly more easily
quantifiable than health.)
Second, it’s easy to meter a building for energy, waste, and water. Take
the building you’re sitting in or that you own or manage, and we bet with
just a little effort you could find out precisely how much energy it uses in a
typical year. That’s because it essentially only takes one or a handful of
cheap sensors and a couple of utility bills to understand energy use in your
building. That means that the return-on-investment calculus can be
supported by hard data, which means it can be traded, financed, and
guaranteed, as energy service companies do every day.
But now consider the people in your building, that crucial 90 percent of
your costs. How do you “meter” the health of people in a building? Or even
on one floor, or in one room? This is not a trivial undertaking. And because
it’s hard, it has been a barrier to advancement. We measure energy really
well, so we manage it. But we’ve ignored the people side of the equation,
and, as predicted, we’ve failed to manage this opportunity. This is
something the two of us have been thinking about for some time, and in
Chapter 9 we will give you tools for metering the health of people in a
building.
We’re certain you don’t need this, but we’ll do it anyway to drive the
point home. That 90 percent represents a massive opportunity going
forward. Said simply: The indoor environment matters for health and
wealth.
Full stop. You can probably close this book right now.

The Indoor Environment’s Three-Pronged Assault on

Our Health
Now that we have the basics covered, we want to broadly explore the
indoor environment and how it impacts our health. (We’ll get into the
important details of the financial impacts in Chapter 4.) In the remainder of
this chapter, we will talk about what the science says, and then we’ll give
you a framework for how to think about minimizing your exposure and risk.

Indoor Assault 1: The Dirty Secret of Outdoor Air Pollution

We want to share something that will likely shock you: the majority of your
exposure to outdoor air pollution can occur indoors. It’s the dirty secret of
outdoor air pollution.
Don’t believe us? Let’s do some basic math to prove it.
Let’s say we are in Los Angeles, where the outdoor concentration of a
major air pollutant called PM2.5 periodically hits 20 μg / m3. For
background, PM stands for “particulate matter” and is, essentially, airborne
dust. The “2.5” stands for particulate matter that is 2.5 microns (μg) or
smaller. The size of the particle matters because particles of this size
penetrate to the deepest parts of our lungs, the alveoli, where gas exchange
occurs. Larger particles are captured by nasal mucosa or the upper
respiratory system, where we get rid of them when we blow our noses, or
after our lungs bring them up to our mouth via a mucociliary escalator to be
harmlessly swallowed. The notation “μg / m3” refers to the mass of PM2.5,
in micrograms, in a cubic meter of air (m3).
What most people don’t fully recognize is the extent to which outdoor
air pollution can penetrate inside a home or building.10 As you might
expect, there are a lot of factors that determine just how much outdoor air
pollution enters a building, or what we call infiltration factors. Things like
the year of construction and leakiness of the building, whether there are
operable windows (and whether they open or not), and the type of
ventilation and filtration system in your building are the obvious ones, but
wind direction, pressure, and other meteorological factors also play a
critical role. A review of different infiltration factors in homes shows that a
stable median estimate for infiltration in homes is ~50 percent.11 In
commercial buildings, which typically use a MERV 8 filter, the PM2.5
removal efficiency is about the same as this estimate. (MERV stands for
Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value, a tool developed to evaluate filter
performance.)
Using these facts, and for demonstration purposes, we can take the
outdoor air pollution number in our Los Angeles example and estimate that,
on average, the indoor concentration of outdoor air pollution is half of that,
or 10 μg / m3.
Now we need to figure out how much air we breathe, because ultimately
we want to know the total amount of air pollution that enters our body each
day, what we call a “daily dose” in public health. We take about 1,000
breaths per hour, and that means we typically breathe in about 0.625 m3 of
air per hour, or 15 m3 per day.12
Now that we know how much air pollution from outdoors is inside, and
how much air we breathe each day, we need to know where we are
breathing that air. For that, let’s turn back to our “where we spend our time”
data at the beginning of this chapter. Because we spend 90 percent of our
time indoors, this means that we spend over 21 hours of each day inside and
less than 3 hours outside. (For some of us it will be less than 1 hour.)
TABLE 3.1    The dirty secret of outdoor air pollution.

Outdoor Air Breathing Time Spent Total Outdoor Air

Pollution Rate Indoors Pollution Breathed per
Day
Outdoors 20 μg / m3 0.625 m3 / 2.4 hours (10% 30 μg / day
hour of 24 hours)
Indoors 10 μg / m3 0.625 m3 / 21.6 hours (90% 135 μg / day
hour of 24 hours)

Now, the math is very straightforward. Multiply this out and you’ll see
the proof behind the counterintuitive fact that the majority of your exposure
to outdoor air pollution occurs indoors. In this example, the amount of
outdoor air pollution breathed indoors is four times as high as the amount
breathed outdoors. Dirty secret no more!
Every single day, you can find a news story somewhere about how bad
outdoor air pollution is in places like Mexico City, Seoul, New Delhi, or
Beijing—and it truly can be bad, dangerously so. That news story is
typically accompanied by a picture of a parent and young child walking
hand in hand outside with dust masks over their noses and mouths, engulfed
in a haze of air pollution. But we challenge you to find a news story that
talks about what happens when that parent and child go inside. You will
never find this “dirty secret of outdoor air pollution” in the news. We look
forward to the day when a news story about outdoor air pollution is
accompanied by a picture of a family sitting on the couch wearing dust
masks. (A public health side note to readers: those paper dust masks don’t
actually work against this type of pollution; they’d have to be on their
couch wearing an N95 mask.)

Indoor Assault 2: Indoor Sources

In addition to outdoor air pollution penetrating indoors, we also have indoor
sources of air pollution. In fact, a frequently referenced estimate from the
Environmental Protection Agency says that indoor levels of some
contaminants can be 3–5 times higher than outdoors. For many pollutants,
the number can rise as high as 10 times or more.13
These higher indoor levels of pollutants happen because we tightened up
our buildings to limit how much fresh air came in, in our efforts to save
energy. Then, after we trapped ourselves in these airtight chambers and
became appalled at the odors we started to notice, we started to use sprays,
candles, and scented cleaners to make that stuffy indoor air smell just a bit
better, without realizing that those sprays can create a whole other set of
attacks on our health. And then we doused ourselves in underarm
deodorant, cologne, perfume, and scented shampoo so we would smell good
in all of these stuffy boxes we created. Not to mention all the building
materials and furniture that off-gas pollutants into our sealed-box homes
and offices.
There are all sorts of potential indoor contaminants, some of which you
may be familiar with, and some of which you probably haven’t thought
much about. Perhaps the most well-known indoor contaminants are a class
of chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). As the name
suggests, they volatilize, or off-gas, from the products they are in. VOCs are
a broad class of chemicals, emitting from paints (the VOCs evaporate,
leaving the pigment behind), building materials, surface cleaners, dry-erase
markers, furniture, and even dry cleaning. In your home, VOCs also come
from laundry detergent, dryer sheets, couches, and soaps. One of the most
notorious VOCs, formaldehyde, is a known carcinogen that is used to bind
wood together in some cabinetry and laminate flooring that can off-gas into
our homes and offices. A high-profile example was an issue with Lumber
Liquidators in 2015, when they sold flooring imported from China that was
emitting formaldehyde into homes. (In 2019 Lumber Liquidators settled a
$33 million lawsuit for misleading investors on this issue.)14
Another set of infamous VOCs are the BTEX compounds (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) that come from gasoline. We encounter
BTEX when we breathe in our cars, and if your house has an attached
garage, the BTEX chemicals can find their way into your home.15 This also
happens in offices and schools when the air intakes or open windows face
streets or parking lots. Elevated levels of benzene (and formaldehyde and
particles) can be found in schools during the end-of-day pickup time, when
school buses are idling adjacent to the building.16 If you live in a
community ringed by traffic corridors—particularly if there is frequent
congestion—BTEX chemicals are likely in your life as well.
And then there are the VOCs in personal care products. VOCs emit from
perfume, lotion, hand sanitizer, shampoo, and deodorant. A study of high
schoolers in Texas by Corsi and his collaborator Atila Novoselac found a
VOC signal from one brand of teenage body spray, Axe, in all of the
classrooms studied!17
VOCs also include things like limonene, a sweet-smelling chemical
naturally found in oranges that is added to household cleaners to give them
a pleasant scent. Sounds innocent enough, but limonene reacts with ozone
to form formaldehyde and indoor particles.18 So not only do we have
outdoor sources of particles penetrating indoors, we have our own indoor
particle sources, too.
Indoor particle generation doesn’t end with VOCs reacting with ozone,
though. We have other indoor sources. Smoking is an obvious one. Candles
also emit a steady stream of particles indoors, as does cooking a stir-fry on
the stovetop. A research team led by Delphine Farmer and Marina Vance,
who simulated particle generation during cooking of a Thanksgiving dinner
as part of their House Observations of Microbial and Environmental
Chemistry study, found that indoor particle concentrations can be 10 times
higher than outdoor maximums.19
Our bodies are also part of this equation. Just like the Charles Schulz
cartoon character, we are all our own little versions of Pigpen. (For those
who don’t know the Peanuts comic strip, Pigpen is one of the characters, a
prototypical messy kid swirling in his own personal dust cloud.) As we
walk, sit on couches, and fold laundry, we resuspend particles that have
settled out on surfaces all around us, creating a cloud of invisible particles
that surrounds us.
While the main problem comes from breathing them in, pollutants find
their way into our bodies through what we eat (ingestion), through hand-to-
mouth contact, and even through our skin (dermal absorption). Take this
fascinating set of new studies by Gabriel Bekö, Charlie Weschler, and
others at the Danish Technical University that asked, “Are we breathing
through our skin?”20 The researchers sat for several hours in a room with
elevated concentrations of a common indoor pollutant. They were fully
stripped down to their shorts, so nearly all of their skin was exposed, but
they were breathing “clean” air through breathing hoods that covered their
heads. Then they tested their urine to look for the chemical or its
metabolites in their urine. A few days later they repeated the scenario, but
this time with no hoods, to disentangle the relative importance of the
different pathways that chemicals take to get into our bodies. Surprisingly,
they found that dermal uptake of some plasticizers (and even nicotine) is as
important as the inhalation route. In other words, we are definitely
“breathing through our skin.” They also found that clothing can act as a
barrier, or as a source. If your clothes have these chemicals in them, they
may trap them close to your skin, creating a constant source of exposure
over an extended period of time. If the source is somewhere else in the
room, a clean set of clothing can help limit that exposure, simply because
less skin surface area is exposed.
When we think about buildings and exposure to pollutants, the
conversation in the building world tends to revolve around indoor air
quality, or IAQ. We see the shorthand IAQ now being used to mean
basically any hazard in the indoor environment, and that needs to be
corrected. A more apt term that some of us use as a replacement phrase for
IAQ is IEQ: indoor environmental quality, which is a bit more
encompassing. Here’s why.
In addition to VOCs, there are a whole host of other indoor pollutants to
think about and other routes of exposure beyond inhalation. There are
things like the heavy metal lead, which can be found in old paint and old
water pipes or tracked indoors on our shoes. Lead gets into our bodies
through ingestion, as well as inhalation of suspended dust. Or as we saw
with the preventable catastrophe in Flint, Michigan, it can get into our
drinking water, which we then ingest. The term IAQ does not work here;
it’s too narrow.
There’s also an insidious set of chemicals that are used in furniture,
carpets, and other products that wreak havoc on our hormone system. (Fast-
forward to Chapter 7 if you want more on toxic chemicals from products.)
Some of these are what we call semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
You might think of SVOCs as multi-talented VOCs—they can be a gas or
attach themselves to airborne dust, or they can be in dust on the floor, or on
walls, or on our skin or clothing. The scientific term for what we are talking
about here is “partitioning.” Where these SVOCs reside in the air or dust
depends on their physical and chemical properties and environmental
conditions like temperature, humidity, and airborne dust levels.
The multi-talented SVOCs are also clever about how they can get into
our bodies—through our lungs, through our skin, or through our GI tract as
we transfer small quantities from the surface of our hands to our mouths
when we eat with our fingers or touch our lips. We call that transfer of dust
via hand-to-mouth contact “incidental ingestion.” And would you ever
guess that this “incidental” ingestion can be up to 100 milligrams of house
dust per day?21 It might make you think about the dust in your office or
home a bit differently …
All this is to say that the products we use in our offices, homes, and cars,
and the activities we perform there, all contribute to this indoor cocktail that
our bodies are constantly absorbing and ingesting. The problem goes
beyond IAQ. It’s a question of total IEQ, of which air quality is a subset.
And our building plays an important role in creating, or mitigating, these
conditions.

Indoor Assault 3: What Is Your Neighbor Doing?

We’ve now talked about two assaults on your health—indoor sources of air
pollution and outdoor air pollution coming inside, but indoor health hazards
are actually a three-pronged assault for many people. It turns out that even
if you do your best to stop outdoor pollutants from penetrating inside and
you are super careful about what’s happening inside your own space, there’s
another thing to be concerned about. And that “thing” is your neighbor.
Anyone living in a high-rise or multifamily dwelling is all too familiar
with the experience of smelling your neighbor cooking. That’s telling you
that the air inside the building is communicating between apartments. You
might want to ask what your neighbor is doing, because it turns out that in
many buildings, on average, 9 percent of the air inside your apartment is
coming from a neighbor.22 (If you’re in an older multiunit building, this can
be as high as 35 percent.)
Take a good look at your neighbors next time you’re in the elevator or
stairwell and ask yourself, “Do I really want to be breathing their air?” If
they smoke, you’re smoking. If they have cats, you have cats. If they have
laminate flooring that emits formaldehyde, you’re getting a bit of that, too.
This issue of the neighbor isn’t just one to think about for multitenant
residential buildings. You can, and should, also think about the word
“neighbor” for any space adjacent to yours that can impact your indoor
environmental quality. So for a commercial office building, your neighbor
could be the building next door. There are many instances of one building’s
ventilation exhaust feeding almost directly into the adjacent building’s air
intake. When a restaurant exhaust billows up into the adjacent building’s air
intake system, it’s noticeable because of the distinct grease smell; if a
renovation is happening next door, the smell of freshly cut wood may waft
into your building. That’s an indication of just how much air transfer there
can be between buildings.
A common example of this problem can be found in buildings whose air
intakes are right at street level or by a parking lot. Any idling car in the
vicinity of that intake supplies a steady stream of pollutants that gets sucked
up by the air intake and efficiently distributed around the building. Take a
look around you the next time you walk by a set of buildings in the
downtown district in your hometown—you’ll find that, amazingly, the
practice of having the air intake close to the street or in a parking lot is not
that unusual.
Joe’s favorite example comes from an office building where people
noticed an occasional whiff of air that smelled like rats and mice. The
owners hired a pest management firm and searched the building but
couldn’t find evidence of any pest infestation. After a thorough
investigation inside their own space, they could not figure out why there
was a rodent smell—until they started looking at their neighbor. It turns out
that the air intake for their building was in an alley and the exhaust air for
the adjacent building was feeding into that same alley. That second building
happened to be the home of an animal toxicology program with many
hundreds of … mice and rats.

Understanding Risk
With this three-pronged assault on our health, you might be forgiven for
thinking that all is lost and you should spend the rest of your life living in
the mountains or in a hermetically sealed bubble. That’s not necessary.
There is good news here: your building can actually help mitigate the
impact of this assault.
To understand how these assaults may impact us and how our buildings
can help requires that we understand the basic concepts of exposure science
—that is, we need to know how the concentration of a pollutant, the
duration of exposure, and the frequency of that exposure can combine to
create an adverse health effect—and then figure out how to intervene to
stop that from happening.
Take the example of the short, infrequent exposure to the BTEX
chemicals while filling your car’s gas tank. You can be exposed to a high
concentration of benzene while you are filling up at a gas station, but the
overall risk is quite low because the duration of that exposure is brief and
infrequent. (If you have an electric vehicle, it’s never. If you’re a worker at
the gas station, that’s another story altogether.)
Using the Building to Break the Chain of Exposure and
Risk
In public health, when we try to understand the different building factors
that influence health, one useful model to consider is what we call the
“conceptual model for exposure-related disease,” first introduced to Joe by
one of his doctoral thesis advisers, Michael McClean, now associate dean at
Boston University School of Public Health. (We promise to make this part
interesting, but we’re academics, so we have to talk about conceptual
models too. Bear with us; this will be useful to you.)
This model is great because it is really simple in concept and really
useful in practice. As we work from left to right, we move from sources of
pollutants in buildings to personal exposure to those pollutants to potential
health effects, with a couple of steps in between. Why is this useful? If we
break the chain before personal exposure, we have eliminated or at least
minimized the risk of a downstream health effect. A key aspect of this
model that’s right in the name but needs to be highlighted anyway is that
this model is about exposure-related disease, not other factors that influence
health, such as genetics, which is why it’s so relevant to our buildings. This
is all about the environment. And that’s why and how buildings can be used
to break that chain.

FIGURE 3.1    Conceptual model for exposure-related disease.

Let’s go through an example and walk through the various subboxes to

make it clear. And to make it interesting, we will use a high-profile case
from a few years ago.
“What’s Lurking in Your Countertop?”
In 2008 the New York Times published a story with the alarming title
“What’s Lurking in Your Countertop?” The story started a national scare by
“breaking” the news that granite countertops can emit radon.23 What’s radon
and why should I care, you ask? It’s a radioactive gas that is commonly
reported as the second leading cause of lung cancer.
Radon is a ubiquitous gas that forms from the natural decay of uranium
from granite in the ground. It’s a hazard that we think about mostly in
relation to our homes, as it can permeate through the soil and find its way
into our basements through cracks and fissures, and then to the rest of the
house, where we spend our time. The New York Times story taught us that
another source of radon indoors was granite in people’s homes.
Radon is interesting from a risk perspective because, unlike for other
environmental pollutants, we “accept” an unusually high level of risk for
radon. To put numbers on this, whereas the Environmental Protection
Agency regulates other pollutants to keep risk at 1 in 1 million (10−6 risk,
spoken as “ten to the minus six”), the goal is to keep radon below 4
picocuries per liter of air in our homes, a level associated with a nearly 1-in-
100 lifetime risk for lung cancer for nonsmokers (10−3) and a truly
astounding nearly 1-in-10 risk for smokers (10−2). In short, we “accept” a
much higher level of risk for radon than we do for other environmental
pollutants.
Back to our conceptual model for exposure-related disease, where we’ll
use radon to explain the other boxes in the model. The source of radon, as
that New York Times article pointed out, is the granite countertop. The next
step in our model is environmental media, which is the annoying public
health way of saying air, water, or dust. Radon is gas that is emitted from
the granite countertop (the source) into indoor air (the environmental
media).
Next up in the model is micro-environments. This is our way of saying
where you encounter the pollutant. Most of the time granite is used in the
kitchen in a home, but the gas migrates around the home, so the different
micro-environments where you could encounter radon are places like the
kitchen, your bedroom, the basement, and even outdoors. This is critical,
because understanding risk requires you to understand the different micro-
environments where we are exposed.
If we want to figure out the next part of our model, personal exposure,
we need to match up where we spend our time (the micro-environments)
with the concentration of the pollutant in air (the environmental media). It’s
all very logical if you step back from the terminology for a minute—a
pollutant can’t have a meaningful impact on our health if we rarely
encounter it (the BTEX at the gas station, for example).
In the radon from countertops example, you would rightly anticipate that
the personal exposure concentration would be highest in the kitchen, where
the source is. But what are the frequency and duration of that exposure?
To figure that out, we go back to “where we spend our time” and learn
that we spend about 2 percent of our time in the kitchen and 34 percent of
our time in the bedroom. So while the radon concentration may be highest
in the kitchen, the duration and frequency of exposure there may be quite
low.
An interesting side note to get you thinking about the role of the building
here: In homes with central air-conditioning, the radon concentrations aren’t
that much higher in the kitchen than in the rest of the house, even though
that’s where the countertops are. Why? It’s because these central air-
conditioning systems draw air from all areas of the home, cool it, and then
redistribute that cooled air evenly around the home. Essentially, the central
air-conditioning takes that higher radon concentration in kitchen, mixes it
with air from everywhere else in the home, and then spreads that mixed air
around the home. The result is lower radon in the kitchen but higher radon
elsewhere. This makes that time in the bedroom more consequential from
an overall exposure standpoint because the central air takes some of that
radon from a place where we don’t spend much time and delivers it to a
place where we spend a good portion of our time. (This same thing happens
often in commercial office buildings, hospitals, and schools, where the
ventilation system sometimes acts as an efficient system for distributing a
pollutant all around the building.)
Now that we understand the elements of the left side of this conceptual
model, it’s easy to target our interventions. If you wanted to lower your
personal exposure to radon from countertops, you could remove the source,
attempt to lower the pollutant concentration in the air (environmental
media) through filtration or building-ventilation strategies, or reduce time
spent in different micro-environments. In fact, you must use this model
when thinking about a building-related exposure. All too often, the mere
presence of a potential hazard is used to say there is risk, without
understanding how that potential hazard migrates out of the source and
creates exposure.
(The right-hand side of the model goes beyond the scope of this book,
but it covers what happens to pollutants after they enter our body. In
Toxicology 101, this is described by the handy acronym ADME
[absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion]. The penultimate box
in the model is altered structure and function, which is the way we highlight
that it’s not always enough to have an absorbed dose [the amount that enters
the body]. Rather, that absorbed dose has to lead to some altered structure
or function of one of our biological systems to have the potential to cause a
health effect.)

So What’s Lurking in Your Countertop? Nothing

We didn’t think it was right to end this chapter without telling you what
happened with the radon-in-granite-countertops scare. Joe led the team that
was hired to work on this project after the New York Times story broke,
performing a series of investigations with colleagues in his former
consulting company.
The ensuing forensic investigations essentially followed this conceptual
model of exposure-related disease, beginning with measuring the emissions,
or flux, of radon from the countertops into air in the home. Sure enough, the
testing confirmed that some granite countertops can emit radon.
And this is where the New York Times story failed. It essentially reported
this finding, that radon comes out of granite countertops, without taking
into account the rest of the conceptual model. Had the “expert” the reporter
interviewed done so, he would have figured out what Joe and his team did
when they simulated 1 million granite countertop purchases and
installations, accounting for things like varying ventilation rates in homes
and where people spend their time. They found that 99.99 percent of
scenarios generated radon levels that were below what’s typically found in
US homes from radon coming from the ground. The formal conclusion in
the peer-reviewed paper: “The findings presented in this study demonstrate
that the probability of a granite countertop leading to a meaningful radon
exposure in a home is negligible. These de minimus risks would be
considered acceptable based on risk limits used by the EPA in regulating
potential environmental hazards (10-5–10-6).”24
So if you were thinking about ripping out your granite countertop, think
again.

The Opportunity Moving Forward

So far we’ve aimed to make it clear that the buildings where you spend
your time have an impact on your personal health. In Chapter 4 we will
discuss specific steps you can take to optimize for health and performance,
and we’ll show you how this directly translates to bottom-line performance.
Here’s what’s at stake: In the preface we mentioned that $7 trillion in
real estate institutional capital tracks green building performance, and as of
this writing, there are over 100 green building councils around the world
and millions of square footage of office space certified as green. In this
chapter we showed the massive opportunity in front of us when we begin to
shift from thinking about green buildings (which largely focuses on the 1
percent of costs associated with energy, waste, and water) to thinking about
Healthy Buildings (which focuses on the 90 percent of the costs of our
buildings—the people). John Mandyck, the former chief sustainability
officer at United Technologies and now CEO of Urban Green Council, has
put the challenge succinctly: “Can you imagine how much farther and faster
we can go when we start to focus on health?”25
In Chapter 4, we will do exactly that—we will show the quickest, easiest
way to unlock the power of buildings to drive health and wealth.
 
CHAPTER FOUR

Putting the Building to Work for

You
I am persuaded that no common air from without is so unwholesome as the air within a close room
that has been often breathed and not changed.
—BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

BUSINESSES ARE IN A GLOBAL competition for talent. How do you

attract the best and brightest, and how do you retain them? Then, once
you’ve hired them, how do you give them the opportunity to perform their
best? It turns out that your building has a role to play in all of this, acting as
a differentiator for recruitment and retention and optimizing employee
productivity. From an individual point of view, what environment helps you
be “the best you”?
In Chapter 3 we saw that time spent indoors is a big driver of health, and
that the human capital in buildings is the biggest driver of business costs.
We argue, then, that the person who manages your building has a bigger
impact on your health than your doctor. And this person just may have as
big an impact on your bottom line as your CFO.
The natural follow-on question is, What specific actions can we perform
to start putting our building to work for us? The answer is literally right
under our noses.
Tomes have been written with tips and tricks for improving worker
productivity—standing meetings, work-from-home strategies, employee
bonuses, and engagement programs, to name just a few. What’s always
missing from this list is the easiest one: the impact of air quality on worker
productivity.
Let’s look at one critical factor: the amount of fresh air being supplied to
people. In many of the hundreds of forensic investigations of sick buildings
that Joe was involved in, the root cause of the problem could be traced to
inadequate ventilation. In fact, in 100 percent of those cases, even if
ventilation wasn’t the root cause, it had to be fully understood to solve the
problem.
When we talk about ventilation, we are talking about the amount of fresh
air brought into a building—outdoor air ventilation. Decades of research
have shown that ventilation is a key determinant of health indoors. But we
didn’t really need decades of research to know this when we’ve known it
anecdotally for hundreds of years. As Benjamin Franklin once professed, “I
considered fresh air an enemy and closed with extreme care every crevice
in the room I inhabited. Experience has convinced me of my error. I am
persuaded that no common air from without is so unwholesome as the air
within a close room that has been often breathed and not changed.”1

Ventilation and Cognitive Function: The COGfx Study

Take recent work by Joe’s Healthy Buildings research team that examined
the effect of air quality on cognitive function, a useful indicator of
productivity in knowledge workers. In the COGfx Study, a study that was
simple in concept but sophisticated in design, we enrolled office workers to
spend six days over two weeks with us in a highly controlled, simulated
office environment at the Syracuse Center of Excellence. We asked them to
show up at this office space instead of their regular offices and spend their
nine-to-five day with us, doing their normal work routines.2
What is unique and interesting about this study is that each day, without
their knowing, we changed the air quality in that office space in subtle
ways. This was very much akin to an animal lab study in which different
things are injected into the cage, except this time we did it with humans.
(Lest you be concerned with this “humans as guinea pigs” study, this testing
was governed by Harvard’s Institutional Review Board, which makes sure
study participants are protected in public health research. All of our
protocols were reviewed and approved by the board, and at no time was
anyone placed in a condition that would even remotely be considered
dangerous to his or her health.)
At the end of each day, we administered a cognitive function test while
the subjects were still in their offices. This test was developed by Usha
Satish and her colleagues at the State University of New York Upstate
Medical Center and has been used on thousands of participants. It allowed
us to quantify performance across nine cognitive function domains. We’re
pretty sure you’ll agree that this is a list of performance skills that are
relevant and valued in knowledge workers:

1. Basic activity level

2. Applied activity level
3. Focused activity level
4. Task orientation
5. Crisis response
6. Information seeking
7. Information usage
8. Breadth of approach
9. Strategy

Each person was compared with him- or herself—we didn’t really care if
John scored higher than Joe. We just cared how people scored against their
own baselines. Importantly, this was what we call a double-blind study: the
participants didn’t know how we changed the air in the room each day, and
the data analysts weren’t aware, either.
So what did we change about the air each day? We tested the impact of
three different factors on cognitive function performance: ventilation,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide. To be clear, we
didn’t test exotic conditions or weird VOCs—we tested levels of these three
factors that are or can be encountered in nearly every building. For
ventilation, we tested what would happen if we doubled the ventilation rate
from the current standard.
When workers were in an optimized indoor environment (“green+” in
this figure), meaning high ventilation rates, low VOCs, and low carbon
dioxide, we found a dramatic improvement in higher-order cognitive
function across all nine cognitive function domains.
Think about that for one second—simply increasing the amount of air
brought into an office, something nearly every office can easily do, had a
quantifiable benefit to higher-order cognitive function in knowledge
workers. When John Mandyck, the CEO of Urban Green Council, saw
these results, he immediately grasped their economic significance. He
recognized that, unlike rolling out a new enterprise-wide system to improve
worker performance, where it can take a year or more to see results once
everyone is trained, there was no learning curve for the COGfx Study—all
you had to do was breathe. Even better, from a practical standpoint, VOCs
and carbon dioxide can largely be controlled in a building through higher
ventilation rates.

FIGURE 4.1    Cognitive function test scores for nine domains across three building
conditions. Reformatted from Allen et al., “Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with
Carbon Dioxide,” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 6 (2016): 805–812, figure 1.

These results aren’t really all that surprising. Just like Ben Franklin, we
have all experienced a poorly performing indoor environment. Ever get on
an airplane in the middle of the day only to fall asleep immediately, even
though you’re not tired? That’s because most planes do not have their
ventilation system on at the gate. Ever feel sleepy in a stuffy conference
room? Many are underventilated. Your mind focuses on the lack of air, the
odors, the temperature, and … the clock. When that door finally opens, you
can feel the life breathe back into the room.
All we did in our study was quantify the impact of what we have all
experienced. Sometimes we think we are really just academics in the field
of common sense. Casinos figured this out a long time ago, pumping in
extra fresh air and keeping the temperature cool to keep you awake and at
the gaming tables and slot machines longer.
The results of the COGfx Study were published in 2015 and immediately
grabbed the attention of the commercial real estate press. The Wall Street
Journal headline proclaimed, “Scientists Probe Indoor Spaces for Clues to
Better Health,” and the New York Times celebrated as “A Greener, More
Healthful Place to Work.” Even National Geographic, which traditionally
focuses on the outdoor environment, ran a piece called “5 Surprising Ways
Buildings Can Improve Our Health.” COGfx also landed on the cover of
Newsweek, which went with a scare-tactic title—“Your Office Air Is Killing
You”—complete with a picture of the grim reaper at the water cooler. We
mention this not to brag about the reach of our research but rather to
illustrate just how much the concept of objective measures of a Healthy
Building is starting to permeate into the mainstream. These ideas are no
longer exclusively confined to academic circles.
All of this attention from the commercial real estate sector inspired Joe
to write an article for Harvard Business Review that quickly summarized
the results of the study and identified the economic potential of Healthy
Buildings (“Stale Office Air Is Making You Less Productive”).3 The goal
was to engage and educate business executives on the link between indoor
air and cognitive performance. But in truth, the results weren’t all that
surprising to us. That’s because over the past 30 years, study after study has
shown that the amount of fresh outdoor air brought inside—what’s known
as ventilation—is a critical determinant of health. This steady stream of
research has demonstrated that enhanced ventilation has been shown to
reduce sick building syndrome, cut absenteeism, and even reduce infectious
disease transmission.4

Acceptable Is Not Acceptable

What exactly is ventilation, and if the public health benefits are so clear,
why are buildings chronically underventilated? The history is worth
exploring here because it tells us how we got to this point and what we can
do going forward. The invention of air-conditioning by Willis Carrier in
1902 forever altered how, when, and where we can work. The modern
mechanical system governs how fresh air is brought into a building, how it
is filtered for outdoor pollutants, how it is dehumidified (or humidified),
how it is thermally conditioned, and how it is delivered to occupants. Most
importantly, it governs not just how outdoor air is brought indoors but also
how much outdoor air is brought in.
Some readers may be aware that there are industry-accepted guidelines
as to how much outdoor air should be brought into a building. This is
determined by a standard-setting body called the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE,
pronounced “ash-ray”). But even those who know a lot about these
standards seldom recognize that they have a critical flaw.
The ASHRAE standard is called “Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality.”5 The key word here is “acceptable.” This is not a standard for
“healthy” indoor air quality, nor is it a standard for “optimal” air quality. It
is a bare-minimum standard, by name and definition. (ASHRAE is quick to
acknowledge that it’s a minimum standard.)
Think about this for a minute. We have learned that ventilation is critical
for health and productivity, yet nearly every indoor space where you spend
your day—from multifamily homes to offices to restaurants and schools—is
guided by this minimum standard for ventilation, despite study after study
showing the benefits of increasing ventilation above this minimum. This
standard of “acceptable” is not acceptable!

The False Choice of “Energy versus Health”

How did we get to this point? Well, it’s been a 100-year odyssey. The
“acceptable” ventilation rate has fluctuated up and down over the past few
decades, trying to find a balance between energy conservation and comfort
—in other words, between tightening up our buildings and increasing the
amount of fresh air coming in. ASHRAE itself can’t seem to make up its
mind on this point. For the past 30 years it’s been involved in an internal
debate about whether it is a “health-based” standard, or whether it’s just
about energy (its latest opinion is that yes, it’s health based).
For decades, ASHRAE has published “comfort tables” (or to be more
technically accurate, psychrometric charts). The standard offered by these
tables was created before it was easy to measure many of the components of
air that we can look at today, such as particulates, metals, or gases like CO2.
The intent was simply to target set points for temperature and humidity and
to help engineers size and specify equipment that could deliver that
temperature and humidity on most days of the year, with the exception of a
few very hot or very cold days.
For the first hundred years or so of mechanical air-conditioning, this
scale was well aligned with what humans perceived on their own: “I’m hot
(or cold),” “It’s too humid (or too dry).” But our ability to assess what’s in
the air we breathe, and to measure its impact beyond “I’m not shivering” or
“I’m not perspiring,” has moved on as sensors and data management have
advanced. For the most part, buildings have not moved on with that
capability. They should.
We have this 100-year journey of ventilation rates fluctuating up and
down, trading off health for energy. Where are we now? ASHRAE has
settled on a recommended ventilation rate for commercial buildings of
approximately 20 cubic feet per minute per person (cfm / person). In our
COGfx Study we tested performance at 20 cfm / person and 40 cfm /
person, and we saw significant benefits in cognitive ability across a wide
range of functions from doubling the standard rate of ventilation.
Here’s another big problem with the current ASHRAE standard for
acceptable indoor air quality. Nearly every building is designed to this
minimum, because that is the standard. But it’s not uncommon to find that
many buildings are not operating at the minimum standard. So not only is
this a standard aiming for a mere acceptable level of indoor air quality, it is
only a design standard, not an operating standard. All too often a building
may be meeting this minimum acceptable level when the doors open on day
1, but by day 2, no one is verifying performance.
To put some numbers on this, consider the use of CO2 as a proxy for
ventilation. (Indoor CO2 levels come largely from human respiration.) If
you’re meeting the minimum ASHRAE standard, you should expect CO2
levels in an office to be less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm). It turns out
that in many offices, CO2 levels creep above this threshold frequently. In
one study of 100 nonproblem buildings in the United States, the 95th
percentile CO2 concentration was about 1,500 ppm.6 This means that many
buildings were above 1,000 ppm, and 5 percent of buildings were grossly
missing the minimum ventilation standard—by a full 50 percent.
Low ventilation rates are not solely a problem in office buildings. It is
common to find CO2 levels above 1,500 ppm or higher in schools.7 To put
some specifics on this, Mark Mendell and colleagues at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory studied 162 classrooms across 28 elementary schools
in California and found that the average CO2 concentration was above 1,500
ppm.8 (In one district the average was closer to 2,500 ppm.) California is
not an aberration. In Texas, one in five schools tested had peak CO2
concentrations above 3,000 ppm.9 These are just two examples of dozens of
studies showing similar findings. Taken together, the full body of scientific
evidence paints a problematic picture—up to 90 percent of schools in the
United States are not meeting the minimum ventilation standards.
The same low ventilation can be found in your bedroom at night, your
car, and most airplanes. Side note on airplanes (another indoor environment
that also follows design-based, not performance-based, guidance on
ventilation rates from ASHRAE): Joe and colleagues studied airplane cabin
air quality as part of an FAA-funded Center of Excellence. Our
measurements of CO2 in airplanes show that it can reach as high as 2,500
ppm during boarding (1,500 ppm was typical at cruising altitude).10 This
may help explain why you may find yourself falling asleep after boarding,
even in the middle of the day. Perhaps more interesting, after seeing the
results of the COGfx Study, Joe and his team did a similar study but this
time with airplane pilots and flight simulators. In that study, varying levels
of CO2 were injected into the cockpit of a flight simulator while active
commercial airline pilots were challenged with 21 simulated advanced
flight maneuvers, like avoiding a midair collision, aborting a takeoff after
an engine fire, or landing the plane with one engine inoperative. The result:
pilots were more likely to fail these advanced maneuvers when CO2
concentrations were elevated in the cockpit.11
 In short, all day long we find ourselves in environments that fail to meet
even minimum acceptable ventilation rates, and the scientific evidence
shows that this is impacting our performance.

The Impacts of Higher Ventilation on Your Income

Statement
We want to show you what the science on ventilation rates interlaced with
measurable cognition results (notably focus, information usage, and
strategy) all means for your business. To do that, let’s take a hypothetical
40-person consulting company, Health and Wealth, Inc. (H&W). Here is an
illustrative pro forma income statement.

At H&W, as in many knowledge worker firms, payroll accounts for more

than two-thirds of the firm’s total expenses. Returning to the 3-30-300 rule
of thumb from Chapter 3, payroll is $3,000,000 per year; rent is $300,000
per year; and energy and utilities, at $30,000 per year, are a tiny item on the
income statement at 0.5 percent. (In our example, revenue is modeled at
two times payroll, although some service firms enjoy higher ratios.)
In the first era of green buildings, many companies focused most of their
attention on energy efficiency. While that is a worthy quest, energy
efficiency does not really contribute much to the bottom line of a typical
office tenant.
For example, what if the utility cost (mostly energy) at H&W is cut by a
quite substantial 20 percent, as in our next example?
This changes the bottom line by less than half of one percent. No wonder
many tenants don’t want to go through a lot of effort to seek these relatively
minor savings when there are so many other things for office managers to
worry about.
Now let’s look at some of the payroll-related items. After all, this is the
largest single cost by far.
Starting with the cost side, suppose that these employees were a little
healthier thanks to higher ventilation rates. If that’s the case, there should be
fewer sick days. But are we making this up? Is there evidence for such an
effect?
 It turns out that, yes, there is. This brings us to the work of Don Milton,
professor of environmental health at the University of Maryland, who
showed that healthier buildings were associated with 1.6 fewer days of
absenteeism due to sickness each year.12 What constituted a “healthy
building” in that study? You guessed it—higher ventilation rates.
One way to look at this is in the context of about 250 workdays per year
(50 weeks × 5 days per week = 250 days). Rounding up, if a worker has 2
fewer sick days, this is just about 1 percent of his or her total workdays for
the year. Take a look at the income statement now with the added “Payroll
Effect: Health,” which uses this 1 percent figure to help understand what
this could mean to our hypothetical company, H&W.

Even with this conservative estimate, the cost savings from avoided sick
days already equals the total utility spend. And since the savings flow
through to the bottom line, net income increases by almost 2 percent.
 Now suppose that the documented improvements in thinking—notably
in measurable cognitive domains like focused activity, information usage,
and strategy—led to true revenue increases from more billable hours, more
client assignments, and more engagements sold. This would be material for
any business. In addition to the impact on cognitive function, others have
conducted studies that estimate productivity gains of anywhere from 2 to 10
percent with better indoor air quality.13
To return to our example, let’s take the low end and assume that just 2
percent of this added impact flows to the top line as a “productivity boost.”
Improving this one aspect of a Healthy Building—ventilation—becomes a
very substantial business advantage, increasing the bottom line by 9
percent.
 Let’s take this a step further. To ward off any energy conservation critics,
a proper analysis would have to project a net increase in energy usage to
achieve these gains. But what would a doubling of the ventilation rate cost
in terms of energy? Research led by Joe’s Healthy Buildings program
modeled the energy costs from increasing the ventilation rate from 20 cfm /
person to 40 cfm / person in buildings across the continental United States
to cover all climate zones and common building types. The worst-case
scenarios, in the hottest or coldest climates, were $40 per person per year.
(When a building uses energy-efficient technologies, that cost is usually
driven down to single dollars per person per year.)14
 Suppose we assume that no energy efficiency measures were taken and
that H&W increased the ventilation rate to 40 cfm / person and incurred that
cost of $40 per person per year. This would cost the company $1,600 per
year in additional operating expenses (OpEx). The net impact of higher
ventilation rates would still be highly positive to the tenant occupier
company.
 Finally, there is room in this equation for gain sharing. Suppose that the
economic gains in this model were shared in part with the landlord. Sharing
gains with the landlord can help to align the parties around first cost of
construction, who pays for what in the tenant space, and allocation of
operating costs.
 In this example, the revenue gains from productivity, the cost savings
from health, and the net added energy costs could allow the landlord to ask
for a 10 percent increase in rent—and still leave room for this company to
add more than $75,000 to its bottom line. That’s a lot for a firm whose
profit was just over $1.1 million at the start. This illustration allows for gain
sharing with the landlord—the kind of win-win alignment that helps to
solve the “healthy real estate investing paradox” mentioned in Chapter 1.
Of course, some firms might instead want to share the added revenue with
employees through a bonus or profit-sharing system. (In Chapter 5 we will
dive deeper into the issue of split incentives in real estate and why this
negotiated distribution of value is so thorny—and so important.)
Now, recall that the scientific evidence suggests that higher ventilation is
associated with gains ranging from 2 to 10 percent. What if we were to
project a more optimistic 3 percent productivity and health realization?
This is a shocking result. Why? Because it shows that bottom-line net
income for this brainpower-dependent consulting firm increases more than
10 percent—from $1,169,000 to $1,293,880—even while paying more for
energy (mostly ventilation) and paying the landlord more for rent (since the
space was designed and engineered for healthy air, the landlord can attract
higher-value tenants and charge a premium for the added benefits).
This broad “what if” kind of analysis is common in the real estate
industry. Landlords frequently need to decide on other improvements like
changing the carpet or replacing the roof or putting marble in the lobby or a
daycare center in the common area or electrical vehicle chargers in the
garage. These one-time capital investments are almost never directly
traceable to a specific increase in rental rates, but tenants quickly get a
sense of the expected price range for features like windows, finishes, noise,
and more that contribute to the overall appeal of a lease. Landlords and
investors go by these calculations in deciding what to put in and what to
leave out. We are proposing that the considerations we’ve raised concerning
quantification of the benefits of a Healthy Building should become a critical
part of landlord and tenant math.
The figures in the pro forma are intuitively logical. But readers may
think, “Come on, how will revenue go up by that much?” What if objective
measures of health and well-being beyond ventilation could be proved and
implemented? In the rest of this book, we’ll argue that they can, even in the
rough-and-tumble world of commercial real estate.
 
CHAPTER FIVE

Creating and Capturing Value

Organizing is a process; an organization is the result of that process.
—ELINOR OSTROM

IF THE OPPORTUNITY IS SO GREAT even for just one factor,

ventilation, why hasn’t the market attempted to capture the value of Healthy
Buildings? We think the answer has to do with split incentives—“Why
would I incur higher energy costs, as landlord, if the productivity benefits
go to you, the tenant?” This disconnect exists in commercial office
buildings, in public buildings like schools and city halls, and even in
institutional settings like universities, hospitals, and multifamily residential
buildings. We think it can and should be easily overcome, but there are
obstacles to surmount.
To really understand how this works, it’s worth stepping back for a
minute to look at all of the stakeholders involved in the decision-making
process around buildings. The motivations are complex, but the lack of
market response comes down to four factors: information, inertia,
incumbents, and incentives.
The information component is straightforward: people just don’t know
how large the beneficial impact of healthy indoor air really is. That’s what
we have covered so far, and we will cover throughout this book. Here is a
look at the other hurdles.

Inertia: A Complex, Trillion-Dollar Market

The real estate and construction industry is one of the largest business
sectors and investment classes in the world. New construction globally is
almost $9 trillion per year and rising; for reference, this is equal to about
half the size of the gross domestic product of the United States.1 Homes,
commercial buildings, airports, roads, power plants, and more represent
hundreds of trillions of dollars in assets. For most people who own a home,
it’s their largest asset. Yet the industry is also very complex. Scores of
entities are involved in almost every building project—ranging from permit
givers to excavators to elevator installers to painters to mortgage brokers.
And unlike the output of any other industry, the product of construction
cannot be easily moved. Buildings are a lot harder to ship than cars or
phones.
Additionally, these are very big-ticket items. The average sale price of a
home in the United States is almost $400,000 (the median is about
$190,000), according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.2 But it’s not
unusual to see an office tower or airport or power plant costing more than a
billion dollars. Most products in the built environment are unique, the result
of custom designs for clients in nonhomogeneous locations. Unlike starter
homes or fast-food restaurants or warehouses, only a small percentage of
office towers or major construction projects are carbon copies of other
buildings. Finally, homes and buildings last a long time, so the fleet does
not get “retired” in favor of new models as with mobile phones, cars, or
computers. The average age of an owner-occupied house in the United
States is 37 years, with half built before 1980.3
These factors contribute to an industry that is capital intensive,
fragmented (that is, many smaller players), and risk averse. These are
characteristics of a system that will be hard to budge, as there is inertia
among the players. To unpack this phenomenon, it’s useful to segment the
real estate and construction market across several key variables in order to
identify the right action for each.
First, consider geography. Is the structure located in the developed world
or emerging world? In a city or in a rural area? In a jurisdiction with clear
land title and laws or without them? In a dense and dirty city or an open and
clean setting? These factors all contribute to thinking about an investment
in Healthy Buildings.
Second, consider usage type. Most of the construction in the world is
single-family housing. Five other common asset classes are multifamily
housing, office, retail, hospitality, and industrial (warehouses). Many
government and nonprofit organizations own offices and housing; they
might also own hospitals, classrooms, libraries, courthouses, laboratories,
prisons, and more. There is also heavier infrastructure like roads, bridges,
pipelines, water treatment plants, power plants, seaports, and airports. All of
these assets have different characteristics with respect to structural systems,
external facade, interior finishes, parking needs … and of course ventilation
and energy.
Readers will have noticed some conflation of owner types and building
types. The owner classes frequently used in industry classifications and in
investing are, broadly, single-family homes; multifamily buildings
(apartments or condos); museums, universities, schools, and hospitals
(MUSH); and government buildings (from the local town hall to the
Pentagon). The final configuration is nonresidential nonbuildings such as
roads, power plants, canals, and bridges. Again, the perspective of a single-
family homeowner is different from that of the Pentagon, which is different
from that of a toll road operator. The importance of healthy indoor air, the
ability to recognize healthy indoor air, and the ability to pay for the
elements that create healthy indoor air vary quite a bit.

Incumbents: Making Sense of the Motivations

These classifications help builders, owners, investors, and lenders to
develop marketing plans. But another characteristic of the building industry
is even more important to understanding how innovation happens, how best
practices evolve, and what goes into a decision regarding air quality. One
needs to understand the structure of the industry value-added system. This
can help with strategy and tactics, and it can also illuminate where to nudge
entrenched players and overcome slowness to change.
An industry value-added system is sometimes called a supply chain or
value chain. A simple example, taken from the agribusiness industry,
involves the flow of products:
Seeds are purchased → Farmer plants, tends, and harvests → Grain is stored → Grain is
shipped to factory → Breakfast cereal is manufactured and boxed → Boxes are shipped to
stores → Stores stock shelves → Families buy and consume cereal.

The product flows from left to right in this sketch, and the money from right
to left. The family pays the store, the store pays the manufacturer, the
manufacturer pays the farmer, and so on. In the food industry, the system
runs pretty much continuously, since consumption of breakfast cereal is
largely constant (storage is needed at the other end because grain grows
seasonally).
But supply chains can be made much more complex. For example, the
farmer also had to acquire or rent the land at some point, and the farmer
probably purchases and uses fertilizer, pesticides, farm equipment, and fuel.
Maybe there is debt involved in the chain. Since these are all contracts,
there are lawyers, insurance companies, banks, and brokers to be paid. And
this is just to get your cornflakes to the kitchen table.
Now think about a major new office tower. The key players are, broadly
speaking, led by a developer or promoter who assembles and controls the
land, secures financing, engages a designer or architect, hires a builder or
general contractor, and rents the finished space to tenant companies (who
employ the people who will spend much of their waking time in this
building). At the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco, for example,
Salesforce is the anchor and “name” tenant, but Boston Properties and
Hines are the developers, Hathaway Dinwiddie and Clark Construction are
the general contractors, CBRE is the leasing broker, the Herrick
Corporation fabricated 10,000 tons of structural steel, and Conco was the
concrete contractor.
Of course, it’s still more complicated than that. The general contractor
will hire scores of specialty contractors ranging from excavation and
foundations through steel and concrete, as well as bricks, windows, roofing,
plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning—all finished with
carpets, stone and wood flooring, and walls of wood, brick, glass, and
gypsum coated with paint. Heating and ventilating has its own key
subspecialties like ductwork, piping, wiring, insulation, controls, air
balancing … and of course the provision of big equipment like pumps and
chillers and small equipment like fans, louvers, and switches. The
manufacturers of pumps and chillers might seem far down in this value-
added system, but building product manufacturers like Carrier, Trane, and
Johnson Controls are large corporations in their own right that sit atop their
own value chains of sheet metal, cylinder blocks, spark plugs, bolts,
bearings, and so on.
FIGURE 5.1    Real estate and construction industry value-added system for a typical new
office building.

Another branch of the value-added system, at least in the US commercial

construction model, is design. A billion-dollar office building like the
Salesforce Tower might have a “design” architect with a big name like Pelli
Clarke Pelli, an “architect of record” (creating the actual contract
documents) like Kendall Heaton, a structural engineer specializing in this
seismic zone like Magnusson Klemencic Associates, a mechanical design
team like WSP, and dozens of specialty consulting firms in landscaping,
curtain walls, security, acoustics, lighting, food service, elevators, and
more.
The design and construction team would be subject to building codes
(and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers [ASHRAE] standards) covering dozens of characteristics from
seismic concerns to shadows to parking to egress to accessibility. In
practice, overlaying this system of product flow and cash flow is a large
cadre of oversight, regulation, and inspection regimes. Hundreds of
thousands of professionals work in established industry groups that are not
shown in the “chain of contract” but that are nonetheless credentialed and
powerful. These include roles like building inspectors, zoning code writers,
commercial lenders, consulting engineers, insurance brokers, lawyers,
accountants, actuaries, insurance companies, and more. While all of these
players help organize and standardize the overall industry, and at the micro-
level also help facilitate project delivery, the presence of this vast secondary
ecosystem adds to the inertia of the industry—and strongly favors
incumbents, thanks to their specialized knowledge and existing web of
relationships.
At the other end of the industry value-added system is a second chain
represented by the money. A small office building in a suburb might have a
single owner, a single tenant company that is the occupant, and a mortgage
from a single local bank. But for a billion-dollar building in a big American
city, there are dozens to hundreds of tenants; the contractual ownership
might be allocated among dozens of partnerships or corporations; and the
mortgage might be split into layers where different nonbank lenders have
different rights to the cash flow, or even made into financial product like
commercial mortgage-backed securities. Boston Properties, for instance,
lists Vanguard, Fidelity, JPMorgan Chase, Schwab, and Putnam among its
biggest stockholders. Financial investors like these have fiduciary
considerations, and they are interested in the performance of their
investment portfolio; they are not directly interested in the health or
productivity of the people who work in the building—unless this will
impact their bottom line.
Perhaps most critically, this dance is done only once per project: the
relationships are built, the contracts are signed, the materials are made, the
labor is performed, and after completion of the project, the parties break up
and move on. The provision of a billion-dollar building, once, is thus far
different in terms of ability to standardize from, say, the provision of 25,000
cars at $40,000 each annually and forever.

Why Does This Matter to Healthy Buildings?

The configuration of this constellation of players matters for two main
reasons: money and risk. At the simplest level, if it costs someone else (the
landlord) more money to help me (the tenant), why should I expect him or
her to do that? We have proposed one answer in Chapter 4, where we have
shown that the impact on the people who use the building is so positive that
some of the gains can be shared. A 1.7-million-square-foot building like
Wells Fargo Plaza in Houston probably houses about 6,000 people … each
of whom spends most of his or her waking hours in the building; that’s the
target population for these ideas.
The second aspect is risk. Engineers and air-conditioning installers want
to litigation-proof themselves by meeting building codes, and they don’t
want to be called back to fix faulty equipment. Some of the air-conditioning
equipment may be relatively inexpensive at first but very costly to repair
once it’s been installed in the ceiling and connected to the pipes and ducts,
and the users are in the space. It’s much safer for a firm to stick to tried and
true than to innovate if it might take on more exposure if something were to
go amiss; so the industry continues as it has before. Inertia is powerful.
But Healthy Buildings don’t necessarily require new and unproven
technologies. Often they just require an upsizing of capacity to exceed code
—which can be accomplished with standard technology. We hope that the
evidence in this book regarding the health and productivity benefits of
indoor air quality will ultimately drive user requests, accelerate the demand
for healthy air … and lead to a greater willingness to pay a little to push
these requests upstream so that people can benefit here and now.

(Split) Incentives: Who Wins and Who Loses?

Let’s look at the most challenging situation from an incentive point of view:
commercial real estate. This is difficult because a landlord is primarily
looking to build or operate a building at the lowest possible cost. If the
tenant is responsible for energy costs (and employee health costs), there is
no incentive for the landlord to spend more on any of this if it can’t be
recovered somehow in rent or direct payments. This is the classic split-
incentive problem that has been discussed frequently in the energy
efficiency space: “Why don’t landlords just build a more energy-efficient
building from the start?” Answer: “Because there is no benefit to them in
spending the money and effort.” Only the most sophisticated landlord-and-
tenant combinations realize the mutual benefit in getting “better” space in a
“better” building (because that kind of tenant recognizes the importance of,
and is willing to pay for, a “better” space).
 The relationship between the tenant Li & Fung and the landlord Empire
State Building is a well-publicized case in point.4 Tenant and landlord
collaborated to finance base building improvements like better windows
and more insulation; and the tenant also invested in its own electricity-
reducing engineering, such as more efficient light fixtures, automatic plug
switch-offs at night, and an interior design that allowed daylight to reach
farther into the office space.
But that’s a best-in-class, well-capitalized global firm with a long-term
lease working in New York City with an enlightened landlord in a big
structure that is probably the most famous office building in the world. In
the rest of this large, locally oriented, fragmented industry, it’s a long way
from elite landlords with “Class A” investments in elite cities to the smaller,
“Class C” buildings in smaller cities occupied by smaller firms with smaller
balance sheets that really can’t be bothered with some of the energy details.
This, of course, is where our book comes in: those are exactly the
companies that should care most about the health of their employees. More
productivity and better health go right to the bottom line (with some in
employee bonuses) not just in high-profile buildings but in fact in all
buildings.
A different sort of split incentive can be found in some owner-occupied
buildings. The understandable commercial landlord-tenant split incentive—
where the two are totally separate economic entities—disappears. But
within big organizations like hospitals or universities, decision-making and
incentives are often devolved into different departments. Take the case of a
large research university in the Boston area (not Harvard) that was
considering energy-efficiency investments several years ago. The
construction group was responsible for capital costs and was measured on
how competitively projects were designed, bid, and delivered. There was
only passing consideration for the life-cycle costs. In another office,
operations staff had a budget for maintenance, repairs, cleaning … and
energy for lighting, heating, cooling, and lab equipment. They had no
influence on the construction side but were still responsible for the cost of
energy.
For simplicity, this organization billed all departments on a square-foot
basis for lighting, heat, and cooling regardless of the age and condition of
the department’s particular building (desktop and lab bench electricity was
billed separately). This seems fair at first blush since faculty and
departments don’t necessarily get to select their space. But as a result, when
researchers, department heads, or grant writers sought funding, it was never
for energy efficiency: Why should they allocate their hard-won funds to a
capital expenditure whose benefit would be spread across all users? That’s
not just a split incentive, it’s a reverse incentive—where using funds for
energy efficiency in the space you control winds up with a negative
financial impact.
Harvard encountered a similar misalignment of incentives, and it
addressed the issue in part with its Green Revolving Fund.5 Originally
capitalized by discretionary funds from the Office of the President, the
concept was to loan funds directly to academic departments so they could
make investments that made economic sense—usually with a three- or four-
year payback period. The department could fund the capital improvements
(using a loan from the fund to pay for the general construction and cover
the repairs budget). The energy savings were measured and the savings
went toward interest and principal on the loan. When repaid, the funds
could be used again.
This was, in practice, mostly a matter of accounting. The “loan” to one
entity was “repaid” by savings from another piece of the same large
financial statement. But the presence of the fund highlighted the issue,
overcame the silo problem, and led to more energy efficiency.
This approach to energy-efficiency finance is mentioned here for three
reasons. First, the productivity and health benefits of better indoor air
quality arguably outweigh the financial benefits of energy efficiency.
Second, it shows that the issue of misaligned incentives is not limited to
commercial landlords and corporate tenants, and that it can be found among
capital budget, operating budget, and department budget within the same
university (or hospital or museum). Third, the “revolving fund” tool can
work in other ways to help account for improvements in the built
environment that lead to demonstrable improvements in health, wellness,
and productivity.

I’m Still Worried about Costs

So far we have contemplated the economic value of health and productivity
and looked at the strategic implications of split incentives (in the
commercial world) and misaligned incentives (in the museum, university,
school, and hospital world). But what kind of costs are we talking about
here?
The cost has two components—real and perceived. Let’s look at the real
cost of one simple fix—higher ventilation. As we discussed in Chapter 4,
our modeling and that of others suggests that across the United States, the
cost of doubling the ventilation rate from the ASHRAE “acceptable” level
is about $10–$40 per person per year (reduced to $1–$12 with energy-
efficient technologies in place).6 That covers all climate zones and many of
the most common commercial building types and mechanical systems.
However, the perceived costs are quite a bit higher. In a study of building
managers asked about the estimated cost of doubling ventilation rates (and
upgrading to higher-grade air filters), these managers estimated the costs to
be in the range of $100 per person per year. In other words, their estimates
were anywhere from 2.5 to 100 times more than actual costs.7 But even if
their estimates were off by a factor of 3 or 4, it should not have mattered.
Why? Look back at Table 4.2 and see that even a 20 percent swing in
energy costs only impacts the bottom line by less than half of one percent—
yet the perceived cost is used as the barrier to adoption. Accurate
information is not out there yet.
The obstacles raised in this chapter boil down to four issues:
information, inertia, incentives, and incumbents. To recap:

Information is incorrect or lacking. On the cost side, it’s a lot less

expensive to implement healthy indoor air than people think. On the
benefits side, the cognition, productivity, and health benefits are
material, objective, quantifiable, and significant. The first objective of
this book is to share information.
Inertia is powerful. As always, it’s easier to keep doing what one has
always done than to change. In a large and nonhomogeneous industry
like real estate and construction, with a long and complex value-
added system featuring thousands of tenants, owners, contractors,
engineers, and vendors, it’s not simple to push through even small
innovations. We believe that with a growing awareness of measurable
 health benefits, this will change—starting with the big, sophisticated
user groups and dispersing to the rest. The second objective of this
book is to overcome inertia.
Incumbents are hard to move. Influential organizations like
ASHRAE, the US Green Building Council, the American Institute of
Architects, and many other ratings or accreditation groups have their
own patterns, systems, hierarchies, and revenue streams. It can be
very hard for them to adopt and promulgate a new system when the
old one has broad acceptance. For established groups whose influence
is linked to static building codes or proprietary point systems, moving
to modern, sensor-based measurements and cost-benefit-adjusted,
benchmarked outcomes can be a major disruption. As with other
innovations, forward-thinking building occupants—and landlords—
will gravitate to a better system without regard for the fate of
incumbent associations. The third purpose of this book is to show
how to do that.
Incentives are misaligned. Most design and construction decisions
are not made by the people who will breathe the air: choices reside
with engineers who won’t occupy the space, construction budgeters
who aren’t measured on long-term productivity of occupants,
landlords who don’t benefit from their tenants’ results, and numerous
different departments in large organizations that are set up to be at
cross-purposes. Plan A is for all the parties to “get it” about indoor air
and health and spring into action collectively (this is, arguably, much
easier at a university or hospital or museum, where someone at “the
top” can decree modifications across multiple departments). But what
if the parties don’t get it? Our final purpose is to propose incentives,
initiatives, and innovations that can help frame a plan B and push for
improvements on the merits.

Now That We Have the Basics Down, What Do We Do

Next?
Until recently, these arguments (particularly about improving the corporate
bottom line by spending more for occupancy and energy) seemed like so
much hand-waving broker talk, since productivity and health benefits were
not quantifiable. But that has changed. These benefits are now objectively
quantifiable. Going forward, we will describe what it means to have a
Healthy Building, going well beyond the simple example of better
ventilation. We’ll give you tools to start capturing these enterprise-wide
health boosts, and we’ll give you ideas for how to scale these solutions and
benefits.
 
 PART II

A Healthy Building Strategy

 
CHAPTER SIX

The 9 Foundations of a Healthy

Building
As I look back on it now from this changed world of “safety first,”.… it astonishes and amuses me to
see how very well this primitive method often worked.
—ALICE HAMILTON

AS WITH MANY FIELDS, there are deep silos in the world of indoor
environmental quality. It’s not uncommon for a scientist to declare that he
or she is a “water person” or an “air quality person.” Very often, there is
little communication across the disciplines. To be successful, the Healthy
Building movement will require a new, holistic approach that jointly looks
at a range of factors and systems, forcing interactions among various fields
of expertise. This approach has been successful in the biological sciences,
with the advent of various “-omics” fields, such as metagenomics,
proteomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics. (Sometimes simply naming
it helps to advance the field.) The question then is, How do we do this for
buildings? We have previously proposed the field of “buildingomics”—the
study of the totality of factors in buildings that influence our health, well-
being, and productivity.1
But what are those factors, and what is the scientific evidence supporting
each? The 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building is the title of a short report
created by Joe and a multidisciplinary team of experts from his Healthy
Buildings program at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health that
distills 40 years of research on the key determinants of health in a building.
FIGURE 6.1    The 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building.

The idea for the 9 Foundations arose from many interactions over the
past several years with real estate professionals, building owners, hospital
administrators, facilities directors, homeowners, and academic colleagues.
Two things stood out. First, during these discussions, Joe would often say,
“The idea of a Healthy Building has been made too complicated. There are
just a handful of things we need to do to make a building healthier.” This of
course led to the very fair, on-the-spot request to name them. In the ensuing
discussions, it became clear that the public health community has often
failed to translate our research into actionable information.
Second, Joe would often hear some variation of the refrain, “Your
research is very interesting, but I can’t take a scientific paper into my
meeting on Monday and convince a building owner or manager to do things
differently. I need a short summary.” Thus, the 9 Foundations project was
born.
We won’t regurgitate the report here in this book. Instead, we will take it
a step further—we will give you our opinion on the essential takeaways and
then some recommendations for each of the 9 Foundations. We recognize
that this is a dense chapter, so feel free to skip around it and pick a topic or
two to read now before continuing on with the rest of the book—you can
always come back and pick another foundation to read about later.

Foundation 1: Ventilation
We won’t go into much detail here on how ventilation impacts health, as we
spent most of Chapter 4 spelling this out. You now know that the current
ventilation standard specified by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) of about 20 cfm /
person is a bare-minimum standard. Many studies show the benefit of
higher ventilation rates, but collectively they have not identified the optimal
rate. We do know that it should be greater than 20 cfm / person, and our
studies and those of others have seen benefits at 40 cfm / person and above.2
Some Healthy Building certification standards, discussed in detail in
Chapter 8, give a building “credit” for going 30 percent over the minimum
ventilation rate. We think most buildings can attain 30 cfm / person today
with little cost and very little effort (beyond a mind-set shift as to what gets
counted in the cost-benefit analysis).

When the Air Is Turned Off, So Is Your Protection

Since we’ve already covered how much outdoor air needs to be delivered,
let’s keep this interesting by talking about another key aspect of ventilation
and health: when that air is delivered.
In an office building with mechanical ventilation, a typical run-time
schedule for the air-handling equipment might look something like a ramp-
up beginning at six or seven o’clock in the morning to prep the building for
worker arrival, and then a shut-off at around five or six in the evening.
If you’re like us, and millions of other workers, the end of that sentence
should have jumped out at you.
 “Wait, building ventilation systems shut down at five or six o’clock in
the evening? I’m still in the building at that time!”
That’s not all—many people work on the weekends, and it’s really
uncommon to find a commercial building that has its mechanical system
running full bore seven days per week.
The consequences are exactly what you’d expect in some respects, and
surprising in others. On the obvious front, this means that there might be
very little or no outdoor air coming into most office buildings outside of
traditional nine-to-five working hours. Also not surprising, there is often a
corresponding increase in reporting of odor complaints, hot or cold
complaints, or sick building issues at precisely those times.
To show how common this is, and how it leads to problems, just today,
as Joe was writing the first draft of this section, a colleague contacted him
asking for advice about what to do. She said she’d started to smell cigarette
smoke in her office over the past few days. Joe asked a series of basic
questions, including the time of the odors. She said that it was right about
five o’clock in the evening. (We’re not making this stuff up, we swear.)
The culprit? A smoker outside the building, and a building that shut
down its ventilation system at precisely five o’clock. But why did this
happen? you may ask. The smoker was outside, not inside.
When mechanical systems shut off, the building loses two key defenses
against outdoor air pollutants. Once that system is off, the building is (1) no
longer positively pressurized relative to outdoors and (2) no longer filtering
incoming air and recirculated air. The result? A million pathways for
outdoor air pollutants to penetrate through cracks and crevices, doorways,
and windows. And then, once inside, airborne particles are not effectively
captured in the building’s filters. So what our colleague was experiencing
was a building that had turned off its defense system at five o’clock,
allowing cigarette smoke to penetrate right back into the building.
There are also more insidious examples, such as pollution from a parking
garage or restaurant exhaust reentering the building once that positive
pressure is gone. In one fascinating project, Joe led the forensic
investigation of an unexplained accumulation of thick dust on the office
desks of an urban high-rise building. The investigation was prompted by an
employee who reported the dust as a health concern. The forensic
investigation involved setting up real-time air-quality sensors around the
building, “sniffing” the air with specialized probes to explore in the walls
and ceilings, and using a “fingerprinting” technique to compare the thick
dust in that office with other known dust matrices. It revealed that this
normally pristine Class A commercial office space was being impacted by
subway soot traveling from the subway station below. We discovered that
with every train arriving in the station after hours, a plume of subway dirt
shot up through poorly sealed penetrations around the steel columns and
found its way into the office building through electrical outlets and the
ceiling plenum. At the end of each day, the workers left a clean office
space, only to arrive the next morning to find a layer of dirt and grime on
desks, walls, and every other surface.
But why would this phenomenon only happen after hours, even though
the subway was running all day? The answer is that the mechanical system
in this building was turned off for the day around six o’clock, and the office
areas were thus no longer under positive pressure relative to the subway
(and the recirculated air was not being filtered). As trains rumbled by
overnight, the building no longer had enough positive pressure to keep
those subway particles at bay. The remedy? In the short term, running the
mechanical system 24 / 7 to keep the building under positive pressure and
the air continuously filtered. We also installed an air quality monitoring
system with real-time alerts to verify that the air quality was safe for the
workers at all times. The longer-term solution was serious work on the
building to seal off all of the air penetrations from the subway.

The Fine Details of Capturing Fine Particles

On a related note, another key component of any ventilation system is the
level of filtration of the air stream. We know that airborne fine particles
(PM2.5) are a serious threat to our health, and we showed in Chapter 3 that
these particles infiltrate our buildings. Mechanically ventilated buildings
allow for the control of many of these particles because, with a central point
of entry, the building can filter outdoor air before it’s distributed all around.
But the devil is in the details. The typical filter used in a building with a
central mechanical ventilation system is a MERV 8 filter. Recall that MERV
stands for “Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value,” and the higher the
MERV value, the higher the particle removal efficiency.
 To help make sense of this, let’s first think about high-efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters. It’s likely you’ve seen a product with a HEPA
filter that has this written on the packaging: “99.97% efficiency.” Well,
HEPA is actually nearly 100 percent efficient across most particle sizes, so
why the 99.97 percent rating? It’s because filters are rated based on the
particle size for which they are least effective. For HEPA, they are least
effective for particles of 0.3 microns—99.97 percent effective, to be
precise. Thus the rating.
Now let’s go to a MERV 8 filter, the one most commonly found in
buildings, which might only remove 50 percent of PM2.5. It’s a boulder
catcher, really, designed to capture large particles that can damage the
mechanical equipment.
So what to do? If you’re in an area with high levels of outdoor pollution
—or in any building in a major city, for that matter—we strongly
recommend upgrading to MERV 13 or higher. This is the level of filtration
recommended for “superior office buildings,” and it removes almost 90
percent of PM2.5. If you live in an area like Shanghai or Cairo or in areas
impacted by wildfires, like San Francisco, where PM2.5 levels have been
known to reach 100 μg / m3 or sometimes as much as 1,000 μg / m3—levels
that are immediately dangerous to health—you should definitely be using a
MERV 13 or higher. You pay an energy penalty for the higher filtration (and
a slightly higher filter cost), but this is trivial compared with the health
benefits.

Giving Your Building a Regular Checkup

One last point on ventilation: if you want to be sure your mechanical system
is operating in a way that protects your health, the single best
recommendation we can give you is to commission your mechanical
system. Our commissioning recommendation is straightforward, but if
you’re not familiar with commissioning, it’s worth your time getting up to
speed quickly. Commissioning is the process by which you make sure your
building is performing the way it was designed to. (Or for new buildings,
it’s the process by which you verify you are getting the building you paid
for.) This recommendation for continuous commissioning stems from years
of observations by John during his building projects, by Joe during his
forensic investigations, and by nearly everyone who knows anything about
buildings. Buildings don’t always perform as designed (actually, they never
do), and they change over time. Commissioning is like going to the doctor
for an annual checkup. It helps you catch things early, before your building
ends up in the emergency room, where you’ll spend 10 times as much
fixing the problem. With the advent of new sensor technologies, it’s also
possible to do continuous commissioning, thus ensuring that the building
systems are performing optimally every minute of every day.

Our Recommendations
Increase the ventilation rate to a minimum of 30 cfm / person.
Verify ventilation performance with real-time monitoring of CO2.
Run the air-handling system during all hours the building is occupied,
preferably using demand control ventilation.
Select the right filter for the location of your building. (Check out the
terrific report by Brent Stephens, Terry Brenna, and Lew Harriman,
“Selecting Ventilation Air Filters to Reduce PM2.5 of Outdoor
Origin.”)3

Foundation 2: Air Quality

What’s the first thing you would do if you ever found yourself in the
unfortunate position of discovering an inch of water in your basement or a
puddle of water in your bathroom? If you have any sense, you won’t start
mopping up the water until you have tried to find the source. In other
words, you turn off the spigot. Then you get to cleaning.
The same logic applies to air quality in your building. The very first step
in maintaining good air quality is to control indoor sources. You have to
turn off the spigot of indoor air pollutants. (Think back to our conceptual
model for exposure-related disease in Chapter 3; if you control the source,
then there is no exposure and also no chance of adverse health effects.)
For chemicals like volatile organic compounds (VOCs), this means
choosing things like no-VOC paints and formaldehyde-free products. It also
means avoiding scented sprays and cleaning agents with high VOC content.
Not only are the VOCs potentially harmful, they can react with ground-
level ozone to generate formaldehyde and particles. Speaking of particles,
avoid the use of incense or candles (and we hope this is obvious and doesn’t
need to be stated, but just in case—no smoking in or around buildings).
Then you can worry about controlling infiltration of outdoor pollutants,
including those that penetrate from the ground, like radon and even some
VOCs.
There can be hundreds of different sources of indoor air pollutants—in
this case, there’s no one spigot to turn off. And even when you do get rid of
a source, sometimes that can lead to a new and unexpected source taking its
place.
Joe once led a forensic investigation of a doctor’s office where workers
were reporting symptoms consistent with formaldehyde exposure. But all of
the wood products were certified as “formaldehyde-free,” and the builder
was adamant that he had purchased all “green-certified” products. How
could that be? Well, the investigation showed that the wood products were
indeed formaldehyde-free, as described, but it turned out they were
screaming hot with other aldehydes that had been used as a replacement for
formaldehyde.
So even if you do everything you can to limit common sources of VOCs
and other indoor pollutants, there is only one way to know if you’ve been
successful, and that’s to test the air regularly. Air quality in a building can
change frequently, based on everything from the building’s systems to
outdoor conditions to what the people bring into the space and the work
they do in the space, so we strongly recommend continuously monitoring
air quality in real time, supplemented with more traditional “industrial
hygiene” assessment methods.
You should be monitoring for indicators of indoor air quality in your
building at all time. This includes carbon dioxide, temperature, relative
humidity, and particles, and if you have combustion sources like a boiler in
your home, then you should also be measuring carbon monoxide. New
sensors are coming on the market every week, so this list will expand as the
quality and availability of new sensors continue to expand. Measuring these
is akin to having a smoke detector in your office or home—the real-time
sensors are your first-alert warning system that something may not be right.
But real-time monitoring is not the endgame, as some may have you
believe. Real-time monitoring must be supplemented with more targeted
sampling on an annual basis, at a minimum, using traditional air-sampling
approaches (industrial hygiene methods). These are validated and
standardized techniques that allow you to make specific measurements that
real-time monitors cannot reliably make at this time, such as collecting air
samples and sending them to a lab to test for 70-plus VOCs, or sending
water samples to a lab to test for the presence of lead or bacteria in the
water. (We discuss who should do this testing in Chapter 8, and we further
discuss what you should be testing for in Chapter 9.)

Controlling Indoor Pollution When You Can’t Control the Source

What if you can’t control these indoor sources of pollution and your
environmental monitoring tells you that the levels of a particular pollutant
are high? Well, then it’s worth revisiting the ventilation and filtration
section earlier in this chapter. For mechanically ventilated systems like
those in office buildings, you can add enhanced filtration on the recirculated
air stream. In some cases you could consider fortifying your MERV particle
filter with a tool to capture gaseous pollutants like VOCs—such as a
carbon-based filter. These can be expensive, and they require some skill and
expertise to use well because carbon filters can saturate. When a particle
filter gets dirty, it performs better because there is more physical junk in the
way of the air stream, but when a carbon filter saturates, VOCs pass right
through. So having it in place may give a false sense of security. Not to
mention that carbon filters also preferentially bind certain VOCs. There is
an art to using carbon filters, but they can be effective when done right.
For the home or office kitchen, making sure you have a vent over the
stove to capture particles generated during cooking is critical—and make
sure that vent is ducted to the outside, or else you’re just recirculating the
pollutants in the building. Last, portable air purifiers can be effective at
controlling airborne particles from either indoor or outdoor sources. Just
make sure they are sized right for the room. New portable air purifiers
include a carbon-based filter to capture VOCs, along with the traditional
filter for particles, and they also have embedded sensors that control when
the filter activates.

Our Recommendations
 Turn off the spigot by selecting low- or no-VOC materials and
avoiding scented cleaners and candles.
Supplement real-time air-quality monitoring with targeted analysis for
speciated VOCs and other air pollutants (see Chapter 9 for a more
complete list).
Consider air cleaning using enhanced filtration techniques in your
mechanical system (or portable air purifiers) if sources can’t be
removed and if the air-quality testing reveals unacceptably high
concentrations of pollutants.

Foundation 3: Thermal Health

Ask any building manager, “What is the number one complaint you hear
about a building?” and we guarantee that he or she will say, “Calls from
employees about feeling too hot or too cold.” If you address this one issue
in a building—and granted, it can be hard—you will be far ahead of most
everyone else when it comes to employee satisfaction.
Traditionally, indoor environmental quality practitioners and ASHRAE
refer to this issue as “thermal comfort.” We hate the use of the word
“comfort” and prefer the term “thermal health” for two reasons: (1) using
“comfort” places the onus on the individual and suggests the issue is about
complainy types rather than the building, and (2) it fails to acknowledge
that this is a health issue, not merely a “being uncomfortable” issue, as
you’ll soon see.
Several factors go into thermal health, but only a few that the building
controls. Outside the purview of the building, the person’s activity level
(metabolic rate), clothing, genetics, and gender all play a role in thermal
health. But the building controls four key factors: air temperature, relative
humidity, radiant temperature, and air movement.

Thermal Health and Human Performance

To get a sense of how buildings can factor into human performance, take a
look at this inverted U-shaped curve from a 2018 study published by Joe’s
Healthy Buildings team at Harvard, led by research associate Jose Cedeno-
Laurent.4 This was a study of students in dorms with and without air-
conditioning before and during a heat wave, and their resulting performance
on simple cognitive functions, as measured by the Stroop Test. (The Stroop
Test is commonly used in psychology to test selective attention. In the test,
you see the color red but read the word “green.” The person in the test is
asked to report the color they see, not the color they read. Your brain pauses
because of this dissonance. The test records your reaction time, or the
length of your “brain pause,” and the number of questions you get right.)
Here’s the quick and dirty interpretation—for every 2°F variation from
the optimal temperature, there was a 1 percent reduction in throughput on
the Stroop Test. You read that word right, “throughput.” Synonyms include
“capacity,” “productivity,” “yield,” “bandwidth,” “production” … you get
the point. This is impacting worker performance.
FIGURE 6.2    The impact of temperature on (a) reaction time and (b) throughput. Data
source: J. G. Cedeño Lauren et al., “Reduced Cognitive Function During a Heat Wave
among Residents of Non-Air-Conditioned Buildings: An Observational Study of Young
Adults in the Summer of 2016,” PLoS Med 15, no. 7 (2018): e1002605,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002605, figure 3.

This relationship between thermal health and performance is now well

known, at least in public health and building science circles. Researchers at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found a 10 percent relative
reduction in performance when the temperature fell out of this narrow
optimal range.5 What’s amazing here is that these two studies show a
remarkable consistency, despite being performed using different tools
nearly two decades apart. The specifics of the studies and methodologies
are less important than the key takeaway: there is actually a very narrow
range of temperature conditions that promote optimal performance. And
this narrow range is smaller than what is specified for “comfort” by
ASHRAE.
To see what this means to the economics of your business, let’s say you
let that optimal level of about 72°F stray a bit in your building, and the
indoor temperature reaches 76°F. (Joe once worked in an office where it
regularly hit 80°F and higher.) On that one factor of thermal health alone,
temperature, the data from the Harvard study indicates that you would see a
2 percent hit to productivity. If you think back to the pro forma for Healthy
Buildings Inc. in Chapter 4, a 2 percent productivity boost led to 9 percent
in bottom-line gains, even after accounting for additional energy costs and
paying a premium on rent. On the flip side, this means that the 2 percent
lower throughput equates to a decline of 9 percent in the bottom line. Just
from having your temperature stray by 4°F!
This might make you think a bit harder about those seemingly annoying
“too hot” and “too cold” complaints—they aren’t red flags about complainy
employees; they are indications that these people’s productivity is being hit.
Imagine going to your boss and telling him or her you could boost bottom-
line performance by almost 10 percent with a flip of the switch!
Thermal health is a complex dance of many factors, and one factor we
haven’t touched on yet is humidity and the uncomfortable sticky feeling
that comes on muggy days in summer. Air-conditioned buildings provide us
with some relief (while also ensuring that indoor humidity does not reach
levels that promote mold growth). On the flip side, there is a prevailing
notion that we are overcooling buildings in the summer—when people feel
cold air coming out of vents, it is common to hear a comment along the
lines of, “It’s so cold in here I have to bring a sweater to work.” What most
people don’t realize is that in humid climates, this “overcooling” is actually
a necessity and is not really overcooling at all. The air-conditioning system
needs to cool the outside air to the dew point in order to extract all that
humidity from the air, and that means cooling the air to some pretty cool
temps. Let’s say your target indoor temperature is 72°F with 50 percent
relative humidity. In that case the dew point is 52°F (this is all from a
psychrometric chart). The cooling coils in your mechanical system
therefore must cool the outdoor air to 52°F to get water to condense out of
the air and then reheat the air so that it will come out of the diffusers at
around 55°F. Then, factoring in a few different factors that generate heat
indoors, like solar heat gain, body heat, and heat from electronics, the air
will be a comfortable 72°F by the time it reaches you at your desk. That
reheating uses energy and comes at a cost, so it is not uncommon for
building operators to keep the air temperature very cool, so as not to have to
do too much reheating—thus the icy-cold air coming out of the vents in
your office or in stores.
Of course, temperature and humidity are just two components of thermal
health, albeit the easiest to control and fix. But comfort levels vary with
each person, the type of activity being performed, and even over time and
across seasons. There is no “one size fits all.” One of our favorite places to
explore the interaction of these factors is the CBE Thermal Comfort Tool,
created by the Center for the Built Environment at Berkeley. We
recommend going to its website and playing around to see which
combinations of inputs keep you in an “acceptable” thermal health zone and
which ones push you out.6
There is one aspect of thermal health that deserves some special
attention, because it often gets brushed aside, and that factor is differences
by gender. A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2015 brought
this gender-difference issue to the forefront when it showed that the current
thermal comfort standards were originally based on the metabolic rate, and
clothing choices, of men … in the 1960s!7 When these researchers tested
women, they found that their metabolic rate was up to 32 percent lower
than men’s. The New Yorker published a piece in 2015 based on that
research titled “Is Your Thermostat Sexist?,” and women who work in
offices were finally given research-based affirmation of what they had been
experiencing firsthand for decades.8 Alas, this research was not without
controversy. ASHRAE quickly pushed back, saying that the thermal
comfort standard it sets is actually based on a large sample of men and
women. So what’s really going on?
If you explore ASHRAE’s rebuttal, you’ll see that the ASHRAE
standard has indeed been updated since the first iteration in 1966. The
updates do rely on a study of men and women, true, but the fine print shows
that it was first updated in 1982. Not exactly the male-dominated workplace
of the 1960s, with men wearing three-piece suits, but not that far from it,
either. ASHRAE argues that its thermal comfort standards are now based on
men and women equally and do get updated regularly (the latest version
was 2017). What is really at issue, it argues, is clothing choices, with
women dressing more appropriately for outdoor conditions each season, but
indoor temperatures still catering to men in suits.
Looking at more updated science, we do, in fact, see a gender divide
with regard to temperature. More than half of the studies of gender and
temperature reveal that women show a higher level of dissatisfaction than
men when they are in the same thermal environment. Ignoring this science
would be to ignore the voices of millions of women working in offices who
will tell you that this is a fact based on their own experience. It is time for
us to start listening. The current ASHRAE thermal comfort models have
several variables that can be adjusted to help find an optimal condition,
including one for clothing choice. Why not just acknowledge the science,
and the experience of millions, and add in another factor—gender? There is
a business imperative for this, too. A recent study that reviewed the entire
body of evidence on gender and thermal comfort concludes with this point:
“Females are more sensitive than males to a deviation from an optimal
temperature and express more dissatisfaction, especially in cooler
conditions.”9
Looking forward, optimizing indoor conditions is going to require a
future of hyperpersonalization and hyperlocalization of thermal conditions
to create zones of “personalized indoor health” that satisfy the unique
preference of each person. This is already starting to happen. Some
buildings have systems where each workstation has controls for its own
temperature and airflow, and systems that disaggregate ventilation from
temperature control. The future of personalized indoor health is not far off.

Indoor Heat Waves

For most buildings, maintaining good thermal health requires the use of air-
conditioning. While it has been partly demonized because of its
contribution to greenhouse gases, we feel that it’s unrealistic to tell people
to forgo air-conditioning. For one thing, it’s not going to happen. More
importantly, in many places it is absolutely necessary.
This is particularly relevant for places prone to extreme heat, like India,
but maybe a bit surprisingly this is also extremely relevant for traditionally
cold-weather climates, like those in the Northeast United States and
northern Europe, where buildings were designed to capture and retain heat
—a terrific strategy in the winter but terrible in the summer in a warming
world. These buildings were built with materials with high thermal mass,
such as brick and concrete. When outdoor temperatures rise, sustained high
indoor temperatures can occur, as these buildings have a hard time
“shedding” heat, in particular when nighttime temperatures do not drop.
The result is an indoor heat wave—a period of elevated and sustained
indoor temperatures that continue after the outdoor heat wave has
technically ended. This gives people a false sense of safety: the heat wave
warnings may have subsided, but the indoor heat wave continues.
 As our planet continues to warm, and as standards of living improve
globally, the use of air-conditioners is expected to rise dramatically. By one
estimate, 4 billion air-conditioning units will be installed by 2050 (on top of
the 1.6 billion that already exist). Air conditioners consume energy, and we
talk about the implications of the building-energy-health-climate-resiliency
nexus in Chapter 10, but it’s worth touching on this here, too, because there
are things we can do right now to limit the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with all of this air-conditioning. The solution does not have to be
“use fewer air conditioners.” As an example of one clever solution, consider
the work of the Center for the Built Environment at Berkeley, which found
that you could maintain acceptable levels of worker satisfaction with
thermal conditions in warm or wet climates even if indoor temperatures
were raised by 8°F, simply by using fans to increase air movement.10
Another thing we can and must do relates to improved technology. In an op-
ed Joe and a colleague wrote last year called “Want Air-Conditioning and a
Healthier Planet?,” they pointed out that there is one thing we can do right
now to dramatically lower the environmental footprint of air conditioners:
swap out the refrigerants. Air conditioners rely on hydrofluorocarbons, a
refrigerant that is 3,000 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its
greenhouse gas potential. Swapping out hydrofluorocarbons could eliminate
an estimated 0.5°C of global warming by the end of the century (that’s a full
25 percent of the 2°C limit that the Paris Agreement calls for). The good
news: replacement refrigerants are already available and coming on the
market.11

Our Recommendations
Maintain temperature and relative humidity within ranges selected for
optimal performance rather than just “comfort” ranges.
Proactively monitor thermal conditions and respond to upset
conditions quickly.
Be responsive to employee hot and cold complaints.
Reduce solar heat gain (and save energy and reduce environmental
impacts) by following the “energy-free” tactics suggested by the
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab:12
Improve insulation.
 Improve external shading (for example, by adding tree cover).
Upgrade window energy efficiency (for example, by installing
dynamic glass).
Add cool-roofing coating that absorbs less solar radiation.

Foundation 4: Water Quality

In Chapter 3 we spent some time talking about what health scientists call
exposure pathways—the air we inhale, the chemicals that permeate through
our skin, and the dust we ingest unintentionally. Then there’s the stuff we
willfully put into our bodies—namely, food and water. We’ll leave the food
issue to our colleagues in the Nutrition Department, but water quality is
central to buildings, so that’s in our domain.
Most of us have heard that we should drink eight glasses of water per
day. Staying hydrated is one of the keys to good overall health. We need
water to stay alive, of course, but what might surprise you is that staying
hydrated also helps regulate mood, performance, and even thinking.
Take our study mentioned in the section on thermal health, where those
suffering from an indoor heat wave performed worse on cognitive function
tests. What we didn’t tell you was that some of the negative impact of heat
stress was offset in those young people who drank more water. Put another
way, drinking water had a protective effect against the dangers of indoor
heat waves.
You likely didn’t pick up this book just to be told that water is good for
you, so let’s dive into how buildings influence water quality and, therefore,
our health. Overall water quality in a building is determined by measuring
some basic indicators, such as the turbidity of the water, total dissolved
solids, and total coliform. These indicators tell you about how “clean” the
water is: turbidity is an indicator of how transparent the water is, governed
by the amount of suspended particulates, or dirt; total dissolved solids is
everything in the water besides actual water (for example, minerals, salts,
and organic matter); and total coliform is an indicator of fecal
contamination of the water (coliform bacteria are present in the feces of all
humans and other warm-blooded animals, and while largely innocuous,
their presence indicates that some other harmful pathogen may also be in
the water).
 Beyond these basics, there are drinking water standards that have to be
met, and these vary by country. In the United States the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations set maximum contaminant levels for six groups
of contaminants: microorganisms, disinfectants, disinfection by-products,
inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and radionuclides.13
Despite these protections, there are always “new” issues cropping up—
and a lag from the time we discover a water hazard until there are
regulations in place. One current example is the issue of “Forever
Chemicals” that are now in the drinking water of millions. Only recently
have we had discussions about defining a “safe” level. (We discuss these
Forever Chemicals more fully in Chapter 7.) There are also more localized
issues in areas where industrial waste gets into our bodies of water, such as
carcinogenic trichloroethylene from dry-cleaning operations or perchlorate
near military bases (perchlorate, which is used in rocket fuel, interferes with
your thyroid).

When Water Arrives Clean, but the Building Makes It “Dirty”

That said, overall these drinking-water standards do a pretty good job of
ensuring that the water delivered to your building, home, or school meets
some basic safety criteria. The catch here is that they ensure water quality
right up to the point it enters your building. After that, all bets are off and
the quality of the water is up to the building owner. We will give two quick
examples—of Legionella and lead—to show what can happen after that
water reaches your building, and we’ll briefly discuss how controlling one
factor, pH, will help with both.
Another Legionella Example
Many people think of cooling towers when they think of Legionella, and
maybe rightly so, considering the high-profile outbreaks that have occurred
—most notably in the Bronx, where cooling towers were implicated when
130 people were diagnosed with Legionnaires’ disease in 2015. Controlling
Legionella in rooftop cooling towers is important, and it’s straightforward
enough with the use of disinfecting chemicals and regular monitoring, so in
this chapter we want to focus on Legionella within the building. While
cooling towers are the culprit in many outbreaks, in some instances the
source of the outbreak is an interior decorative fountain, a hot tub, a shower,
or even an ice machine.
Buildings can help control Legionella and other bacteria in interior water
systems by controlling water temperature, limiting stagnation, ensuring an
adequate level of residual disinfectant, and controlling pH. (There is also
now an ASHRAE standard, ASHRAE Standard 188, that requires all
human-occupied commercial, institutional, multiunit residential, and
industrial buildings to have a Legionella risk management plan. If that
describes your building and you don’t have one, you should.)14
The reason for controlling water temperature and stagnation is intuitive
—bacteria like to grow in lukewarm water that sits idly for long periods.
The second two—residual disinfectant and pH—are intertwined, and
interesting.
When your municipal water supplier treats water at its treatment facility,
it adds a residual disinfectant like chlorine so that bacteria won’t grow in
the water on its way from the plant to your building. That’s a good thing.
What you may not know is that the effectiveness of that disinfectant is
dependent on the pH of the water. (We’re going to get a little technical here,
but stick with us.) Here is the so-called chlorine dissociation curve.
Chlorine exists in balance in water as hypochlorous acid (HOCL) and
hypochlorite ion (OCL-). Notice that the relative amount of each depends on
the pH; at low pH (acidic), it’s almost entirely HOCL, and at high pH
(alkaline or basic) it’s all OCL-.
FIGURE 6.3    Chlorine disassociation curve at varying pH.

Why does this matter? It turns out that one of these is much more
effective at killing bacteria—HOCL. Most of the time this works out well
for buildings, where water is generally at a pH of 7 (neutral). Looking at the
chart, if the pH is right at 7, about 80 percent of the chlorine exists as the
highly biocidal HOCL. Now look what happens if that water becomes more
basic, moving to pH 8 or higher. Big problems ensue; the balance shifts to
OCL-, which is a disinfectant, but a disinfectant that reacts more slowly
than HOCL and is 80–100 percent less effective.
This leads to problems because sometimes the only thing a facilities
team measures and tracks is the amount of chlorine (measured as “free” and
“total”). If the water is tested and a target chlorine level is reached, some
building managers assume everything is A-OK. As you now see, based on
the chlorine disassociation curve, this concentration of chlorine doesn’t
mean much unless we also know the pH. (This isn’t rocket science. Ask any
college kid who has ever had a summer job as a swimming pool lifeguard.
They know this well. They test the swimming pool water every day. And
they always test for both chlorine and pH.)
Get the Lead Out
Now let’s move to lead, another water contaminant that can come from
within the building (and is also influenced by pH). We have known about
the toxic effects of lead for millennia, literally since the age of the Roman
Empire, when lead-lined pots and aqueducts caused chronic mass poisoning
of the population. Fast-forward a few thousand years to the 1970s and
1980s, when we learned about the effect of low-level lead exposure on
children’s IQs and mental development. This time the culprit was the use of
leaded gasoline and lead-based paint in homes.
Most recently, lead has been back in the news because of the tragedy in
Flint, Michigan, where high levels of lead in drinking water were
discovered, then covered up. Testing for lead is required under the US Lead
and Copper Rule. Briefly, under this rule, after collecting water samples
from homes, a 90th-percentile concentration is calculated and compared
with a limit of 15 parts per billion (ppb). In Flint, officials from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality excluded two high samples
from the data set, which had the effect of keeping the 90th-percentile
concentration below the limit required for action. Had they included those
two samples in the analysis, as they should have, it would have shown that
lead levels exceeded the limits set by the Lead and Copper Rule and action
would have had to be taken at that time. The continued poisoning of the
population could have been avoided.
Unfortunately, Flint is the tip of the iceberg. There are many
communities affected by high levels of lead in water in the United States
and around the world. Right here in Boston, where we live and work, as of
2017 an astounding one-third of schools had their water fountains turned off
because of high lead levels.15
Even if the lead isn’t coming from the water supplied by water districts,
it can come from the historical use of lead as a solder for plumbing fixtures.
Laws passed in 1986 and amended in 1996 make it illegal to use plumbing
materials that are not “lead-free,” but many older buildings, including
schools and homes, still have lead in the pipes.
 Here’s where pH comes into play: At low pH, the acidity of the water
can cause the lead to leach into the drinking water. In that way, even lead-
free water coming into your building can be contaminated by the time it
reaches the tap. (The chemistry involved in this process is fascinating and
involves complex interactions between biofilms and scale, pH and
alkalinity, organic matter, and more. For a nice summary on this, and the
Lead and Copper Rule, check out this US Environmental Protection Agency
report: Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation Technical
Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water Systems.)16
The takeaway on pH is this: too low and you run the risk of leaching and
corrosion; too high and you lose some of the biocidal properties of the
residual chlorine in your water. Like thermal health, there is a sweet spot
that you need to hit, and the only way to know if you’re there is to measure
and monitor it.

Our Recommendations
Test water quality annually at point-of-use taps in the building, and
verify that you are meeting the standards set by the US Safe Drinking
Water Act.
Monitor water temperature, residual disinfectant (for example,
chlorine, chloramine, copper-silver), and pH.
Measure Legionella concentrations in cooling towers quarterly to
ensure treatment is effective.
Filter the water in your building or home, if necessary.

Foundation 5: Moisture
One of the top priorities in building design and operation is moisture
control. There is no bigger issue a building faces than water damage. (This
may not be entirely true; as the builder in John points out, fires and building
collapses are bigger issues … but they are rare and water infiltration is
common.)
The task of controlling water and moisture dominates our design and
construction of the building—everything from rooftop drainage to the
curtain wall, to vapor barriers in the basement and dehumidification in the
air handler, to placement of water pipes. (There’s a reason washers and
dryers are traditionally in the basements of homes.)
A major water event can be extremely costly. This is both because of the
cost of tearing out, remediating, and replacing walls, floors, and other
damaged material and also because of the cost of business disruption. Joe
worked on a project for a major health-care provider where a water pipe
leaked on a Friday but was only discovered on Monday morning as
employees arrived for work. The building had to be closed for 16 days to do
the water recovery, cleanup, demolition, and rebuild. This was, to be sure, a
massive disruption to the company’s business. One way to think of the
economics here is simply as a percentage of revenue. With roughly 240
business days in a year, 16 days of a closed office represents ~7 percent of
annual revenue lost. For this ~$20 million operation, that’s roughly
$1,300,000 in lost revenue, not to mention the cleanup and renovation costs.
Major water events are one thing, and we’ll also cover extreme weather-
related events in Chapter 10, but for the vast majority of buildings, water
issues are much more sneaky: it’s the water damage you can’t see from
slow leaks or condensation.
While these are mostly subtle issues that miss notice, there are telltale
signs of water damage, such as discolored ceiling tiles. It’s one of the things
you can look for in every building you enter—“Are the ceiling tiles
stained?” It’s a classic sign of current, or past, unaddressed water issues.
You can also look for paint on walls near the ceiling that looks saggy, or
sniff the air for musty odors. (Water issues are the subject of one of the
most common questions in home transactions—during the home inspection,
when you get to the basement, the home inspector is looking for water
damage. And he or she will ask about it, too, no doubt.)

Growing (M)old Together

The reason we care about untreated moisture or water issues is that they
create the potential for mold growth. Three conditions need to be present
together for mold to grow: moisture, temperature, and nutrient source. You
have all three in buildings—plenty of water, an office building with
temperatures in a range that many molds like, and the organic matter on the
surface of wallboard and carpets acting as a nutrient source.
 Mold is a health issue for two reasons: it can cause allergic reactions,
and it can be an irritant. As an allergen, mold has been shown to be an
asthma trigger and promoter; it can cause upper respiratory symptoms like
coughing and wheezing. As an irritant, mold can act on the mucosal
membranes of our eyes, nose, and throat, with some people experiencing
headaches after being exposed to mold.
It’s also just gross. No one wants to be working in an office building and
see mold growth along the corner walls or on ceiling tiles, and no one wants
to be in a space with that characteristic pungent mold smell, most often
described as “musty” or “damp,” or the dead-on accurate, “It smells moldy
in here.” In extreme cases, mold can even eat away at underlying material,
such as the wood used for structure in a home, causing irreparable structural
damage.

Our Recommendations
Prevent it: Design the shell of your building right, from the roof
flashing to foundation waterproofing, to prevent water from coming
in, and check indoor plumbing and HVAC regularly for signs of leaks
or standing water, respectively.
Detect it: Keep your eyes open for signs of water damage from
internal or external sources; trust your nose; consider floor sensors to
detect water leaks in areas with plumbing fixtures.
Fix it: Address water and moisture issues ASAP, because these are
problems that cost significantly more to address with every passing
hour.
Clean it: If you have water-damaged porous materials, dry them fast
or get them out. Then clean the nonporous materials that were in
contact with the wet porous materials.

Foundation 6: Dust and Pests

Let’s get your attention right away:
Dust mites are microscopic pests that feed on shedded human and animal skin cells, typically
burrowing in bedding, mattresses, and furniture upholstery. While dust mites do not bite or
sting, their feces and body parts create a harmful allergen (Der p1) that can dramatically impact
human health. Mites have been associated with asthma, immune responses such as allergic
 rhinitis (hay fever), and allergic reactions ranging from mild symptoms like runny nose and
watery eyes, to more severe responses such as asthma attacks. Among asthmatic children, the
rate of dust mite allergen sensitivity can range from 48–63%, and high allergen exposure
among these individuals increases their risk of hospital admission.17

This reads like a horror movie—microscopic pests found in nearly every

bed that feed on shed human skin and whose feces cause an allergic
reaction! Nasty.
And dust mites are just the beginning of what we find in dust. We also
find allergens from cockroaches, mice, rats, cats, and dogs. Some of these
allergens are primarily from saliva and dander (dog, cat), some are from
urine (rat or mouse), and some are from saliva, feces, and shedding body
parts (cockroach). These allergens can cause itchy eyes and skin, coughing,
and sneezing, and they can also cause wheezing and shortness of breath.
Are you thinking that you have a clean office or home, and this doesn’t
impact you? Or maybe you’re thinking, We’re not one of those Silicon
Valley companies that let people bring dogs to work—no issue for us! If
you are thinking along those lines, there are some studies you might find
enlightening. In one study that looked at dog allergen in public spaces, it
was found in lots of places where it’s not common to find dogs—for
example, schools, pubs, and movie theaters. How about cats? It turns out
cat allergen is even worse because it is super “sticky.” It can be found quite
literally everywhere, including places that aren’t very likely to have cats in
them—offices, schools, airplanes, and so on. We collect these allergens on
our clothes, carry them around wherever we go, and then shed or deposit
some of them. Our clothing is a vector, in public health parlance, and
mediates exposure to particles and chemicals.18

Dust as a Chemical Reservoir

Biological allergens aren’t the only thing that’s in dust. Dust also carries
lead from lead paint and chemicals from our consumer products, building
materials, and furniture. It’s also the home for all of the dirt we bring in
from the outside on our shoes. One of the most effective things you can do
from a public health standpoint is to take your shoes off at the door at home,
and have walk-off mats in offices.
This mix of potential allergens and chemical hazards in dust is why a
company like Dyson, despite marketing itself as an engineering company, is
actually a health-care company (in our view). It makes a suite of products
that help to clean the dust (and air) in your home—vacuums and air
purifiers. But here’s why we think it should be marketing itself as a health
company rather than an engineering company: If you think of a several
hundred dollar vacuum as a tool to clean your kids’ Cheerios off the floor,
that seems exorbitant. But if you reframe that vacuum as a tool to protect
you and your kids from chemicals and allergens in dust, well that
investment in a good vacuum now looks cheap. And it is. No one in their
right mind should be spending a few hundred bucks for a sexy vacuum, but
everyone should be spending that much for a vacuum that keeps your home
or office healthier. Joe has been working with Dyson to get it to think about
itself as a health company first and an engineering company second.

How Dust Gets into Our Bodies

For us to be exposed to the allergens or chemicals in dust, it has to get into
our bodies in one of three ways: through the air we breathe, through our
skin, or through incidental ingestion. We might stir some floor dust up, thus
making it airborne and inhalable (the previously referenced Pigpen effect).
Some fraction of dust lands on our skin, where some chemicals may
permeate through into our bodies. And we may eat the dust. Not
intentionally, of course, but we eat it just the same. It turns out adults
consume about 45 milligrams (mg) of house dust each day. On the high end,
it can be as much as 100 mg.19
To put that in perspective, the recommended daily allowance for sodium
for an adult is ~2,000 mg / day, so the amount of dust you ingest is 2–5
percent of that by mass. We intentionally consume salt in our food or
drinks, but how does dust get into our bodies? As we go about our normal
everyday activities, we start to accumulate dust on our hands. Then when
we touch our lips, or eat a sandwich or snacks with our bare hands, we
transfer some of that dust into our mouths.
Fortunately, much of this exposure to dust can be controlled in an office
environment and home. Before we get to our recommendations, if you’re
really interested in dust (and who wouldn’t be …), we recommend a book
by Paul Lioy called Dust. (Yes, there’s a book called Dust.) Lioy wrote this
book after examining the hazardous concoction of chemicals and materials
found in dust in the aftermath of 9 / 11.20

Our Recommendations
Wash your hands frequently (fine, this isn’t a building
recommendation, but it’s Public Health 101, and we feel obligated to
say this at some point).
Clean floors regularly with a HEPA vacuum. (Double-check that it’s
HEPA, or else you may just be picking up large dust particles,
shredding them into millions of smaller particles, and blowing them
all over your house or office.)
Cleaning with a HEPA vacuum should be supplemented with periodic
cleaning of other surfaces beyond the floor to help control dust and
allergen accumulation from settled dust. And when we say surfaces,
we don’t just mean desks. We mean all surfaces, including walls,
picture frames, molding, partitions, and doors, which are all covered
with a fine layer of dust. (As people move around, they create, and
are surrounded by, a dust cloud. Those particles eventually settle, and
not just on the floor.)
To help control the source of animal allergens, the use of an
integrated pest management plan can be effective at controlling pest
infestations without the introduction of harmful pesticide and
rodenticide chemicals into your home or office.

Foundation 7: Acoustics and Noise

Exposure and health concerns surrounding noise have traditionally focused
on noise-induced hearing loss. In fact, occupational health standards are
specifically designed to evaluate and protect against hearing loss. There’s
more to the story of acoustics and noise than hearing loss and protection,
but let’s start there because it will help ground us in the ways we talk about
noise and give us some upper tolerable limits.
In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
sets the noise limit at 90 dBA over an eight-hour time period. “dBA” refers
to A-weighted decibels, where decibels are a unit of measurement for the
intensity of sound, and the A-weighting refers to a scaling system designed
to most closely approximate the noise heard by the human ear. Other
internationally recognized worker health organizations like ACGIH set it at
a more protective 85 dBA. (ACGIH used to stand for the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, but they now just go
with ACGIH.) There is also a ceiling limit of 130 dBA, which means that
workers should not be exposed to sound at this level for even one second.21
To put these sound levels and exposure limits in perspective, libraries are
about 40 dBA, normal conversation is typically in the range of 60 dBA, leaf
blowers are in the range of 95 dBA right at the worker’s ear, an airplane at
takeoff can exceed 90 dBA from over a mile away, and a gunshot can hit
140 dBA or higher. Importantly, dBA is measured on a logarithmic scale. A
New Yorker story published in 2019, “Is Noise Pollution the Next Public
Health Crisis?,” points out that the effect of this logarithmic scale is that a
100 dBA noise isn’t twice as intense as 50 dBA noise; it’s 100,000 times as
intense!22
So for workers for whom the ACGIH noise limit is applicable, the
allowable exposure duration is halved for every increase of 3 dBA. This
means that if the average daily noise is 88 dBA, workers can only be
exposed for 4 hours rather than 8 hours at 85 dBA. Similarly, if the noise
level were to be lowered to 82 dBA, the allowable exposure duration would
increase to 16 hours. This is called the “exchange rate” or “equal-energy
rule.”
Interestingly enough, if you read the fine print, you will see that when
calculating allowable worker exposure to noise, any noise exposure below
80 dBA is not counted toward the daily limits. That’s because the goal is to
protect from hearing loss, and there is little evidence that levels below 80
dBA lead to long-term hearing loss.

Impacts of Noise Beyond Hearing Loss

There are many work environments where noise levels reach this 80 dBA
threshold (for example, on airplanes or on construction sites), but in an
office, home, or school it is rare for noise to reach these levels for any
sustained amount of time (at least it should be rare). Worker exposure limits
tell us we should not be concerned, but that’s because the regulations are
focused only on noise-induced hearing loss. But noise and acoustics matter
at levels well below 80 dBA.
Studies of student performance in schools offer quite compelling
evidence of what noise can do to our performance. For example, a study of
more than 500 children in primary schools in France showed that
standardized test scores were 5.5 points lower for each 10 dB increase in
noise level over the average noise level of approximately 50 dB.23
So what is the mechanism of action where noise impacts test
performance? There are a few factors that are worth discussing. First, there
is the background noise the teacher has to speak over. The current standard
specifies that this background level should be 35 dBA or lower. Second is
the direct sound coming from teacher, which should be 15 dBA over
background (you want a +15 dBA signal-to-noise ratio). Third is how far
away the student is from the teacher. For a teacher speaking at 65 dBA
measured at 3 feet away, the sound level at the back of the classroom, 24
feet away, will be 47 dBA (sound level decreases 6 dBA with each doubling
of distance, based on the inverse-square law). In this scenario, a student in
the front of the classroom is hearing the teacher well because the teacher’s
voice is greater than +15 dBA above background at that location, but the
student in the back falls below this signal-to-noise ratio. Fourth is the issue
of reflectance and reverberation. In addition to the direct sound from the
teacher, sound reflects off interior surfaces, arriving at the student’s ear
sometime after the direct sound. If the reverberation time is too long, this
can cause the talking to sound muddy or inaudible. Sometimes a little
reverberation is wanted, like in a concert hall, but in other environments,
like offices and schools, the goal is to keep this low.
Perhaps the most interesting developments related to noise exposure are
studies showing that the health concern around noise goes well beyond
hearing loss and learning. Adverse noise exposure has been associated with
sleep disorders (not surprising), and it can affect blood pressure and stress
response, including increased levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline. Most
surprisingly, newer research is showing a link between noise and
cardiovascular health. In one study of homes around airports, the
researchers found that people living in areas with higher aircraft noise had a
3.5 percent increase in cardiovascular admission rate in hospitals for every
10 decibel increase in noise.24 The “highly exposed” group was well below
the 80 dBA cutoff used in calculations for noise-induced hearing loss.

Our Recommendations
The issue of noise, like many things, is multifactorial—it’s affected by
location, mechanical system noise, window and wall design, and acoustical
properties of the materials inside. It’s also a question of the type of building
and its intended use; certainly conference rooms need to be quieter than
kitchen areas in an office, just as the school library needs to be quieter than
the lunch room. For this reason, making broad recommendations for noise
can be tricky. But we’ll try it anyway.
Define “noise zones” for different areas of the building, each with
different targets for acceptable noise levels based on the intended use
and users.
Minimize noise transmission across these zones, and noise infiltration
from outside, by focusing on walls, doors, and windows (that is, keep
the zones distinct; otherwise, they’re not really zones, right?).
Use building materials that absorb sound and minimize reverberation.
Consider technologies for noise cancellation or masking if and only if
noise can’t be adequately controlled through an engineering solution.
Provide office workers with designated quiet areas for work that
requires deep concentration, and areas with soundproof rooms for
private conversations and telephone calls.

Foundation 8: Lighting and Views

Just as the invention of air-conditioning forever altered where we work, the
invention of electric lighting forever altered when we work. With the
exception of the past ~150 years since Thomas Edison invented the light
bulb, our relationship with light has been governed by the natural day-night
cycles created by Earth rotating on its axis. Our bodies evolved under this
daily rhythm of celestial bodies.
The approximately 24-hour cycle observed in humans and many other
organisms is what we call our circadian rhythm. It is largely regulated by
imperceptible, nonvisual effects of light that allow our brains and bodies to
get in alignment with the day-night cycle. When all is aligned with our
circadian rhythm (meaning, when we get light at the right amount, in the
right spectrum, and at the right time), we see positive benefits to sleep
quality, mental health, and performance. When we don’t, we see adverse
impacts. Consider research showing that shift workers (the ultimate
circadian-disrupted workers) are less alert, perform worse in their jobs, and
are more likely to experience accidents.25 That might seem obvious—it’s
intuitive that working overnight shifts might lead to more slips, trips, and
falls, as a result of tired or unfocused workers. But if that doesn’t surprise
you, this might: shift workers also experience higher rates of chronic
disease and even cancer. In fact, shift work is being considered as a
probable carcinogen.26

Lighting Spectrum
Most of us today don’t think much about light and circadian rhythms. We
are more likely to think of light in a pragmatic way—“I need light to read
and do my work and cook dinner and not trip as I walk around.”
But the old way of thinking, that all light is created equal, that “light is
light,” is being supplanted. Not surprisingly, this new era is being ushered
in by (1) new research and (2) new technologies.
On the research front, we have learned that the intensity, spectrum (or
color), and timing of the light we are exposed to all influence us. Light
intensity, or illuminance, is something we are all familiar with. This is
simply how bright the light is in our workspace or home. More technically,
it’s the amount of illuminance hitting a specified surface area, measured in
lux.
Our understanding of how the light spectrum influences us is newer, and
maybe less intuitive. “Light spectrum” refers to the color of the light,
usually characterized by manufacturers as a single measurement of
“temperature” (in Kelvin, or K). Warm light is in the range of 3,500 K, cool
white light is in the range of 4,000 K, and blue-enriched light is in the range
of 6,500 K.
To understand how this might influence us, consider that the sun during
the day is blue-enriched (6,500 K), and it’s about 2,000 K immediately after
sunrise and before sunset. (For those familiar with photography, you know
the phrase “the golden hour,” which refers to this time period right after
sunrise or before sunset, when the warm colors from the sun enhance
photos and there are fewer harsh shadows.)
The research results will match your intuition—studies on students in
controlled settings show that if they are exposed to blue-enriched light, they
experience higher levels of alertness, better concentration, faster cognitive
processing speeds, and stronger performance on tests.27 For office workers,
we see similar results—improvements in mood and concentration.28 These
effects are driven by the power of blue-enriched light to act as a stimulant
(alertness effects) and as a cue to entrain our circadian rhythms (circadian
effects). This is why you have seen recommendations to avoid using your
cell phones at night or in bed—they emit blue-enriched light. So in addition
to the never-ending stimulating content available to you, the light itself is
acting as a stimulant, right at the time your body is trying to wind down and
fall asleep.
New lighting technology is enabling this type of research, and it’s also
showing up in the market as an implementable solution in buildings. We
can now control the temperature (or warmth) of our electric light. This
means that we can mimic the natural world, creating warm, low-
temperature light in the mornings and evenings, and blue-enriched, higher-
temperature light midday. This is also changing how we go about designing
our buildings. Whereas traditionally we measured illuminance in lux to
capture the photopic response of the human eye, we can now measure
melanopic lux to capture the full range of lighting factors that influence
alertness and circadian alignment.

Views and Biophilic Design

This brings us to biophilic design, a field of research and practice that, like
the body of research on light, recognizes that the historical memory
encoded in our biology, shaped over millennia, is influencing us now.
Acclaimed Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson’s popularized the theory that we
are still governed in important ways by our innate, biologically encoded
connection to nature.29 In his book Biophilia, he makes the case that the
environment in which we evolved is very different from the environment
we now live in. We evolved in the African savannah’s wide-open expanses,
intimate with nature and seeking protection under tree canopies. At issue is
that much of our biological coding happened at a time when we were an
outdoor species. In our modern world, we have sealed ourselves off from
the natural world. Yet our genetic hardwiring, built over millennia, still
craves that connection to nature.
Our efforts to wall ourselves off from nature have been so successful that
we have recently resorted to “dosing” ourselves with nature as a practice for
preventive health. In Japan they practice shinrin-yoku (forest bathing)—
taking intentional visits to forests for restorative purposes. In the United
States, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) operates a program called
“Outdoors Rx,” where they work with the healthcare community in Boston
to give nature “prescriptions” to kids under thirteen living in vulnerable
communities. (John’s family has been a long-time supporter of AMC and
John has served on their Board.) The National Park Service has a similar
program and promotes “Park Rx”—giving prescriptions for people to visit
parks and nature to get them back in contact with our natural world—as part
of its Healthy Parks, Healthy People program.
The biophilia hypothesis was soon followed by the field of biophilic
design—an effort to put this theory into practice indoors. Biophilic design
is an attempt to bring some nature into our indoor life, thereby bridging the
gap between our genetic disposition and the realities of our modern world.
Unfortunately, it is long on theory but short on substance (so far). Relative
to other fields of study, not much research has been done to evaluate the
impact of biophilic design on human performance since Wilson’s book first
came out in 1984.
Of that limited body of research, perhaps the most widely discussed
among practitioners is a study of patients on the same floor of a hospital,
where half the patients had windows facing a brick wall, and the other half
had views of nature out their window.30 Everything else—the doctors, the
nurses, the treatments, the medicine—was the same, and patient placement
in the good and bad rooms was randomized. The results were staggering:
patients with rooms facing out to nature used less medication and had
quicker recoveries. It was a true blockbuster study.
But since that study was published in the mid-1980s, there really hasn’t
been another study like it, and no attempts have even been made to replicate
it. One has to wonder why.
 Fortunately, new tools, such as augmented reality and virtual reality, eye
tracking, and wearable sensors, are allowing us to dig a bit deeper in this
domain. Joe’s Healthy Buildings team is doing just that with a series of
studies as part of its BIO program (Biophilic Interventions in Offices). In
his team’s first study at Harvard, led by former doctoral student Jie Yin,
they found that even brief exposure to “biophilic environments” had a direct
impact on human physiology—lower blood pressure and heart rate—and
also led to better performance on short-term memory tests.31 In our second
study, we added a new twist and created virtual biophilic environments and
tested creativity. We found that people in these indoor spaces with nature
performed better on three domains of creativity—fluency, flexibility, and
originality.32 In our third experiment, we wanted to test the speed at which
biophilic designed spaces aid stress recovery. Here, we used a well-known
stressor (a math test!) to produce a heightened anxiety state in the study
participants before placing them in an office setting with or without
elements of biophilic design. What we found was striking—being placed in
a nature-inspired indoor space lowered the stress response within four
minutes.33
The growing body of research on biophilic design is showing that there
are real benefits to bringing nature indoors and reestablishing our lost
connection to the natural world, affecting both our physical and mental
health. Amazingly, in the first of our BIO studies, the virtual worlds
generated an equivalent response to the real thing. (If you’ve ever tried out
a virtual-reality roller-coaster ride or horror experience, you know that this
technology can certainly illicit strong physiological responses.)
Now, to be clear, we’re not suggesting that you throw on virtual-reality
goggles instead of taking a walk in the park. But think about the many
people who don’t have access to nature—the very sick in hospitals, the
infirm, deep urbanites. What if a brief respite in nature, even experienced
virtually, could help reset us just a bit as we are hunkered down in the Great
Indoors?

Our Recommendations
Meet minimum illuminance guidelines and control flicker.
Maximize access to daylight and windows.
 Focus on intensity, spectrum, and timing of light exposure.
Bring some nature indoors by incorporating elements of biophilic
design.

Foundation 9: Safety and Security

When you look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, finding shelter is one of
our core needs, right alongside food and water. Seeking safe shelter is at the
top of our physiological priorities. This is hardwired into our DNA—
humans and many other animals carry around a “wall-hugging” trait, called
thigmotaxis, that kept us safe from the dangers of predators in open spaces.
When faced with fear, our tendency is to seek the comfort and relative
safety of a wall at our back. (You might think of the term “wallflower,”
which describes a shy person at a party or a dance, or the classic mafia don
who always likes to sit in the corner seat at the restaurant table so they are
protected on three sides.) Our thigmotactic response is so strong that it is
used to test the impact of antianxiety medicines.
The “safety and security” foundation can seem like an oddball. When
thinking about Healthy Buildings, people will quickly go to things like “air
quality” and “water quality,” but few of us think of safety and security.
We’ve seen the quizzical looks firsthand. At health science conferences,
when we flash the 9 Foundations logo on the screen, it’s inevitable that a
few people will raise their hands to ask, “Why is safety and security part of
healthy buildings?” The converse happens in conversations with security
experts, who wonder what health has to do with their business. The reason
it’s an oddball is that health scientists don’t typically think about security,
and the security industry has no idea that it’s actually in the health-care
business. We’re here to tell you that security and health are linked.

Fight or Flight
Safety and security have an effect on our acute and chronic health.
Buildings have systems in place to protect us from obvious hazards like a
fire emergency or a carbon monoxide leak—the so-called fire and life
safety systems of a building. It’s easy to understand how these features
might impact our health.
 Buildings also have other safety and security features, such as “square
badge” guards at the front door and security cameras. Do these influence
our health? On the acute side, the answer is yes—they are there to deter or
intervene in the event of a direct threat against our safety, such as an active
shooter in a building. But there are also other forces at work. It turns out
that feeling safe and secure affects our stress levels and mental health and
helps us to avoid chronic health conditions. Here’s how it all works:
When our sense of security is threatened, it can trigger a cascade of biological “fight or flight”
responses that alter our physical and psychological functioning. Perceived threats to safety
flood our bodies with stress-induced hormones like adrenaline and cortisol that elevate heart
rate and increase blood pressure. While individuals vary in their response, psychological stress
can negatively affect immune function with onset of immune changes occurring in as little as
five minutes. Chronically elevated stress hormones suppress immunity which can exacerbate
autoimmune diseases and other inflammatory conditions, while elevated blood pressure levels
can eventually lead to damaged arteries and plaque formation, putting stressed individuals at
greater risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Over time, these responses place wear
and tear on the body that increases disease susceptibility.34

Most of the health evidence comes from studies of the elevated stress
hormones of people living in unsafe or stressful environments. But what is
the role of the building in all of this? The literature is nascent here, but what
we do see is provocative: having a security guard, cameras on city streets,
or enhanced locks may promote a greater feeling of safety, which can cut
off the cascade of stress-related health effects.

Enterprise Security Risk Management

There are important shifts under way that are worth noting. First and
foremost, the security field is moving past the notion that security is “just”
square-badge security guards at the door. Our colleague Juliette Kayyem,
former Assistant Secretary of Government Affairs at the US Department of
Homeland Security and a faculty member at the Harvard Kennedy School,
sees an important evolution away from this emphasis on physical barriers.
“Security is, in many respects, the easy part,” she confided. “The challenge
in today’s society, and a mission for the built environment, is how to
promote ‘secure flow,’ meaning the movement of people, goods, and
networks that minimizes risk but still allows for movement that is the core
to our societies. Integrating technology to allow for movement through and
into buildings is how we must think about twenty-first-century security.
Walls may be simplistically appealing, but they are not realistic or
conducive to the ease of flow.”35
Along these same lines, a new field called Enterprise Security Risk
Management (ESRM) is taking a holistic approach to security.36 We
mention it here because buildings play a central role in this changing view
of the role of security in a company. ESRM gives us the security framework
for managing a wider array of risks that were not traditionally thought of as
pertaining to “security.” We think the tie-in to buildings clear.
Hospitals are one set of buildings that have been ahead of the game on
safety and security issues for a long time, and that’s because they have a
framework for evaluating performance. Hospitals are reviewed by the Joint
Commission, the accrediting body for health-care facilities. With annual
audits and the potential for massive fines or even the shutdown of
operations, hospitals spend a lot of time and resources meeting the
commission’s many requirements, which include things you might expect
concerning patient safety, such as the use of restraints or de-escalation
procedures.
TABLE 6.1    The role of buildings in Enterprise Security Risk Management [ESRM].

ESRM Focus Relationship to Buildings

Area
Cybersecurity “Smart” buildings and Internet of Things
Business Secure flow; building or region power outages; resiliency
continuity of buildings during and following natural disaster
Physical Security personnel; automated locks, camera systems,
security and alerts; badge access
Acute event Fire and life safety systems; training and planning for
active-shooter; response to bomb threats and terrorist
attacks
Situational Knowing who is in the building, when, and where;
awareness monitoring information threads (social media, police
channels, official reports) in buffers around your building;
“see something, say something”

If you don’t work in, own, or manage a health-care facility, you might be
thinking that you can gloss over this section. But there are lessons to be
learned for everyone. The Joint Commission requires that every facility
have a written security risk management plan that includes strategies for
mitigating workplace violence; identifying threats and vulnerabilities;
managing access controls such as key cards; operating surveillance systems
and security cameras; verifying fire and life safety features, such as by
ensuring that fire doors and walls aren’t penetrated with cabling;
negotiating active-shooter scenarios; and managing cyber and IT security.
All of this fits in with Kayyem’s vision of changing security and “secure
flow.” The hospital needs to be operating 24 / 7, so security is not just about
walls and guards; it’s about maintaining security while simultaneously
maintaining flow. Like the Joint Commission, ESRM is a holistic risk-
management approach, where safety and security are seen as core to the
business function. This is why we feel strongly that “safety and security” is
one of the 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building. We hope you will come
away thinking that this sounds like good practice, whatever building you
are in.

Our Recommendations
Meet all fire and life safety standards (for example, fire suppression
systems, smoke detection, carbon monoxide detection, and
emergency lighting).
Focus on “secure flow.”
Develop an ESRM plan that includes a focus on the building safety
and security factors (for example, fire doors and penetrations, safety
lighting, physical security, surveillance and camera systems, cyber
and IT security, emergency contingency planning, and the monitoring
of events around your building).
Integrate safety and security into the core management function.

Estimating the Economic Benefits of It All

There have been surprisingly few efforts to quantify the economic benefits
from Healthy Building strategies. One of the most widely cited and best
analyses there is was done by Bill Fisk and his colleagues at the Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. In 2011, they estimated that there would be benefits
of $20 billion to the US economy if only three of these Healthy Building
strategies were implemented—ventilation, thermal health, and mold and
moisture control.37
If you are thinking these are macroeconomic numbers that don’t
influence your company, your building, or your investment, think again.
This isn’t a typical economic analysis that gets to $20 billion by including
ancillary benefits to the economy like higher construction activity, or sales
of better equipment, or hiring consultants. No, this analysis says there is
$20 billion in benefits from employee productivity in the building. That’s
right—$20 billion of potential benefits are sitting on the sidelines, waiting
to be moved from the bench into your company’s bottom line.
And remember, this benefit only accounts for three of our 9 Foundations.
Further, the benefit is only from employee performance. Additional gains
are to be had when better buildings can be used as a recruiting tool to attract
the best talent, and when they play a role in making sure that talent sticks
around—not to mention reducing absenteeism and other sick building
issues.

What’s Next?
We’ve now armed you with some hard evidence of the many ways a
building influences your health and your employees’ health. We also
sprinkled in some recommendations for each of the 9 Foundations—
everything from measuring CO2 to verifying optimal ventilation
performance to measuring bacteria and pH in water to enhancing the air
quality using MERV 13 or higher-rated filters or portable air purifiers. In
Chapter 7 we’ll get you thinking about how the products you put into these
great new buildings influence the people inside them and their health.
 
CHAPTER SEVEN

Our Global Chemical Experiment

If we are going to live so intimately with these chemicals—eating and drinking them, taking them
into the very marrow of our bones—we had better know something about their nature and their
power.
—RACHEL CARSON

OVER 200 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS are now readily detectable in the

blood, breast milk, or urine of Americans and of most people in industrial
nations around the world.1 Many of these chemicals come from the products
we use in our buildings. Because we know so little about them, our Harvard
colleague Elsie Sunderland calls this our “global chemical experiment.”
The fundamental problem is that these 200 industrial chemicals are just
the beginning. In the United States there are more than 80,000 chemicals in
commerce. Guess how many have been thoroughly evaluated for health and
safety? About 300. If that number is shocking to you, it should be. But here
is an even more shocking number. Guess how many chemicals the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has banned since 1976, the year
the first “toxics” law was passed? Nine. Yes, you read that right—9
chemicals out of more than 80,000 are currently banned by the EPA. That’s
it. And the story gets worse, because 5 of those chemicals were already
banned before the law was established in 1976.2 So in 40 years, the EPA has
banned a total of 4 new toxic chemicals. Its approach is so ineffective that
even something like asbestos (asbestos!) has not yet been banned. And
there are many more chemicals with worrisome toxicological profiles that
are not even being reviewed.
Many of these chemicals are used in everyday products—our carpets,
furniture, building materials, and on and on. In many cases these chemicals
can migrate out of their original product and, because of their
environmental persistence or ubiquity, appear all over our homes, schools,
hospitals, and the planet—in some instances up to the North Pole. And we
find them in our bodies.
In this chapter we’re going to focus on how the stuff we put in our
buildings affects our health. This is the next frontier in Healthy Buildings—
sometimes called “healthier materials,” “material health,” or “chemicals of
concern.” This movement is just starting to gain traction, with major
players, from industry to environmental activists to nonprofit rating
systems, all getting in the game.

Bodybuilding
In the Arnold Schwarzenegger era of bodybuilding in the 1970s, it was an
open secret that anabolic steroids were commonly used. Even Arnold
admits to using them, and no doubt he did plenty of hard work to sculpt a
barrel chest that you could balance a glass of water on. The ultimate Mr.
Universe. A picture of perfection. On the outside.
Hidden from the judges were the ravaging effects steroids can have on
the body. The one that was most famously discussed (and true!)? Smaller
testicles. At least one antisteroid ad campaign attempted to use this fact to
scare young men, showing a bodybuilder with massive shoulders, arms, and
chest … wearing the world’s smallest jockstrap.
Steroids, and other chemicals you’ll read about in this chapter, can affect
our natural hormone balance. The increased testosterone throws our
endogenous hormones out of whack, leading to impacts on the male testes
and sperm production, as well as, for some, breast growth. Later in life,
armed with additional scientific evidence, Arnold talked about his steroid
use not as bodybuilding but as “body destroying.”3 He looked great on the
outside, but the steroids were destroying the parts of the body we couldn’t
see.
To bring this back to buildings, the analogy we’ll make here is that
bodybuilding is similar to what is called the “core and shell” of a building.
If that term is new to you, the core and shell are what the design and
construction teams deliver before the “fit-out.” Meaning they deliver the
skeleton and skin of the building—the concrete and steel, the windows and
outside wall. The fit-out is everything else that goes into the building, based
on the desires of the future occupant. Sometimes the core and shell can look
really good on the outside but be wildly polluted on the inside.

Smaller Testicles from Building Materials?

Here’s the connection to bodybuilding and steroids: some of the chemicals
we are exposed to in buildings affect our reproductive system, just as
steroids affect the reproductive system. For our male readers, let’s put this
another way: the chemicals in your chair could be wreaking havoc on your
penis. For our female readers: don’t worry, we’ll get to your reproductive
system shortly. We started this section by focusing on men on the advice of
a female friend who, rightly fed up with action only happening when it
affects men, gave us this sage advice: “ Making it about MEN and THAT, you
will get people’s attention real fast.”
Some of the chemicals used in building materials are what scientists call
endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Your endocrine system is your hormone
system, so this phrase “endocrine-disrupting” really just means “chemicals
that interfere with your hormones.”
Sounds a bit like steroids. Some of these chemicals can cause testicular
cancer. Others affect sperm count. Others have been associated with failure
of testes to descend in babies.
That’s the story for men. The reality, of course, is that most of these
chemicals are equal-opportunity offenders, affecting both men and women.
For women, they can interfere with and disrupt the natural balance of the
thyroid system, including the production of thyroid hormones like thyroxine
(T4) and the transport protein transthyretin (TTR) that carries T4 around the
body.
The assault on women’s health from these chemicals also extends to
their reproductive health. Some chemicals commonly found in buildings
have been associated with adverse reproductive success—for example,
increasing the likelihood by twofold that it will take a year or longer to
become pregnant. Women in that study were also more likely to report
irregular menstrual cycles.4
Let’s now look at how we got to this state of affairs, and what you can
do to tackle the problem in your buildings.
Chemicals of Concern
America’s problem with “chemicals of concern” all started with a well-
intentioned law in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA,
pronounced “tos-ka”).5 The 1970s was a time of intense recognition of the
issues surrounding environmental pollution, following the publication of
Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which focused on the overuse (and
misuse) of pesticides like DDT and the resulting impact on the
environment, birds and other wildlife, and human health.6 This spurred a
series of environmental regulations signed by President Richard Nixon and
led to the creation of the EPA, the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration, and TSCA.
TSCA was designed to regulate new and existing chemicals. One big
problem right out of the gate was that all existing chemicals in use in 1976
were grandfathered in. The EPA was then tasked with sorting out which of
these chemicals, if any, represented an “unreasonable risk to human health
or the environment.” It had the same goal for new chemicals introduced into
the market. Seems straightforward enough, right?
While well intentioned, the EPA has clearly been overwhelmed in the
enforcement of TSCA. Just look at the sheer number of chemicals currently
in commerce (80,000), the number of these chemicals adequately studied
for health and safety (~300), and the number that have been banned since
1976 (4). It seems unlikely that more than 79,700 of the 80,000 of the
known chemicals—never mind the unknown—are fully safe for long-term
ingestion, inhalation, and direct contact by humans. In fact, the scientific
community has identified many dozens, if not hundreds, of chemicals since
1976 that are dangerous to human health but not on the immediate
regulatory radar.
But there is a more insidious aspect of TSCA. It has led to repeated
swapping out of one harmful chemical for another, in what scientists have
dubbed “regrettable substitution.”

Regrettable Substitution: The BPA-Free Story

Here’s how regrettable substitution works. Let’s take bisphenol A (BPA) as
an example. We’re certain most of you have seen “BPA-free” baby products
or water bottles on the market. This came about as a direct result of a
consumer-led campaign against BPA after word got out of its toxicity.
BPA is a compound widely used in plastics that interferes with our
natural hormone systems.
To put some specifics on this, BPA binds with your body’s thyroid and
estrogen receptors, and a few others. We recognize that phrases like
“hormone disruption” and “hormone binding” may not mean much to the
average reader (and “endocrine-disrupting chemical” is understood by even
fewer), so let’s make this a bit more concrete. A recent review of the
toxicological effects of the compound show that BPA can cause
abnormalities in the female reproductive tract, decreases in fertility, impacts
on the mammary glands, alterations in the function of brain neuronal
synapses, and metabolic changes like altered blood glucose and insulin
levels.7 We could go on, but you get the picture. Hormones are our body’s
signaling system, and interfering in that system can affect our major
biological systems—from our brain and reproductive systems to our
metabolic and even immune systems.
All of these effects, it should be noted, were found at low levels of
exposure to BPA (what we call low-dose effects).
We’ll continue the BPA story by focusing on consumer products because
that is how most people have heard about BPA, but the phenomenon applies
to many building materials as well. BPA is part of polycarbonate and epoxy
resins, which means it can be found in building facades and roofs, in paints
and caulk, and in flooring and fiberglass binders.
Consumer concern triggered a widespread movement to shun many
products, leading to the ubiquitous “BPA-free” labels showing up on baby
products, toys, and water bottles on every store shelf. A public health win?
Not so fast.
In many cases BPA has simply been swapped for bisphenol S (BPS), a
chemical cousin with a similar toxicological profile; BPS is as hormonally
active as BPA. BPS, we learned, is also estrogenic and androgenic, just like
BPA. And now BPS, having gotten a bad rap, is often being swapped for
bisphenol F (BPF), which, surprising no one, targets our body in the same
way and has been found to have “actions and potencies similar to those of
BPA.”8 Why is this not surprising? They are chemical cousins (“structural
analogs” is how it would be written in a scientific journal).
 So even when the market responds with BPA-free everything, it turns out
that in some cases we are simply making regrettable substitutions. This is
sometimes referred to as playing a game of “chemical whack-a-mole,” a
reference to the carnival game where a mole pops up and the player has to
quickly hit it on the head with a soft mallet. As soon as that happens, a
similar, but different, mole pops its head out that the player needs to hit.
Over and over. Joe wrote about this in an op-ed published in the Washington
Post in 2016, showing how this “chemical whack-a-mole” has happened
with not just BPA, but also with pesticides like DDT, plasticizers in nail
polish, and even the toxic flavoring chemicals used in e-cigs.9 There are
also a few other notable examples related to building materials that we’ll go
into soon.
This is what the current regulatory system allows. As soon as a bad actor
chemical is identified, it can quickly be swapped out for a chemical cousin,
with no proof needed that the replacement is safe. Thus the cycle starts
anew each time, with scientists having to prove that the chemical is harmful
after it’s already on the market. We “whack” one chemical only to have a
similar one appear. This is how we got BPA → BPS → BPF →?. Simply
put, the approach of allowing industry to police itself has not worked.
Consumers are being treated as guinea pigs in a global chemical
experiment.
Using a test offered by Silent Spring Institute, Joe gave himself and his
team at Harvard urine tests as a holiday gift one year so they could all learn
about the chemicals in their own bodies.10 (Nerds!) Turns out, he is a perfect
example of regrettable substitution. Check out his results, compared against
national averages. Joe is “BPA-free,” just like a baby’s sippy cup. But he’s
loaded with BPS.
Nick Kristof, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, took this same
test a year later. Guess what he found? Low in BPA, just like Joe. Unlike
Joe, Kristof was also low in BPS. But Kristof didn’t escape this saga
entirely. He’s an even better example of “advanced stage” regrettable
substitution. It turns out he’s loaded with the next substitute for BPA: BPF.11
So if you briefly switched to glass bottles only to have migrated back to
BPA-free plastic, you may want to think twice about that decision. Here’s
the bad news: there are dozens of stories just like the BPA example. And
it’s happening in your buildings right now.
FIGURE 7.1 Test results for Joe’s urinary levels of the metabolite of BPA and BPS,
compared against nationally representative US data. Silent Spring Institute.

Chemical Whack-a-Mole on Steroids: Forever Chemicals

A great way to transition to focusing on buildings is to think about the
highly fluorinated chemicals we use as water and stain repellents. Like
BPA, most of us are familiar with these chemicals from their use in
consumer products. We use them in our clothing, outdoor gear, dental floss,
cosmetics, nonstick pans, and many other consumer applications. But they
are also used in and on products found all over buildings—chairs, couches,
curtains, carpets, and paints.
 It’s worth taking a look at the chemistry behind these chemicals because
it’s fascinating and it helps explain both why consumers like them and why
they are so problematic. These stain-repellent chemicals are characterized
by the carbon-fluorine bond, one of the strongest bonds in all of organic
chemistry. When manufacturers string these together to create a carbon-
fluorine backbone, some useful industrial properties appear. This chain of
repeated carbon-fluorine links is able to resist oil, water, and grease. The
ultrastrong bond is what prevents this stuff from penetrating to the
underlying material. That’s why we have coated our furniture, camping
tents, and even our clothing with these chemicals for the past 60 years or so.
It’s the chemistry behind our nonstick pots and pans and waterproof rain
jackets and tents, and it’s a component of aqueous film–forming firefighting
foam.
The problem is multifold. First, the chemicals don’t always stay in the
products—they escape, entering our air, food, and water. Ever wonder why
your nonstick pan loses that nonstick ability after some time? Or why some
stain-repellent surface treatments ask you to reapply every few months?
Where do you think the chemicals are all going? The answer is that they are
now found all over the globe, from the polar regions to the middle of our
oceans, inside our buildings, and inside all of us. Ninety-eight percent of
Americans have at least one set of these chemicals in their blood.12
Second, that superstrong bond comes with a dark side: the bonds are so
strong that these chemicals will never fully break down in the environment.
Ever. And when we say “ever” here, we mean millennia. This is why Joe
dubbed them “Forever Chemicals” in an op-ed he wrote for the Washington
Post.13 The name is a play on the F and the C that constitute the carbon-
fluorine bond, while also highlighting their most salient feature—extreme
environmental persistence. (The technical name for these chemicals is “per-
and polyfluorinated alkyl substances” [PFAS]—technically accurate but
wholly inaccessible terminology for the general public.)
A skeptic might reasonably ask, Is there a health concern with these
chemicals? The answer is a resounding yes. In fact, these are the very
chemicals we were referring to when we first mentioned chemicals that are
associated with testicular cancer in the beginning of this chapter.
Some Forever Chemicals, such as C8, are also associated with kidney
cancer.14 The public learned this only after an egregious environmental
contamination issue surfaced. DuPont, the maker of many products using
Forever Chemicals, was dumping them into the Ohio River for many years
from its Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The river
supplied drinking water to tens of thousands of people downstream, who
were unknowingly drinking the contaminated water. A resulting lawsuit
revealed the shocking scale of this dumping activity, and the courts, seeking
to understand the potential impact on those downstream, created a scientific
panel (the C8 Science Panel) to investigate the spread of these chemicals in
the water and throughout the environment (the plant was also emitting
Forever Chemicals into the air). The C8 Science Panel was charged with
determining whether there were “probable links” to human health effects.15
Through a series of rigorous, high-profile research studies, the panel
established an association between exposure to C8 and cancer.
Subsequently, a class action lawsuit was filed against DuPont and the
plaintiffs were awarded $671 million. (Full disclosure: Joe worked as an
expert witness for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.) This story was subsequently
told in the movie Dark Waters.
Other studies have shown that some Forever Chemicals also elicit the
most dramatic immune suppression ever observed for an environmental
toxicant16 and interfere with body weight regulation.17 So much so that they
are now being called “obesogens”—meaning that they may contribute to
the obesity epidemic in America. Even if you don’t use nonstick pans or
spend time on office chairs whose fabric has been coated in this stuff, you
still can’t escape—they are in the drinking water of tens of millions
Americans above the “safe” level set by the EPA, according to a study led
by Elsie Sunderland and her team from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of
Public Health and John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied
Sciences.18
And just like the BPA → BPS → BPF example, the original Forever
Chemical that grabbed our attention, C8, has now been swapped for C6 and
C10 (C is the number of carbons; C8 has an 8-chain carbon-fluorine
backbone, C6 has 6, and C10 has 10). C8 started to get a bad rap with major
lawsuits under way in the mid-2000s. A book was even written about it
called Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof, and Lethal: The Hidden
Dangers of C8.19 With the rising public awareness of these hazards, C8 was
phased out. But that doesn’t mean the problem was solved. One C6 variant
that has captured headlines is known as “GenX,” having gained notoriety
because DuPont (now Chemours) was dumping GenX into the Cape Fear
River in Fayetteville, North Carolina—a river that supplies drinking water
to people in the Wilmington, North Carolina, area.20 Because the scientific
community has only recently begun to investigate GenX, there aren’t any
human health studies yet. But what we know from animal toxicology
studies is damning—cancer of the liver, pancreas, and testicles.
GenX is not the end of the story. We wish the story of regrettable
substitution with Forever Chemicals were as simple as the linear BPA story:
BPA → BPS → BPF. For Forever Chemicals, it’s more like the mythical
Hydra, where every snake head that is cut off returns in multiples. Sure, we
wised up to the dangers of C8 and banned them from the market. But
instead of just one or two substitutes, like C6 and C10, there are over 5,000
variants of these Forever Chemicals! It’s chemical whack-a-mole on
steroids. The game is exhausting, and dangerous.

Chemical Flame Retardants

If you thought that was a crazy story, wait until you read about this one.
This story starts in the mid-1970s, with the use of chemical flame
retardants in kids’ pajamas. (Do kids spontaneously combust?) One
chemical flame retardant used in pajamas, which we’ll call “tris” for short,
was a brominated flame retardant. (Think of the far-right side of the
periodic table, where the halogens reside. We’ve been talking about one
halogen already, fluorine, and now we’ll talk a bit about the halogens
bromine, chlorine, and iodine.) This chemical, tris, was known to be
carcinogenic and mutagenic (that is, it damages DNA), but it only really
grabbed the public’s attention after a simple (and elegant) study that showed
that tris “escapes” from pajamas and gets into the bodies of kids.21 In that
study, they tested the urine of kids in the morning, comparing those who
wore pajamas treated with tris with those who did not. They showed,
definitively, that tris was being absorbed into the body overnight. As a
result, tris was banned from the market. (By now in this chapter, you know
this is not the end of the tris story. We’ll move on chronologically, but stay
tuned for more on tris.)
 Also in the 1970s, another brominated flame retardant was in use, and
this one was used in buildings. Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) are a
class of flame retardants that were used in plastics found in televisions and
in foam found in couches and chairs. PBBs were used in our buildings and
consumer products for about a decade, but then use abruptly stopped. Why?
A crazy, but true, story about how a human error at a manufacturing plant
led to the poisoning of Michigan and a toxic legacy that lasts through to
today.
A chemical company that sold PBBs in the 1970s, Michigan Chemical
Company, also sold animal feed supplement. A shortage of preprinted bags
at the packaging plant led to an accidental mislabeling, and bags of PBBs
were shipped out as cattle feed supplement.22 Want to hazard a guess as to
what happened next? Farmers and ranchers reported animals with a loss of
appetite (go figure …). Then things got bad. These PBBs are lipophilic
chemicals—literally “fat loving.” As the cows ate the PBBs, they stored the
chemicals in their fatty tissue. It was months before the mislabeling issue
was discovered, and by that time PBBs had lodged themselves into the fatty
tissue of millions of animals in the food chain. Humans, at the top of that
chain, were the final repository of these PBBs.
The remedy? PBBs were banned and millions of animals had to be killed
(culled, in the “make us feel OK about this” parlance). But it was too late—
by then, anyone consuming meat in Michigan was consuming those PBBs
and, just like the animals, storing those PBBs in their own fatty tissue. But
we can’t cull humans (!), so the result is … the people of Michigan were
unwilling participants in a great human toxicological experiment.
The environmental persistence of PBBs and their ability to store in our
bodies meant that this was not a problem that went away quickly. The
legacy persists to this day: 60 percent of people tested in Michigan in the
2000s still had levels of PBBs in their bodies that were higher than 95
percent of the rest of the US population. And it’s a toxic legacy—a
summary of research findings hosted at Emory School of Public Health
shows that women with higher levels of PBBs in their blood had fewer days
between menstrual cycles, more days of bleeding, lower estrogen levels,
and higher rates of breast cancer.23
But that’s not where things ended.
 It turns out that kids born to parents from Michigan have PBBs in their
blood, despite being born after the ban went into place. Their moms passed
these PBBs to them through the womb and through breastfeeding. Boys
born to moms with higher levels of PBBs in the body reported more genital
and urinary issues. Girls born to moms with higher levels of PBBs in the
body started menstruating a year earlier than their peers. When these girls
became women of childbearing age, they were more likely to suffer
miscarriages.
Three generations have been affected.
As shocking as these results were, they shouldn’t really have been
unexpected. As far back as 1978, a Harvard study reported that “these
compounds readily enter the fetus by crossing the placental barrier and can
be transferred to newborn children after extensive passage into breast milk.”
“Interestingly,” the study went on, “low doses of PBBs exert a broad
spectrum of toxicological, pharmacological, and biochemical effects despite
low acute toxicity,” causing the authors to conclude that “PBBs are
teratogenic, immunosuppressive, and potentially carcinogenic” (emphasis
added).24
Knowing that PBBs are toxic to animals; knowing, based on research
published in 1978, that PBBs cross the placenta and are teratogenic (that is,
that they can alter the normal development of an embryo or fetus), and
possibly carcinogenic; and seeing that the populace was rightly outraged
after the Michigan debacle, what was the industry response? Add an oxygen
in the middle of the molecule and create a “new” brominated flame
retardant to be used just like PBBs—in couches, chairs, mattresses, and
plastic casings around televisions and computers.
From the perspective of the market, and regulators, this was a new
chemical with a new name. No longer PBBs, but PBDEs—polybrominated
diphenyl ethers. The only way to really show you the insanity and the
shortsightedness of this approach is to show you the chemical structures.
You don’t need a degree in organic chemistry to see that the “safe
replacement” for PBBs looks an awful lot like the original.
For both PBBs and PBDEs, there are two rings (called phenyls in
organic chemistry). Depending on the number of bromines and their
position on the rings, you can have up to 209 variants (called congeners).
Here we are showing two tetrabrominated flame retardants (four bromines).
The only real difference is that, for PBDEs, there is an oxygen between the
rings (this is called an ether). That is the full deconstruction of the name
“polybrominated diphenyl ether.”
PBDEs were used from the early 1980s through the mid-2000s, much of
that time escaping the notice of health scientists and the public. It wasn’t
until a Swedish study was published in the early 2000s that concern started
to rise. In that study, researchers looked at breast milk samples from a
biobank, which had stored samples dating back to the 1970s. These
scientists noticed an exponential rise in the level of this “new” chemical in
the breast milk.25 (New to researchers, anyway; the industry certainly knew
about it.)

FIGURE 7.2    Chemical structures of PBBs and PBDEs.

This sparked intense interest from researchers—a “scientific feeding

frenzy,” in the words of professor Tom Webster at Boston University.26 The
scientific process followed a familiar pattern, asking and answering a series
of questions.
Where were these chemicals in our environment? (Answer: in air and
dust in every home, office, school, and place we looked, including in polar
bears, eagles, and sea turtles.)27
Could they be found in humans? (Answer: yes. They are detected in the
blood of nearly everyone.)28
Were they determined to be toxic in animal studies? (Answer: yes.
PBDEs interfere with thyroid hormones and affect neurodevelopment
reproductive systems.)29
Was that enough to ban them? (Answer: no. Claims were made that the
results of animal studies do not represent human health effects.)
Were human health effects found in the subsequent human studies?
(Answer: yes. Surprising no one, the human studies found what the animal
toxicology studies found: impacts on the thyroid, neurological
development, and reproduction.30 In one study, Joe and his collaborators
found that women with higher levels of PBDEs in their body had a higher
risk of developing thyroid disease—a risk that was threefold higher for
women postmenopause.)31
What was the mechanism of action? (Answer: PBDEs look an awful lot
like your endogenous thyroid hormone T4.) And here, we get to bring in
that last halogen we haven’t yet touched on—iodine. T4 has a phenyl ring
on one end of it, just like the one we showed you for PBBs and PBDEs. But
instead of bromines around it, T4 has iodine.

FIGURE 7.3 Chemical structure of thyroid hormone T4 showing similar ring and halogen
structure as PBBs and PBDEs (left side).

If you have a keen eye and were comparing T4 in Figure 7.3 with the
PBBs and PBDEs in Figure 7.2, you might have noticed that the left side of
T4 here looks similar to PBBs and PBDEs. But you might have also noticed
that T4 has an -OH hanging off that ring, whereas PBDEs do not, and
maybe you were wondering if that difference made them dissimilar.
Well, that -OH is called a hydroxyl group, and after PBDEs (and PBBs
and many other chemicals) enter our body, our metabolic system tries to
make them a bit more water soluble by adding this -OH group right in
between the two bromines, just like the -OH in between the two iodines.
Once that happens, these “hydroxylated” PBDEs look even more like T4. In
other words, PBDEs already look a lot like T4, but once PBDEs enter the
body, they transform into something that looks even more like T4 than the
original chemical. Does our body notice?
The science shows how much our bodies are confused by these
chemicals. These hydroxylated PBDEs have a binding potency to thyroid
transport proteins that is up to 1,600 times higher than PBDEs without the -
OH.32 They also inhibit a key enzyme that regulates estrogen with a potency
up to 220 times higher than PBDEs without the -OH.33 This may be getting
slightly technical, but once you see the mechanism of action, you can
understand how much PBDEs trick our body’s hormone receptors, inviting
them to mistake hydroxylated PBDEs for endogenous hormones. In light of
this, the research showing that PBDEs interfere with thyroid hormones and
are associated with thyroid disease make perfect sense.
Recall, PBDEs were introduced in the early 1980s. But research on
exposure and toxicity only started in earnest in the late 1990s. This body of
research on PBDEs took more than a decade to accumulate. In the end, after
30 years of use and widespread global contamination, for 20 of which they
were entirely off the radar of health scientists, PBDEs were banned.
If you think the story ends here, you haven’t been paying attention.
Once PBDEs were banned, a whole new set of regrettable substitutes
were introduced, one of which was tris. (We warned you that we weren’t
done with tris from the kids pajamas just yet …) But how could that be? We
told you tris was banned in the 1970s after the pajama fiasco. Well, it turns
out that brominated tris was banned in the 1970s, but its chemical cousin,
chlorinated tris, also used in kids’ pajamas during the 1970s, wasn’t
technically banned. It was just quietly removed from the market—only to
be reintroduced as a “safer” alternative to PBDEs 30 years later. Again, like
PBDEs, we only discovered this when enterprising scientists like Heather
Stapleton at Duke University started to investigate a “new” and curious
chemical that started showing up in the data—but this time it wasn’t in
breast milk from a biobank. This time Stapleton and colleagues started
seeing tris in baby products.34 It was everywhere, and at high levels. It turns
out that chlorinated tris was being used in kids’ car seats, baby chairs,
changing-table pads, nursing pillows, and mattresses. Oh, we almost forgot
to tell you—tris is carcinogenic.35
But this is also not the end of the story.
 Tris got a bad rap, again. So, with attention turning toward the halogens
(bromine and chlorine), the industry deftly moved on to another set of
chemical flame retardants. Next up in the “regrettable substitution” chain
were halogen-free organophosphate (OP) flame retardants.
The idea that these OP flame retardants were “safer” was soon
debunked. A study led by the chair of Joe’s department, Russ Hauser,
showed that OP flame retardants were associated with severe adverse
reproductive issues, including a decreased likelihood of fertilization and
embryo implantation and a decreased likelihood of having a clinical
pregnancy.36 It gets worse—if you were lucky enough to get pregnant, those
with higher levels of OP flame retardants in their body were less likely to
have a live birth. (As of the writing of this book, OP flame retardants are
still widely used in buildings.)
Do we need these flame retardants? It turns out that our massive global
experiment in flame retardants was thrust on us by an intense industry
lobbying effort in the 1980s that aimed to take the focus off cigarettes as the
core cause of an increase in the number of house fires and redirect that
focus to the products that caught fire. In an outstanding six-part series
called “Playing with Fire” published in 2012, the Chicago Tribune
uncovered the work of tobacco lobbyists as they pushed to limit regulations
that favored self-extinguishing cigarettes in favor of putting flame-retardant
chemicals in … well, everything.37 The award-winning series shows how
these lobbyists relied on, and promoted, faulty science and testimony from
an unscrupulous doctor who fabricated tales of children burning in fires,
among other tried and true tactics intended to manufacture doubt. This led
to the widespread and global use of flame-retardant chemicals in couches,
chairs, curtains, televisions, remote controls, drywall, computers, pillows,
and on and on.38 Another gift from Big Tobacco.
(There are two terrific books that describe these tactics used by
companies to inject doubt into the scientific debate, if you want more
examples: Doubt Is Their Product, by David Michaels, and Merchants of
Doubt, from our Harvard colleague Naomi Oreskes and her coauthor Erik
Conway.)39
BPA, Forever Chemicals, and flame retardants are but three of many
examples of harmful chemicals in our products and in our living and
working spaces. Phthalates, pronounced “tha-lates,” are another group of
chemicals found all over our buildings. They are primarily used as
plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The short list of where they can be
found in our buildings includes flooring, sealants, adhesives, upholstery,
and shower curtains. Why do we care about phthalates from a human health
perspective? Because they have been found to interfere with our bodies’
natural hormones, altering sexual development. To get a sense of what that
means, consider this list: phthalates have been linked to the absence of the
epididymis (testicular duct that carries sperm), failure of the testicles to
descend (cryptorchidism), opening of the urethra on the underside rather
than the tip of the penis (hypospadias), decreased anogential distance, and
testicular lesions.40 One study found a relationship between phthalates and
premature breast development.41 In another large study of children, higher
levels of the phthalate BBzP in dust was associated with rhinitis and
eczema, and another phthalate (DEPH) was linked with asthma in kids.42
Stay with us through this depressing story; we will give solutions for
how to break this vicious cycle at the end of this chapter. But first, let’s look
at the economic impacts.

The Business Impacts of Chemicals of Concern

So far we’ve made the case for why these chemicals matter from a health
science perspective. The chemicals we are talking about are toxic, and they
can be found all over our buildings: in chairs, couches, carpet and carpet
backing, hard flooring, wallboard, ceiling tiles, composite wood materials,
wall insulation, electronics, and even things like grout. What about the
business perspective? This one is easy.
To get a sense of the scale of what’s at stake, consider this: one year after
the landmark $671 million lawsuit against DuPont,43 3M settled one for
$850 million. At issue in the 3M case was the years-long dumping of
Forever Chemicals (used in products like Scotchgard and Teflon) at four
manufacturing sites.44 That’s $1.5 billion in legal settlements around one
class of these Forever Chemicals in year—$1.5 billion.
We might also look at legacy pollutants and what they cost to the
building industry. Anyone with a building constructed before 1976 is
undoubtedly familiar with the legacy pollutants asbestos and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For those not familiar with PCBs, they
are a class of chemicals that were used in transformers but also light
ballasts, caulking, and exterior paint. (For those not familiar with asbestos,
it is a mineral mostly used for insulation in buildings that was found to
cause mesothelioma and asbestosis, a chronic lung disease characterized by
shortness of breath and scarring of lung tissue.) Banned in the 1970s, these
chemicals are long lasting and still an issue in older buildings.
Building owners are also undoubtedly familiar with the costs associated
with dealing with asbestos and PCBs in any renovation project. By some
estimates, safely removing and disposing of the PCBs in the caulking from
an old building will cost you $9–$18 per square foot. That figure goes up to
$24 / sq. ft. if it’s the exterior paint you’re dealing with, and add in an
additional $6 / sq. ft. for transportation and disposal of the hazardous
waste.45 Same for asbestos, which will cost you an additional $5–$15 / sq.
ft. if you find it during a renovation (and up to $150 / sq. ft., depending on
the type of building and difficulty of accessing the materials). Not to
mention the disruption to work and risks to brand—having a team of
workers running around your building in full hazmat gear for a few weeks
isn’t generally considered good for business.46
All that to say, it’s not a stretch to think about the millions of dollars in
additional expenses caused by legacy pollutants, and then to realize that
PCBs share some common traits with chemicals that are currently in wide
use in our buildings. PCBs are just like PBBs, except with chlorine instead
of bromine. That means PCBs are also very similar to PBDEs and other
brominated flame retardants. And this means that they look like thyroid
hormone T4, too. (Not surprisingly, studies that examine the combined
effect of PCBs and PBDEs show a synergistic impact on thyroid hormones
in the body.47 To our regulatory system they are different, but to our bodies
they look very similar.) The Forever Chemicals all have fluorine, another
halogen. All of these chemicals are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic—
and found all over our buildings. It doesn’t take a great leap to extrapolate
that future remediation of these newer chemicals, not to mention toxic torts
—and settlements—is likely.
Having trouble winning this economic argument at work based on
remediation and disposal costs? Then ask this: What is the cost of providing
a work environment laced with chemicals that interfere with a young
woman’s or young man’s chance of reproductive success? Mention
“testicular cancer” or “decrease in live births” and see what response you
get. We have seen it stop a recalcitrant architect in his tracks. But too few
people know about this, and few doctors ever make a connection between
problems of infertility and the flame retardant in the insulation in the walls
or in your office chair.

New TSCA
TSCA has set us up with a regulatory framework that (1) has failed to
address the 80,000 chemicals in commerce and keep pace with the 2,000
new ones introduced each year, (2) has failed to even catch and ban known
bad actors like asbestos, (3) has succeeded in giving us a false sense of
assurance that replacements are “safe” despite the problem of regrettable
substitution, and (4) has set up building owners with the prospect of
millions of dollars in future liabilities around what will most certainly
become future legacy pollutants.
The gross failings of TSCA spurred the creation of a new TSCA in 2016
—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—
named after Senator Lautenberg, who championed the legislation.
Unfortunately, the new act is not off to a great start. Promulgated under the
Obama administration, it required that the EPA start reviewing the 80,000
chemicals currently in use. But with 2,000 new chemicals coming into the
market each year, what was the plan to tackle the backlog? Well, it listed 10
chemicals the EPA would start with, including trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, and methylene chloride. Do the math—it would take
hundreds of years at this speed to tackle the tens of thousands of chemicals
waiting to be evaluated.
Still, the new Lautenberg Act was thought to be a big improvement on
the old TSCA because at least it started to address this problem. But a few
years in, we are still working on those same 10 chemicals. And yes,
asbestos is on that list and unbelievably still has not been banned.
Supporters of new act blame this lack of progress on the Trump
administration, which has deprioritized this work, but you have to wonder:
Was it ever going to work? Seems like there were obvious flaws, right from
the beginning.
Lack of Transparency = Lack of Awareness = Lack of
Action
What is a building owner, developer, tenant, or consumer to do? Well-
intentioned decisions to buy “BPA-free” products have really meant we
have been buying products that should be labeled “BPA-free* (*but
contains BPS).”
Imagine walking through your local grocery store and picking up a
granola bar that only had a label that said, “peanut-free,” but that didn’t tell
you that the peanuts were substituted for almonds, another common nut
allergen. This is akin to what happened with “BPA-free”; they told us one
potentially harmful chemical wasn’t in the product, but they didn’t tell us
what else was in there that was apt to be harmful.
This is unacceptable. On our food packaging we see the claims about
“peanut-free” but we can also verify this by looking at the fully disclosed
ingredient list, and we can see what else might be in there that we should be
aware of. We do the opposite for our buildings and the products we put in
them. Ask a building owner about the chemicals that are in the building
materials or products in his or her building and the owner will give you a
blank stare. (Can you imagine if a food product manufacturer didn’t know
what was inside its product?)
But it’s worse than this. If that same building owner asked his or her
product suppliers what’s in their products, the product supplier may not
even know. Take this example (not from buildings, but you will get the
point). Joe was at several meetings with a major airline manufacturer that at
the time was working to remove the toxic flame-retardant chemical
decabromodiphenyl ether (deca for short) from its airplanes in response to
new restrictions on its use as a result of the aforementioned phaseout of
PBDEs. What he learned was shocking. It took them 18 months just to
determine where in the airplane this chemical was used. This company
didn’t readily know. And neither did their suppliers, apparently.
The same thing is true of buildings.
The underlying issue is one of a lack of transparency, tracking, and
tabulation. Transparency is what we get on a food nutrition label—a full
disclosure of what we are putting into our bodies. Going forward, the
absolute first step must be transparency. We simply must know what we are
putting into our buildings. This seems eminently reasonable, and at some
level it is sad that it even has to be written.
But it has to be real transparency. Take what happens with personal care
products as a note of caution, because personal care products walk a fine
line here. Many have ingredient labels, but that information is not
completely transparent. Take a look at your shampoo bottle the next time
you’re in the shower. You’ll see the ingredient label, but you’re also very
likely to see one of those ingredients listed as “fragrance.” Hmmm. That
seems like a disclosure of the ingredients, but at this point in the chapter
you should be asking yourself, What do they mean by “fragrance”? Turns
out, in many cases, “fragrance” is a code word for phthalates. (In addition
to their use as a plasticizer for PVC, phthalates act as a gelling agent in
consumer products, allowing the actual fragrance to last longer in the
product.)
There has been some positive movement on the transparency front.
Groups like the International Living Future Institute have put forth the
Declare Label project, which aims to get material suppliers to disclose
what’s in their products. Most everyone, we think, would agree that we
need to have more transparency. But it is also not sufficient to tell a
customer (be it a dad at the grocery store or the owner of a multibillion-
dollar building), “This product contains 2,2,4,4-tetrabromodiphenyl ether,”
because that doesn’t mean anything to anyone. What we really need is a full
reckoning of ingredients with potential health concerns. This is where
groups like the Health Product Declaration (HPD) Collaborative have
helped to advance the field by developing HPDs that not only list the
ingredients but also list the potential health hazards. A real strength here is
that the HPD Collaborative is a not-for-profit open standard with over 250
members, including architects, designers, owners, and manufacturers, and
the HPDs are harmonized with the Healthy Building rating systems we
discuss in Chapter 8. A key goal for these groups is increased transparency
in the building and construction market. The ultimate goal, of course, is to
drive solutions upstream, through green chemistry, for example.
But there is a cautionary tale to all of this. We can’t just go around doing
what California did with Prop 65.48 (For those unfamiliar with this, it is the
law that has led to the rise of everything—and we mean everything—being
labeled as “potentially containing carcinogens.”) This is a great, and sad,
example of the backfiring of a well-intentioned law requiring health
disclosures on products. The law has resulted in buildings in California
having to post a sign to this effect:
Please be advised this building may contain chemicals or materials known to cause cancer or
reproductive harm.
—State of California Proposition 65 Health and Safety Code; Chapter 6.6, Section 25249.6

Given the choice between souvenir coffee cup A, which has the Prop 65
label, and cup B, which doesn’t, a consumer might be more likely to choose
cup B. But for buildings, it’s all but meaningless at this point. All that label
is telling us is that somewhere in the building there is a chemical that may
be a carcinogen. There is pretty much no chance of any consumer altering
his or her choice because of that information. Very few people are in a
position to switch jobs because of a diffuse warning like this; not a lot of
patients would refuse to meet with their doctor in one of these buildings;
and how many clients will turn away from a conference meeting after
coming across that notice by the entrance of the building?

One Solution: Leveraging Demand-Side Purchasing

Power for Market Transformation
With an “innocent until proven guilty” regulatory approach that is currently
incapable of protecting us from chemicals of concern in consumer products
and building materials, a 50-year-old supply-side approach that has
delivered decades of regrettable substitution, and a Prop 65–type law that is
all but meaningless for buildings, a new approach is needed. We have been
working with leading companies on a market-based solution that focuses on
the demand side of the equation—the buyers—to accelerate a shift to
healthier building materials.
At Harvard, we started with a simple idea: we cannot ignore the science
produced by our own scientists. Great research on BPA, Forever Chemicals,
and many other chemicals of concern is being done at universities across
the world, including our own. So we asked ourselves, How can we possibly
continue to purchase products with these chemicals? The answer is, we
can’t. So we decided to put this research into action. We partnered with
Heather Henriksen, the managing director of the Harvard Office for
Sustainability, and created the Harvard Healthier Building Materials
Academy. This academy has a goal of putting research into practice: to use
the latest scientific evidence to inform purchasing practices at Harvard, and
beyond.
We aggressively educated the purchasing community at Harvard on the
science, and then, thanks to the tireless work of Henriksen, her team, and an
army of purchasers, project managers, product specifiers, designers,
executives, and facilities managers, we showed that we could actually
purchase products with a lower overall toxic load without affecting product
performance, project timelines, or costs. As of the writing of this book,
there are dozens of projects under way on campus that are piloting new
green building standards that specify the use of products without certain
chemicals of concern like flame retardants, stain-repellent Forever
Chemicals, and antimicrobials, for starters.
As with everything we do, our goal is not simply to improve conditions
at our home institution; we aim to promote solutions well beyond Harvard.
So we announced a partnership with Google in 2018 and began working
with other leading companies with a similar mission and vision. If the
leadership team at Google wouldn’t buy food without knowing the
ingredients, why would they buy products for their buildings without
knowing what’s inside them? Amazingly, Google is a company focused on
organizing the world’s data, but like the rest of us, its leaders were flying
blind when it came to data about the products they were putting into their
own buildings. That’s changing.
Along the way, we came across many other organizations, architects, and
construction firms confronting these same challenges. We realized many of
us were aligned on mission and vision, but not on how we were
approaching suppliers. We were in fact contributing to the confusion in the
market space because we were asking for similar things in slightly different
ways. But this is evolving. The market is quickly coming up to speed on the
potential hazards of these chemicals and developing solutions. For example,
the international design firm Perkins + Will has put together Transparency,
a web-based resource on material health that brings together toxicity
concerns and practical information on which building products are likely to
contain toxic chemicals.49 Recognizing that industry and science are
dynamic, it also has a “Watch List” to go along with its “Precautionary
List” so it and others can work to avoid any future regrettable substitutions.

BOX 7.1    Healthier Materials Approach

FOLLOW THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Use a “health first” mind-set and err on the side of caution (or on the side of human
health).
“Less toxic” is not “nontoxic” and “safer” is not necessarily “safe.”
Do not ignore history. (It can’t be called “regrettable” if we knowingly do it over and
over.)

IT’S UP TO YOU TO ACT

Regulation has been proven ineffective; industry has not successfully policed itself.
“Innocent until proven guilty” may be good for criminal justice, but it is disastrous
chemical policy.
Avoid future “legacy pollutants” and their associated massive costs. (What are the
next PCBs?)

START WITH A FEW CLASSES OF KNOWN “BAD ACTORS”

A class approach is warranted for some bad actors like flame retardants and stain
repellents (because it’s impossible to deal with these chemicals one at a time when
there are over 5,000 variants).
Persistent organic pollutants are an issue: an indoor hazard today is an outdoor
hazard tomorrow.

LEVERAGE EXISTING SCIENCE

Demand to know what’s in the products you are buying and putting into your
building.
Don’t ignore science simply because the regulatory apparatus has not caught up
(remember, the EPA still hasn’t formally regulated asbestos). Regulations trail
leading science by years, or even decades.
Don’t delay decisions based on manufactured doubt. (Oftentimes we “know enough
to know” that we shouldn’t use some chemicals, but there are calls for more
evidence and additional studies, which leads to delays.)

PRIORITIZE BASED ON THE LARGEST PRODUCT CATEGORIES IN YOUR

BUILDING
Consider the largest product categories by volume or mass (think about the overall
“toxic load” in a building).
Identify alternatives in most purchased products. (For many of these largest
product categories, the market has products that don’t have these chemicals of
concern and the product performs the same and costs the same.)
 THE PROCESS IS DYNAMIC
Take this approach where feasible (alternatives for some products may not be
available … yet).
Do not violate code (flame retardants are still required in some instances, for
example).
Create a watch list to track what you should be thinking about next (nanomaterials,
anyone?).

Our recommended approach, in broad terms, is simple: start with

transparency; identify a few classes of toxic chemicals that we can all agree
we don’t want in our buildings; identify a few of the largest product
categories in use in buildings; recognize that uncertainties exist; make
decisions based on the best available science; take a precautionary
approach, with eyes wide open about regrettable substitutions and legacy
pollutants; and focus on optimizing for health.
 
CHAPTER EIGHT

Healthy Building Certification

Systems
Education is not a product: mark, diploma, job, money—in that order; it is a process, a never-ending
one.
—BEL KAUFMAN

WHEN YOU GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE, it doesn’t really feel

official until you have that diploma in hand—you put in the work, and now
you want something to hang behind your desk to let the world know about
your accomplishment. It’s proof that, at least at one point in time, you were
“certified” with some level of expertise in whatever you studied. This
facilitates the selection of doctors, accountants, or lawyers, for example;
clients can rely on the certificate without having to individually test the
provider’s knowledge of organic chemistry, depreciation, or patent law.
The same can be said about our buildings. Nowadays, building owners,
developers, investors, and landlords want to let the world know that their
building is special. They want a “diploma” on their building and appreciate
the perceived value this brings.
For some in the buildings trade, it’s a point of pride. For most, it’s a
business decision. Third-party recognition may help attract tenants who
don’t see the sign on a competitor’s building, or it may allow you to charge
a premium. Tenants are relying on the same logic and trade-off calculation
we all use in everyday decisions. Faced with a choice between two health-
care providers, one with a diploma from an accredited medical school and
one without, who do you choose, all else being equal? It’s a no-brainer. The
same might be said for buildings. Some building owners and some tenants
are qualified to look line by line at the performance of water systems, the
disposal of construction debris, or the provenance of sustainable timber
stock; but most would rather rely on outside authorities to certify that the
building passes muster.
This kind of certificate of approval for green buildings has evolved
among many forward-thinking tenants, landlords, and investors from a
“nice-to-have” to a “baseline must-have.” We expect that in the future the
implementation, validation, and communication of some concept of Healthy
Buildings will become an even more important differentiator for
sophisticated companies.
But—crucially—decisions about Healthy Buildings go far beyond a few
incremental and benign design or equipment options. Faulty systems can
make people really sick. Accordingly, as Healthy Buildings get more and
more scrutiny, we can expect awareness to include not just what the
standards and measurements are but also who is doing the certifying—and
how deeply they are evaluating the systems and results.
This chapter looks at the recent history and current status of rating and
ranking systems. We also talk a bit about the factors that have historically
influenced certification practices, since techniques and systems are being
rapidly advanced by newer Healthy Building rating systems. Going
forward, we anticipate a future that involves extensive sensors, analytics,
and real-time reporting. New rating systems will evolve, and we will share
some thoughts about the direction things are going.
Our hope is that by the end of this chapter we will have convinced you
of the following:

1. The green building movement and green building certification offer

important insights into the burgeoning Healthy Building movement,
but certifying something as “healthy” is very different from certifying
something as “green.”
2. The first Healthy Building certification systems are a good start for
promoting a “people-centric” approach to rating buildings but each
have different strengths and weaknesses.
3. The capital expenditures and certification costs for Healthy Buildings,
while at first glance cost prohibitive, are less so once human
performance and health are factored in.
4. Who is doing the certifying is as important as what is being certified.
 5. Expertise (and available tools) will evolve rapidly, and the systems
and standards can be expected to be fluid.

Lessons from the Green Building movement

Pioneering efforts in the early 1990s involving architects, designers,
equipment manufacturers, and standard-setting organizations started the
first conversations about creating green buildings—ones that use materials
thoughtfully, are environmentally sensitive, and conserve energy. The
concept of a green building is important in its own right, certainly. But it
also pioneered a competitive way of benchmarking buildings against some
design standards and against each other, an essential innovation that really
got the movement to take off. This quickly led others to identify the need to
recognize and certify green buildings. Some sort of a “diploma” for
buildings was in order.
One of the first major players in the green buildings space was the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC), which, under the leadership of its
founder and first CEO, Rick Fedrizzi, established the most influential green
building certification standard, Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED).1 Soon after the idea of the green building plaque displayed
on a wall in the building entryway was born. And just as we have
graduation ceremonies for new grads, there are now plaque ceremonies for
new buildings.
The LEED concept was highly influential. The early green building
acolytes really had no formal standing in the design and construction
community, no direct influence on building codes or equipment standards or
inspections, and no financial influence. How could they get the things they
cared so passionately about onto the radar of the broader community? Most
of the industry was cautious and not paying much attention to “going
green” at that time. By conceiving, establishing, codifying, and relentlessly
promoting a clear, understandable, compelling, and universally applicable
rating system, the USGBC eventually influenced the language of local and
national building codes; the standards promulgated by bodies like the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers; zoning and permitting processes in many cities and towns;
leasing standards for huge national tenants; and even investment and
underwriting decisions by important financial players.
Since the rise of LEED and USGBC, over 100 green building councils
have emerged around the world and dozens of green building certification
systems have been developed, nearly all of which administer plaques to
display on buildings that meet specified criteria—an incredible testament to
the success and vision of the movement’s leaders. Green building
certification codes all share many common elements, and since LEED
paved the way and is still the predominant standard in most places, we’ll
talk about LEED here to give you a sense of what these green building
rating systems look for and how they work. Much of what we write applies
to other green building certification systems too, though the specifics may
vary. There are important parallels, as you will soon see—and a few notable
differences—with the Healthy Building movement.
Green building ratings are all based on a scoring system. A building
team gets “credits” for different strategies that they pursue. For example,
LEED will rate your building based on the scores you get for things like
water efficiency, energy efficiency, design, and the sustainability of the site.
Depending on your total score, the building will then be classified at one of
three different levels—LEED Silver, LEED Gold, and LEED Platinum.
One of the major benefits of a certification system is that it offers a
common benchmark for consumers and investors. LEED likens its green
building points or credits to the information on a food product’s nutrition
label, an analogy that we’ve also found very effective.
Much as a nutrition label allows us to compare food products and tells us
what’s inside, a good building certification system lets us compare
buildings. A LEED Platinum building in New York shouldn’t be too
different from a LEED Platinum building in Dubai. (This not 100 percent
true, as there are prerequisites that every building has to hit, local
parameters and environmental challenges, and optional credits allowing for
different pathways to certification.)
This ability to compare buildings across wide geographical locations has
had dramatic economic consequences. One key reason for this is that many
of the “customers” of these buildings are institutional investors, who
typically allocate 5–10 percent of their portfolios to real estate through
direct investments or managed funds like limited partnerships or real estate
investment trusts. In the last several years, many investors have indicated
their preference for green buildings, too. The Global Real Estate
Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) reports that over $7 trillion of global
real estate investment is managed by entities who track their green building
performance.2
FIGURE 8.1    Example of a building “nutrition label” from the USGBC’s LEED program.
U.S. Green Building Council.

One of the main critiques of green building certification systems is that

they largely represent the design and performance of a building at one
particular point in time. Does the LEED Platinum plaque in an office from
2007 really tell us anything about the performance of that building today,
more than a decade later? The answer is largely no. (And we expect this
would hold true if any of us were to be tested today on the things we knew
at the time we received a college diploma, too.)
Fortunately, just as there has been a movement in education toward
“lifelong learning,” there is a corollary in buildings as we seek to move
from static determinations to dynamic assessments, where building
performance is measured and verified continually. Under the direction of
USGBC’s current CEO, Mahesh Ramanujam, it is moving to more dynamic
scoring of buildings. (More on the details of measuring and tracking
building performance in Chapter 9.)
LEED has had remarkable influence on the market. As of 2019, there
were over 8 billion square feet of LEED-certified space globally.3 One of
the drivers of this success is the promised financial return on investment
through energy savings. LEED buildings save around 20 to 40 percent of
energy use intensity when compared with their noncertified counterparts.4
This translates into bottom-line operating savings for the business—
savings, as we illustrated in the pro forma tables in Chapter 4, that have the
really nice feature of being very easy to estimate, measure, and verify.
Energy savings are a line item in the operating budget that everyone can
understand. Some building owners and users have the internal capability to
do sophisticated cost-benefit analyses of engineering investments,
particularly in energy efficiency. Some of those bristle at the relative
simplicity and lack of financial analysis in LEED-certified building. But for
the most part, the points system has been remarkably effective at moving
the industry in a green direction.
Today in some markets, such as New York City and San Francisco, green
building is now business as usual. If your new commercial building is not
LEED certified, this will often raise red flags. Part of this comes from
market forces (“If my competitor is doing it, I had better do it, too”). Part of
it is a new set of expectations (tenants now look for the LEED plaque and
investors want to see it, too). And partly it is driven by local government.
(New York announced in 2019, as part of its Climate Mobilization Act, that
it was mandating that buildings reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent by
2030 and 80 percent by 2050.)
 LEED is not in itself a building code or ANSI-approved national
standard. It’s not a measure of realized performance, nor does it come with
a detailed cost-benefit analysis. Even so, USGBC and LEED have driven
designers to design more creatively, builders to build better, manufacturers
to innovate, and developers to develop more sustainable buildings by
almost any measure. What might be next, now that the public and the
market have both grown accustomed to certifications and awareness of the
human and financial cost of sick buildings is growing?

Healthy Building Certifications

It probably won’t come as a surprise to you to hear that with the rise of the
Healthy Building movement, there has been a corresponding push for
Healthy Building certification systems to replace, compete with, or
complement green building certifications. (The distinction depends on
whom you talk to, and how they view these new certifications.) Several
certification systems have an early lead to fill this gap. Let’s briefly review
these early contenders, not so much to endorse or criticize them but rather
to give you an understanding of how this is playing out in the market, and
how we think it should be playing out. Broadly, we think things are
changing fast in terms of current market awareness, with some key
participants shifting from viewing such certifications as a nice-to-have to
viewing them as a must-have. Some key participants are also reporting
“certification fatigue.” They want to do what’s best for their building and
the people in it, but don’t want to go through a certification process or pay
the certification fees. We are confident that there are substantial high-
impact benefits to be unlocked by new technologies and enhanced “smart
building” capabilities and this shift to Healthy Buildings, with or without
certification.

Early Days: Good Science, Poorly Disseminated

The Healthy Buildings movement has existed for decades, really, but it was
first led by scientists who largely mobilized around the theme of “indoor
air.” Early research on indoor air quality spawned scientific organizations
like the International Society of Indoor Air Quality and the academic
journal Indoor Air (for which Joe is an associate editor). Most scientists are
not businesspeople, few are skilled communicators, and even fewer have
access to decision makers in the real estate industry. The result is that much
of this compelling evidence on healthy indoor air remained bottled up, so to
speak, in academic journals and conferences that failed to penetrate the
market that these scientists were ultimately trying to influence—the people
who design, operate, maintain, and certify buildings.
Joe was struck by the depth of this problem at a meeting of the Real
Estate Roundtable in 2016, when he said, “We’re overcomplicating what it
means to have a Healthy Building. There are only a handful of things we
need to control, and everyone knows what they are.” At which point the
entire room leaned in and began asking questions that would be considered
basic by the “indoor air” crowd. This drove home the fact that the body of
rich scientific evidence had yet to be leveraged by practitioners.
Three things were becoming very clear: (1) there was a gap between
research scientists and practitioners, (2) there was a demand for Healthy
Building knowledge and services being voiced by the market, and (3)
someone was going to fill that demand. Thus, the rise of Healthy Building
certifications.

The WELL Building Standard

The WELL Building Standard was created by Paul and Pete Scialla, two
brothers with experience in the finance world, who recognized the immense
potential of combining two of the largest sectors in the US economy—real
estate and health care. What the Scialla brothers lacked in formal training in
health they made up for in experience in the business world. They saw a
market opening up and launched Delos, a health and wellness company, and
founded the International Well Building Institute (IWBI), the arm of their
company that created WELL.
On the marketing front, the Scialla brothers and their team were quickly
able to achieve impressive results. Rather than compete outright with
existing green building certification standards, they teamed up with
USGBC and began sponsoring the main conference on green buildings,
Greenbuild, which is attended by between 10,000 and 20,000 people each
year. This created a seemingly seamless connection between LEED and
their rating system, WELL.
WELL was first released in 2014 and within a matter of months, the
entire global real estate market seemed to be talking about it. Wherever we
have traveled around the world, someone has inevitably asked us about the
WELL Building Standard—a credit to both the rise of the Healthy
Buildings movement and the communication and marketing skills of the
team at IWBI.
WELL’s splashy launch helped socialize the different elements of a
Healthy Building. Suddenly people in the green building world began to
understand that they should be looking beyond the green building’s indoor
air quality standard—or what we consider “IAQ 101”—by putting
quantifiable targets on new things like lighting, noise, and ventilation. In
short, WELL got people in the green building certification world to start
thinking about prioritizing health.
Like all measurement and incentive systems, WELL was susceptible to
efforts to game the rating system. This mirrored the experience of LEED,
where skeptics will point to the oft-maligned “bike rack credit”—a
meaningful addition for some buildings but a “check the box” credit for the
many suburban office parks surrounded by giant parking lots and road
networks that don’t support biking. So the building gets a LEED credit for
encouraging energy-reducing behaviors like biking, but in reality it would
have been better off focusing on actual energy-conserving measures.
For WELL, this “gaming” could be seen with visible category signaling,
as artifacts and devices were placed in a prominent space as part of a hunt
for less expensive points. This led to no end of grousing as some scoffed
that the next thing you know, you’d see companies placing a bowl of nuts
next to a treadmill in the main lobby area of a WELL Platinum building so
the company could get credits for both nutrition and movement.
But WELL continued to evolve. In 2017 IWBI recruited the principal
architect of the green building movement, Rick Fedrizzi, to become CEO.
Rick quickly brought on several key players from USGBC, including the
former director of USGBC’s Center for Green Schools, Rachel Gutter, who
is now the president at WELL. This further strengthened WELL’s ties to the
established green building movement and brought in an experienced team
to deliver the second version of WELL. (For several years, a few of these
executives were on the advisory board of a center at Harvard that Joe was a
part of, and Joe was on the advisory board for the Center for Green Schools
at USGBC. Joe has not formally worked with them since they moved over
to WELL.)
WELL v2, released in 2018, addressed many of the issues that had
impeded the success of the initial launch. For starters, the certification price
came down by a factor of 10. Many features were now less confusing and
more streamlined. The company also introduced pricing strategies and
discounts that supported the adoption of WELL in developing countries,
and a portfolio option so large companies wouldn’t have to certify their
buildings one by one. IWBI installed an advisory board with a few top-
notch scientists and hired several scientists with master’s degrees in public
health and other related health fields. All solid moves in our view.
In many ways, v2 is a public health win. Its “features” cover many of the
factors of the 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building that we discussed in
Chapter 6, but WELL went with these 10: air, water, light, movement,
thermal comfort, sound, materials, mind, community, and nourishment. The
entry of executives, business leaders, and investors from the green building
certification world into the Healthy Building world was a good signal for
those who wanted to see the Healthy Buildings profile raised. These green
building and business leaders had the skills necessary to bring Healthy
Buildings to the masses, and they had the wherewithal, as all good leaders
do, to bring in experts in areas where they did not have expertise,
leveraging the science and bridging the gap to drive research into practice.

Fitwel
Fitwel, another certification system that is gaining prominence, was created
as a joint initiative between the leading institutions in the US federal
government that focus on health and on buildings: the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the General Services Administration, the
federal agency responsible for managing all government buildings. They
eventually spun out the Fitwel program and it is now being administered
and managed by a nonprofit, the Center for Active Design. And Fitwel is
getting traction: Tishman Speyer, a leading company in the commercial real
estate space, announced in 2017 that it was going to deploy the Fitwel
certification across its global portfolio.5 In 2019, Boston Properties rolled it
out across 11 million square feet of class A office space.
Like WELL, Fitwel aims to promote healthier indoor environments. But
the two certification systems differ in important ways. First and foremost,
Fitwel is a self-administered checklist. Essentially, the building
representative surveys a new or existing building and looks for things that
satisfy Fitwel’s list of health-promoting items.
Some of these things are uncontroversial common sense, such as
verifying that every building has an automatic defibrillator and ensuring
that asbestos is managed properly. Some are potentially open to gaming
(“Adopt and implement an indoor air quality policy” and “Provide access to
sufficient active workstations”). Some are dictated by code (“Provide at
least one ADA compliant water supply on relevant floors”). Some of it isn’t
really tied to health, per se (“Provide at least one publicly accessible use on
the ground floor”).
Perhaps the most important difference between WELL and Fitwel
(certainly the one most noticed by the market) is that Fitwel only costs a
few thousand dollars per building to administer, while WELL can run up to
hundreds of thousands of dollars for a large project. This makes it attractive
to the market, and this aspect allows someone like Tishman Speyer to
consider rolling it out to over 2,000 tenants in over 400 real estate assets
covering 167 million square feet across four continents.
But an important question remains. The few thousand dollars required
for Fitwel makes it an attractive alternative because it’s enough to get a
building owner a plaque out front signaling that this is a “Healthy
Building.” But does this self-administered checklist really mean that Fitwel
buildings are demonstrably healthier buildings? This remains an open
question. Some of the points or credits in the Fitwel rating system are quite
subjective, opening up different interpretations for everyone involved. For
example, if a building has a Fitwel credit for having an indoor air quality
plan, the devil is in the details. Such a plan could be a one-page “plan” that
says something basic like “monitor carbon dioxide on each floor,” or it
could be an exhaustive blueprint for monitoring all of the 9 Foundations of
a Healthy Building.6 And for the market, how do you compare these two
buildings, both of which might have received Fitwel certification?
 The counterargument, naturally, is that Fitwel is a good first step. It
signals that the owner is thinking about health. That’s an important start.

RESET and LEED

There is certainly good news here. It is undeniable that the market is
migrating toward a desire for truly Healthy Buildings, and that it is looking
for solutions, including some means of ascertaining that the asset in
question is objectively healthy. This suggests that designers and building
owners will also be seeking more comprehensive information to support
their decisions.
As of this writing, many other players are jumping into the certification
or rating-system game. RESET, a standard first developed in China, falls
somewhere between Fitwel and WELL in terms of cost and rigor (closer to
WELL).7 RESET is interesting to us because it approaches the assessment
of Healthy Buildings from a technology and performance standpoint. The
method avoids checklists and prescribed paths, opting instead to focus on
results: if your building meets some performance standard with regard to
indoor air quality, they don’t care what path you took to get there. The
RESET certification relies on the rise of new technologies that allow for the
continuous measurement of indicators of indoor air quality, such as CO2,
particles, and temperature and humidity. The downside to RESET is that it
does not currently cover any of the other 9 Foundations of a Healthy
Building, or any of the other air-quality factors that cannot be measured
with real-time monitors (we will discuss those in Chapter 9). Still, RESET
is clearly positioned for a smart building future where more and more of the
9 Foundations will be able to be measured reliably in real time. One can
predict that other Healthy Building certification systems will have a similar
focus on real-time performance verification in the near future.
LEED, the original green building standard-bearer (primarily focused on
energy, waste, and water for many years) is also expanding its reach into the
Healthy Building space, spending a lot more time talking about “health and
human performance”—up until now a second-tier consideration. The latest
version of LEED dedicates approximately 15 percent of its credits to indoor
environmental quality, which may not seem like a high percentage at first
glance, but when you explore the specifics under this category, you see that
LEED is looking at a lot of the same factors as the other rating systems:
acoustics, lighting, controlling tobacco smoke, and taking into account
certain factors like controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds
from products and testing the indoor air quality for those compounds, PM2.5,
and formaldehyde.
All three systems have their benefits and drawbacks. We’re less
interested in who will become the dominant player in this space (we
actually think there is room and a need for all of them, and more), and more
interested in understanding how this Healthy Building movement can scale.
This brings us to the perceived barriers to adoption, most notably, cost.

The Cost of Certifying a Healthy Building

Let’s look more closely at the costs of certification. Securing a WELL v2
certification involves several layers of costs. These include registration,
certification, and on-site performance verification; substantial capital costs
(called CapEx, for capital expenditures) may also be needed to meet the
certification standards.
To put some numbers to this, we took the pricing structure on the WELL
website as accessed in 2019 and applied it to two different building types: a
100,000-square-foot (sq. ft.) and a 1,000,000 sq. ft. building. We concluded
that the costs to obtain this certification would be in the tens of thousands to
several hundreds of thousands of dollars, respectively.8 (Pricing rates and
structures for WELL and other certifications can change rapidly, and may
vary based on the unique characteristics of each building).
Costs for any additional CapEx and the required “on-site performance
verification” are not included in the WELL certification costs, so we used a
few different sources to estimate these values. For the additional capital cost
estimates, we relied on a report by the Urban Land Institute that examined
lessons from early adopters of the WELL Building standard.9 ULI
conducted interviews with several owners and developers of WELL
projects, who pointed to the “hidden” capital costs necessary to improve the
building in order to achieve the certification, which ULI reports as $1–$4
per square foot. They also cite one example, the WELL-certified CBRE
Headquarters in Los Angeles, where additional capital costs were reported
as a 5 percent increase in overall price. (Another WELL-certified building,
in Toronto, lists its increase in capital costs for this purpose at 15 percent.)

Are Healthy Building Certifications Cost Prohibitive?

You are probably thinking this seems expensive. As with many “health”
upgrades to a building, the costs often represent a barrier to adoption—in
our view this is a shortsighted barrier. In our interviews with real estate
leaders, cost was one of the main concerns. But health insurance can chew
up to 25 percent of annual payroll expenditures if you consider the “fully
loaded” cost including taxes and benefits. And think of the money we spend
on nutrition, exercise, or vitamins—or the premium many of us pay for
“healthy” food every day. If we are personally willing to spend so much of
our hard-earned cash on a whole host of things that will make us healthier,
why, when it comes to buildings, are we so afraid to spend on health?
The answer is that the known costs are deemed too great for what are
perceived to be uncertain benefits (that and the issue of split incentives,
which we will get back to shortly). These expenditures are shunted aside as
a boring cost center without any perceived operational, revenue,
performance, or reputational gain. That common assessment is what we are
trying to challenge with this book.
It’s not the case that a building has to be certified in order to be a
Healthy Building; but for our purposes here, let’s add in the cost of a
Healthy Building certification to the cost-benefit analysis in our pro forma
from Chapter 4.
It’s worth noting at this point that we are entering the realm of forward-
looking real estate finance projections and departing the domain of
empirical measurement of science experiments. For all but the most routine
infrastructure and real estate projects, financial projections are relied on to
organize assumptions and understand possible future outcomes. Developers
must make numerous decisions under conditions of high uncertainty.
Generally, they examine ranges of possible long-term results in order to
make both the primary “go or no go” building decision and hundreds of
incremental choices about individual components of the building that will
never have directly traceable revenue or cost linkages. For example: How
much should be spent on windows, on carpets, on kitchen counters and
cabinets, on the pool or the gym, or on the parking—or the ventilation
system? For many developers, this is an art that comes down to experience
and intuition around the aggregate appeal of all aspects of the product, and
what the market might pay.
The classic example is a new apartment building that might range from
$150 to $200 per square foot to build, where the rental rates upon
completion and stabilization might be $1,500–$2,500 per month for a two-
bedroom unit, and interest costs might range from 4 percent to 6 percent per
year. At the time of the initial commitment to the project, all of these are
unknown and most of them will be revealed many years in the future.
Here’s how this plays out, in very round numbers: If a two-bedroom unit is
1,000 sq. ft., then at $150 / sq. ft. it costs $150,000 to build. If the rent is
$2,000 per month, then that’s $24,000 per year; $24,000 / $150,000 = 6.67
percent cash-on-cost yield. If the developer can borrow at 5 percent (an
interest rate that is less than the yield), then the project “pencils in”
favorably on a back-of-envelope basis; the annual cash flow will work and
the developer will make money. But at $200 / sq. ft. cost, that becomes
$200,000 to build. If the building doesn’t perform as well as expected and is
only able to command rent of $1,500 / month when the building opens three
years from the start of construction, that’s $18,000 per year, or only 3.6
percent cash-on-cost yield. If interest rates at completion and permanent
financing have jumped to 6 percent, then the promoters will lose money—
the cash flow won’t even cover the interest cost—and the developers should
not have started the apartment building project.
Real estate people focus on two aspects of analysis. First, how closely
can our assumptions be based on comparables in the market today? Current
rental rates and historic construction costs can be approximated if there is
good access to information from other firms. Then the questions become,
“Is the number truly comparable to the number for this other design?” and
“What changes do we think will happen in the market during construction?”
The second aspect involves sensitivity testing (for banks, stress testing). A
typical sensitivity test would be something like this for a developer: “All
else being equal, how low can occupancy rates fall for us to still realize
positive cash flow?” Or for a bank, “How far can market yields rise for us
to still have complying loan-to-value ratios?”
Both parties are trying to find the boundaries of a successful deal. This
degree of uncertainty is unsettling for empiricists, since the data is really
not out there at decision time. But it’s second nature for project developers
ranging from dam builders to tract housing promoters to big-city office
building developers. The following sections use “what if” examples to
determine the boundaries of what has to unfold for these decisions to make
sense. We explain our rationale for the figures, and readers are encouraged
to consider impacts and draw their own conclusions if their underlying
assumptions or market expectations are different from the ones modeled
here.
With that understanding about how cost-benefit calculations work in real
estate, let’s get back to our opening question in this section: Are Healthy
Building certifications cost prohibitive in the big picture? For discussion
purposes, let’s assume that an office building design calls for about 250 sq.
ft. per employee. (Your office probably isn’t 16 × 16 feet; that figure also
includes an allocation for common areas like lobbies, conference rooms,
and washrooms.) We’ll assume that this building’s construction cost is $400
/ sq. ft. for the base building and the tenant fit-out work, a number that
would be in the ballpark for a suburban office building but low for New
York City or San Francisco. If the capital cost upcharge to include all of the
incremental labor and materials that result in a certifiably Healthy Building
is taken to be 3 percent (a middle figure from the costs just discussed),
that’s about an additional $12 per square foot, or $3,000 per person for each
person’s allocated 250 sq. ft. of space.
Let’s now return to our financial model for Healthy Buildings Inc. (HB)
and factor in the new anticipated CapEx for building a Healthy Building
and getting the building certified. On the capital expenditure side, the
$3,000 per person cost we just estimated sounds like a lot—until you
consider that it’s a one-time cost. Assuming a typical office lease of 10
years, and assuming that 100 percent of the cost is absorbed by the tenant
company, that works out to $300 per person per year. With respect to the 40
employees of HB, it’s a cost to the company of $12,000 per year in total.
On the benefits side, as a reminder, in Chapter 4 we showed how improving
ventilation could lead to a 3 percent productivity boost from health and a 1
percent payroll effect. You’ll see those numbers in the same spot here on
the left-hand side of the model. Now, let’s factor in an estimate of all of the
other benefits of the 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building, which also show
up in Healthy Building certification systems (for example, light, noise,
allergens in dust, and water quality). These benefits are in addition to the
ventilation and filtration discussed in Chapter 3. Let’s assume,
conservatively, that collectively they improve the company’s revenue and
payroll performance by half of one percent each. We feel comfortable
making this assumption based on the science we presented in Chapter 6—
findings like higher throughput at optimal temperatures, how lighting
conditions affect mood and concentration, and real-world examples of poor
building maintenance shutting down work altogether. The numbers follow.
With all of these assumptions, using the same figures we have been
carrying throughout the book, this company’s projected bottom line (net
income after taxes) improves from the original $1,169,000 to $1,305,313
here—a nearly 12 percent improvement.
Is this plausible, or just fantasy? We maintain that impacts on this order
of magnitude are real and should be considered. From a decision-making
point of view, there is a significant financial improvement, plus people are
healthier, happier, and more creative. And remember, this model includes
the CapEx that often give owners pause when they start considering
building to a Healthy Building standard, as well as the associated costs.
 Even with this broad brush, you can see that the costs of the certification
process are trivial in the context of the whole project. When a number of
less than $12 per square foot is considered in the context of $400 per square
foot of construction costs, it can be absorbed quickly. If one amortizes the
$12 per square foot over the ten-year cycle, and think about it on a per-
employee basis, that’s $300 per year per employee. This is about the price
of one cup of fancy coffee each week!

Split Incentives?
You may be thinking this is a naïve analysis for the simple reason that, with
the exception of owner-occupied buildings, the costs and benefits are not
incurred by and going to the same company. The building owner and
developer pay the additional CapEx and certification costs, while the tenant
gets the benefit in employee productivity and health. The cost-benefit
incentives are not aligned.
If you were thinking along those lines, take another look at the pro
forma. You’ll see that the rent premium is now modeled at 15 percent—and
the company is still better off than the baseline. The landlord may not be
able to capture all of this benefit in additional rent—the tenant might be a
better negotiator and could retain more of the marginal value for itself (or
share it with employees)—but the numbers show that there is a lot of value
to be created that can then be shared. We chose a 15 percent rent premium
to highlight the magnitude of value created, not to suggest that the lease
agreement might contain this sort of language. Everyone can win. The
landlord gets a rent premium, the tenant gets a productivity boost, and the
employees are healthier.

A Tower for the People: 425 Park Avenue

Moving beyond this hypothetical, let’s explore the financial implications of
decision-making around Healthy Buildings certification in an actual
building, We did this recently for our joint Harvard Business School /
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health case study about 425 Park
Avenue in New York City (“A Tower for the People,” written with Joe’s
doctoral student Emily Jones).10
In the words of David Levinson, chairman and CEO of L&L Holding,
the project’s developer, 425 Park Avenue is “the first new office building on
Park Ave in New York City in 50 years.”11 Levinson selected none other
than Norman Foster of Foster + Partners to design the new building to
replace a building constructed in the 1950s. They shared a grand vision for
the new space. In Foster’s words, “Our aim is to create an exceptional
building, both of its time and timeless, as well as being respectful of its
context and celebrated Modernist neighbors—a tower that is for the City
and for the people that will work in it, setting a new standard for office
design and providing an enduring landmark that befits its world-famous
location.”12
Levinson has a long history of acting ahead of the curve with respect to
design innovation. He told us that he makes decisions based on his intuition
from decades of experience in the industry (and, no doubt, plenty of
sophisticated research).13 His intuition on 425 Park Avenue? That health
will be the differentiator for his tower, which will be the first WELL-
certified commercial office building in Manhattan.
Perhaps the most interesting take-home from our conversations was this:
Levinson is not just thinking about what his tenants will want this year or
next. He is thinking about the tenants 5, 10, and 20 years from now. His
major concern is that if he doesn’t take these steps toward health now, his
building will be outdated in a few short years, surpassed by the next “latest
and greatest” building. In some ways, it’s a risk-management decision. He
is future-proofing his building.
In our case study we look at decisions in the design phase, before the
building was built. (Since this is the first commercial building pursuing
WELL certification in New York City and these are the early days of
landlord awareness, at this writing there are no finished, rented, stabilized
examples of this degree of attention to occupant health and indoor air
quality.) During the design phase, the financial projections are just that—
projections. We walked through many of the decisions made by Levinson
and his team, including decisions about ventilation, filtration, and whether
to pursue WELL certification. For our purposes, here we are just going to
cover the economics of pursuing a Healthy Building certification.
The building at 425 Park Avenue has approximately 675,000 square feet
of gross leasable area across 47 floors. The average asking rent is $150 per
square foot per year on a triple net lease basis. (This is a common office
lease arrangement where the tenant is responsible for its own operating
expenses and an allocation of property taxes and building expenses;
effectively, the gross rent for the building is in excess of $200 / sq. ft.) The
$150 / sq. ft. / year is an average for the building, but as you would expect,
the rent on the top floor is higher than for lower floors, so we built
multipliers into the model to account for that. The cost to construct this
building in the heart of Midtown Manhattan is about $750 / sq. ft., not
including land.
We combined all of this in order to estimate net operating income over
development cost, a standard ratio for evaluating the expected economic
performance of a new real estate development. We then repeated the
analysis but added in a 3 percent construction cost premium for achieving
the WELL certification as estimated by the L&L team, and a 2 percent rent
multiplier to illustrate the general impacts.
In baseline projections, the development cost is about $1.2 billion and
the annual net operating income is anticipated to be about $72 million,
penciling out to a yield of about 6 percent as a percentage of original
project cost, year after year. (This is in range for new office developments
in New York City.) Many other factors go into assessing returns on building
projects, with key aspects being bank loans, any partnerships in the equity
portion of the project, and assumptions about value at refinancing or sale;
we don’t go into this here, but they are the foundation of John’s real estate
courses at Harvard Business School.
In this model, Levinson and L&L receive an extra $1.5 million per year
in net operating income (that is, cash flow from operations) and the cash-
on-cost yield improves by about 25 basis points. The upcharge in initial
costs is clearly worth it if the achievable rent also increases along these
lines. The market, investment, and cost strategy approach includes three
aspects to consider from the point of view of the developer and architect
planning the project: (1) Does a Healthy Building strategy increase the
likelihood of a fully occupied building? (2) Will the landlord be able to
realize a material rent premium today for a certifiably Healthy Building?
and (3) Will trends in the market mean that rents rise faster in a building
with these characteristics than they will in other, less healthy buildings?
Levinson believes he needs to have this Healthy Building differentiator
if he is to attract tenants and command the $150 / sq. ft. per year net rent.
What if the added construction costs for a Healthy Building are the
difference between a fully occupied building and one that is not? The
financial implications are stark—if 425 Park Avenue falls to 95 percent
occupied, the yield drops below 6 percent, with about a $3 million revenue
hit. It could be that the Healthy Building investment defends the building
against vacancy in the event of a downturn.
For questions 2 and 3, there are opportunities for Levinson and L&L to
charge a greater rental premium for this building. Now, what if Levinson
were able to realize a 5 percent rent premium instead of 2 percent, based on
the health benefits to tenant employees? This would amount to an additional
$3 million per year in revenue. That’s a big deal. And remember, in the
earlier portions of this book we argue that tenants are making a better
business decision if they are willing to pay a little more for a space that
demonstrably gives people a chance to be more productive and effective.
The incentive structures are in place for Levinson to charge a premium, and
a shrewd tenant should be willing to pay it.
Levinson recognizes the significance of these three strategic aspects. In
fact, it’s an explicit part of L&L’s billion-dollar bet. In his words, “In an up
market, I get the premium. In a down market, I get the tenant.”14

What If You Get It Wrong? The Case for Expertise

One major concern with the burgeoning Healthy Building movement is this:
if a LEED professional screws up the water or energy analysis for a green
building certification, it’s bad, but no one dies. If a WELL professional
screws up, he or she is potentially jeopardizing the health of everyone in the
building. Putting the world “health” in a business equation draws positive
attention, but it also comes with great responsibility. A short aside here is
worthwhile because it highlights the potential moral and legal perils of
unconstrained enthusiasm about representing what’s in a Healthy Building.
 The aside: Elizabeth Holmes was the self-made billionaire founder and
CEO of Theranos, a company that promised to replace the venous-draw
approach to human blood testing with a simple pinprick test. This would be
truly revolutionary, had it worked. But it didn’t. The entire company was a
fraud that was ultimately exposed by the Wall Street Journal reporter John
Carreyrou and immortalized in his book, Bad Blood.15
As detailed by Carreyrou, Theranos knowingly rolled out a faulty blood-
testing service in the drugstore chain Walgreens and began reporting
incorrect lab results to patients. One woman, who is now suing Theranos,
was incorrectly diagnosed with a thyroid disorder that resulted in her being
put on medication she didn’t need. Another was a heart surgery patient who
received faulty results from Theranos and then switched his medication and
underwent what he claims were unnecessary follow-up procedures. These
are not two isolated incidents, either; over 1 million lab tests from Theranos
had to be voided or corrected.
Here’s the relevance to buildings. Holmes was simply doing what others
in Silicon Valley had done before—she initially delivered imperfect
products, confident that her company would eventually iterate and
ultimately get it right. The problem is that, unlike a software company,
which can deliver imperfect first-launch software supplemented by periodic
fixes or patches, Theranos was playing with people’s lives. It wasn’t selling
software; it was selling health. So when the firm got it wrong, people’s lives
were at stake. As of the writing of this book, Holmes has been indicted on
fraud charges, because her “getting it wrong” was not an accident; it was
willful misconduct, as alleged and documented in the indictment.
The same cautionary tale should be heeded with Healthy Building rating
systems. With Healthy Buildings, a mistake here, or a promise of a Healthy
Building not based on sound science, is ultimately about health and
people’s lives. In the end, perhaps our biggest concern with the current
Healthy Building rating systems is not just what the standard is but also
who is doing the certifying. And what the implications are if they get it
wrong.
When you need your building designed, you hire an architect. When you
need a building permit, you hire a professional engineer to sign off on the
plans. When you sign a contract, you hire a lawyer to review it. All of these
professions have intense qualification protocols. When it comes to
certifying the health of your building, it stands to reason that you should
hire someone qualified with expertise on indoor health.
Following the lead of LEED, which uses accredited professionals (APs)
to evaluate and certify buildings, current Healthy Building systems are also
using APs. APs are critical to the success of these certification systems.
They offer guidance and strategic support on how to navigate the various
rating systems, and they often interface with the architects and design teams
to ensure buildings attain their desired status (for example, LEED Silver,
Gold, or Platinum).
WELL has the WELL AP, RESET has the RESET AP, and Fitwel does
the same thing but calls them Fitwel Ambassadors. This approach—training
and accrediting to a common standard—has been crucial in changing the
industry, and the world, by engaging hundreds of thousands of people in the
building sector and giving them ownership, and opportunities, around
certifications. There are already hundreds of thousands of APs who
essentially act as brand ambassadors for LEED, WELL, Fitwel, and others.
Yet as much as these APs are essential, another type of expert is also
needed—people with deep knowledge of how to measure, monitor, and
interpret environmental data in buildings. WELL has started to move in this
direction by outsourcing the performance verification of WELL buildings to
“WELL Performance Testing Agents” in an approved “WELL Performance
Testing Organization.” The requirement to become a testing agent is
different from that to become an AP—two days of training hosted by
WELL.
That’s a good start, but here we make a strong recommendation: that the
Healthy Building movement engage with the community of Certified
Industrial Hygienists (CIHs). The CIH certification, now 40 years old, is
administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The term
“industrial hygiene” is still widely used in the trade, but Joe hates it. Who
wants to be an industrial hygienist? It sounds like a dental assistant who
works on an oil rig. So we prefer to use the shorthand CIH, and we like to
think of it as “Certified Indoor Health,” because that’s actually what a CIH
does.
Why CIHs? These are experts at anticipating, evaluating, managing, and
controlling hazards for workers. In addition to four years of coursework in
the sciences (and oftentimes another two in a master’s program), the
classroom training must be followed by five years of work experience under
the mentorship of a seasoned professional. Industrial hygiene does not have
to be confined to food processing, factories, refineries, and hospitals. These
skills matter in every occupied space, including commercial office space.
Now take a look at the type of skill sets they are required to have—and
the intensity of the certification exam—and you’ll quickly see that this is
the exact type of expertise needed if you really want to understand what’s
happening in buildings.

BOX 8.1    Certified Industrial Hygienists

Required Education: bachelor’s degree in biology, chemistry, engineering, or physics

Required Experience: five years plus professional references
Examination Rubrics:
Air Sampling and Instrumentation
Analytical Chemistry
Basic Science
Biohazards
Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Community Exposure
Engineering Controls and Ventilation
Health Risk Analysis and Hazard Communication
Industrial Hygiene Program Management
Noise
Nonengineering Controls
Radiation / Nonionizing
Thermal Stressors
Toxicology
Work Environments and Industrial Processes
Sample Examination Questions:
Air Sampling. The limit of quantitation for a particular sampling method is 9.3 μg /
sample. An industrial hygienist wants to conduct a personal exposure monitoring
study with a target concentration of ≥ An of the TLV. The TLV of the substance at
issue is 0.1 ppm and the gram molecular weight of the substance is 30.031 g / mol.
The proscribed flow-rate for sample collection on an adsorbent tube is 0.050 LPM.
How many minutes of sample collection at the proscribed flow rate are required to
collect a quantifiable sample result, assuming the concentration is at least 10% of
the TLV?
Analytical Chemistry. An air sampling procedure is accurate within ±16%, and the
analytical procedure is accurate within ±9%. What is the accuracy of the total
analysis? 16.7%, 17.6%, 14.8%, or 18.4%.
 Basic Science. A mixture contains: 50 mL benzene (m.w. = 78; v.p. = 75mmHG;
sp. gr. = 0.879), 25 mL carbon tetrachloride (m.w. = 154; v.p. = 91mmHG; sp. gr. =
1.595), and 25 mL trichloroethylene (m.w. = 131.5; v.p. = 58mmHG; sp. Gr. =
1.45g). Assuming Raoult’s Law is obeyed, what will be the concentration of
benzene in air at 760 mmHG saturated with vapor of the above mixture?
Biohazards. Which fungal type is inappropriate for detection with spore traps and
microscopy? Alternaria spp., Stachybotrys chartarum, Aspergillus fumigatus, or
Basidiospores.
Biostatistics and Epidemiology. An industrial hygienist has the following
exposure data from a similarly exposed group of employees. The occupational
exposure limit for the substance is 100 ppm. The IH wants to ensure the average
exposure is less than 10% of the exposure limit. What is the 95% upper confidence
limit of the average exposure from this group?
Risk Assessment. Which of the following would be considered an acceptable
cancer risk in the workplace by OSHA? 10−3, 10−4, 10−5, or 10−6.
Radiation. The human body is best at absorbing nonionizing radiation within which
range of frequencies? 3 KHz to 30 MHz; 30 MHz to 300 MHz; 3 GHz to 6 GHz; >6
GHz.
Thermal Stress. Calculate the estimated radiant heat load from surrounding
objects with radiant temperature of 101°F using the formula R = 15(tw − 95), where:
R = radiant heat load (BTU / hour), and tw = radiant temperature of surrounding
objects (F).
Toxicology. What is the major mechanism of toxicity for carbon monoxide?
Ventilation. Calculate the air flow in cfm when the velocity pressure is 1.1 inches
water and the circumference of the duct is 56.25 inches.

Sources: Example questions compiled from: American Industrial Hygiene Association,

“Sample Exam Questions,” http://www.abih.org/become-certified/prepare-exam/sample-
exam-questions; and courtesy of Bowen EHS CIH exam prep,
https://www.bowenehs.com/exam-prep/cih-exam-prep/.

When you look at the required education, required experience, and

sample questions from the certification exam, you will quickly recognize
that their expertise is in the science of a Healthy Building. If something is
found to be “off,” this group has the skill set to identify what that is and
come up with a solution. We don’t know about you, but we would feel
better sitting in our Healthy Building if we knew a CIH was determining
how healthy it was.
Naturally, there are business challenges with the cost and availability of
CIHs as Healthy Buildings increasingly come into the mainstream. We
believe that the certification protocols and standards that will be most
influential in the long run will include CIH knowledge at a scale and degree
of accessibility that are both rigorous and objective, while also being widely
propagated.

What Makes a Great Healthy Building Certification?

Overall, the appearance of these Healthy Building certifications is a positive
sign. It proves that awareness is growing and shows that the market wants a
solution. We are hopeful. First offerings always need fine-tuning, and we
pointed out a few of those in this chapter. Because the demand is so high,
we are confident that the market will continue to iterate until it gets this
right.
Here is what “getting it right” for a Healthy Building certification
protocol looks like to us:

1. Evidence based and supported by peer-reviewed science

2. Flexible and can incorporate evolving research and new advancements
in technology
3. Standardized, consistently defined, and verifiable
4. Cost effective (and with a cost-benefit analysis that includes human
health and performance)
5. Not defined solely at one single point in time
6. Administered and verified with on-site testing by experts trained in
how to anticipate, evaluate, manage, and control hazards
7. Entails performance verification that includes monitoring Health
Performance Indicators (covered in Chapter 9), such as real-time
indicators of indoor environmental quality, in areas that are
representative of where people are spending their time
8. Developed in close coordination with end users (for example,
designers, architects, owners, investors, and tenants) and building
health experts (for example, engineers, health scientists, and medical
professionals)
9. Recognized by the market and investors as providing commercial
value
10. Incentivizes shared value across stakeholders (for example, investors,
owners, and tenants)
 We don’t know yet what system will eventually be considered the “gold
standard” for Healthy Building certifications. This section of our book will
become dated very quickly. That’s a good thing: we look forward to seeing
how the system evolves, and to seeing this new certification gain the same
level of influence as LEED and other green building rating systems.
 
CHAPTER NINE

Moving from KPIs to HPIs

Employees are a company’s greatest asset—they’re your competitive advantage.
—ANNE M. MULCAHY

WE SPENT CHAPTERS 6, 7, AND 8 DEFINING what a Healthy

Building is. Now we’ll look at examples of how to measure the health
impact of a building because, as the influential management guru Peter
Drucker famously put it, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” To
date, no one is really measuring building performance effectively. But you
can—and you should. In this chapter, we want to show you how. We’ll do it
in two parts, first by showing you how it’s done badly, and then by showing
you how to do it right.
Felix Barber and Rainer Strack wrote an article in the Harvard Business
Review called “The Surprising Economics of a ‘People Business,’ ” in
which they argued that the performance of employees drives the bottom
line.1 We agree. And though it’s not exactly a revelation that in jobs calling
for human labor, or wisdom, or creativity, or analytics, the performance of
employees will affect the company’s performance, their key insight was
captured in this sentence: “Business performance measures and
management practices don’t reflect the particular economics of people-
driven businesses.” In short, there is a disconnect—we know human
performance drives company performance, but we’re terrible at measuring
it.
In fact, we’re not just terrible at measuring it; oftentimes we are
measuring the wrong thing. Take the work of leading Silicon Valley
investor John Doerr and the insights he offers in his book Measure What
Matters.2 Doerr is chairman of Kleiner Perkins and was an early backer of
Amazon, Google, Uber, and other companies. His work on what he calls
“OKRs”—Objectives and Key Results—extends Drucker’s ideas into the
startup and innovation world, charting the path from hope to execution.
Doerr has helped move companies from measuring Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) that don’t matter to measuring those that do. The most
well-known, and most important, of his interventions were his
conversations with the cofounders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin,
back in the days when Google was still being run out of a garage in Menlo
Park. He convinced them to use his OKR system, which was expressly
designed to measure and track success.
We want to marry Barber and Strack’s insight and Doerr’s rigor to
extend the “what gets measured” line of thinking to include the health
performance of buildings—and to advance the toolkit for measuring the
right things. Our central thesis in this book is not only that employee
performance drives the bottom line but also that the building (or indoor
environment) plays a vital role in optimizing that human performance, and
that this building performance has been mismeasured to date. We are
putting far too much faith in self-reported employee surveys, which, as you
will see (and as any epidemiologist would tell you), have a tendency to be
wildly misrepresentative.

Doing It Wrong: The Mismeasurement of “People

Businesses”
One of the most commonly used tools to measure building-related
productivity and performance is the “Post-occupancy Survey” (also
commonly known as a “Post-occupancy Evaluation”; we are going to stick
with “survey,” for reasons you’ll soon see). As people have begun to
appreciate the value of Healthy Buildings, there are now all sorts of claims
being bandied about regarding the health of a building and the productivity
of employees. Since some of these claims are based on surveys, they
require some scrutiny. We will look at five real-world examples of Post-
occupancy Survey data and consider how the data is being used to describe
the impact of a workspace on productivity and health. Our goal here is not
to say that surveys cannot be used at all but rather that if they are going to
be used, they must be used very carefully. For each fatal flaw, we’ll also
give you the solution for how to avoid it, because as Joe’s brother Brian
always says, if you point out problems without offering a solution, that’s
just complaining.
Warning: what follows will be an equal-opportunity critique.
Here are five claims made by companies about a new office space
they’ve designed or moved into after conducting a Post-occupancy Survey.
We’ve picked a few especially notable examples, but the reality is that
everyone is doing this.
Company A reported that 91.6 percent of employees say they feel
healthier because of indoor air quality improvement, 56 percent of
occupants report an overall improvement in visual comfort, and 42
percent report an improvement in acoustics.
Company B reported that 80 percent of employees believed their new
office enabled them to be more productive.
Company C reported 95 percent satisfaction with its new space.
Company D reported that high-performance buildings save energy
and water, cost less to operate, produce less waste, and have more
satisfied occupants than typical buildings.
Company E reported that occupants report 30 percent fewer sick-
building symptoms in green-certified buildings.
Well, to any untrained eye with even a slight bit of healthy skepticism,
much of this reads just as it should: like B.S. That’s why we like calling
these “Post-occupancy Surveys,” so we can use the acronym POS (use your
imagination).
To keep this more highbrow, we’ll couch our critique about why POSs
are problematic using two epidemiological concepts: selection bias and
dependent measurement error. If this sounds like it might get too technical,
rest assured, every time you read a word or phrase that belongs in an
epidemiology textbook, you can simply swap in the phrase “common
sense.”

Fatal Flaw 1: Selection Bias

At its most basic, selection bias happens when the people who take the
survey don’t represent the underlying population that could, and should, be
queried. When looking at any of these bold conclusions from Companies
A–E, we should immediately be asking ourselves a few questions about
sample size, representativeness, and loss to follow-up:
Sample size: Was it a survey of the entire company or a small subset?
Representativeness: Was only one type of worker or group in the
company surveyed?
Loss to follow-up: Is anyone missing from the survey?
We don’t know any of the specifics that underpin the results from
Company A, and we don’t mean to imply it did anything wrong, but let’s
put some hypothetical numbers to this to see how these four aspects of
selection bias could potentially influence our interpretation of the headline
finding that “91.6 percent of employees say they feel healthier because of
indoor air quality improvement.”
Sample Size
There are a few ways to get to that 91.6 percent number. Let’s suppose that
Company A is a 600-person company, the company sent the survey to all
600 employees, and 500 ended up responding and taking the survey—a
pretty good sample size and response rate (83 percent). If this were the case,
we would know that 458 employees reported feeling better because of
indoor air quality (458 / 500 = 91.6 percent).
But what if, in that same 600-person company, only 83 people took the
survey? That would mean that 76 people responded positively about the
building, giving us the same reported percentage of people satisfied with
the air quality (76 / 83 = 91.6 percent). Under either scenario, the company
would be technically correct to report that 91.6 percent of people report
feeling good about the air quality, but the implications are vastly different.
The claim that 91.6 percent reported positive feelings about indoor air
quality would mean something different if the survey sample size represents
less than 15 percent of the company.
Representativeness
Let’s assume that 500 of the 600 people in the company did take the survey
and the sample size is not the issue. But what if the 500 people who were
given the survey were all executives and knowledge workers who had
offices on the exterior of the floor plan in a traditional office setup—you
know, the window offices—and the 100 who weren’t given the survey were
the administrative staff located on the interior in the cubicle farm? We’ll
take it to the extreme in our hypothetical—if the 100 people in the cubicle
farm all did not like the air quality, the “true” resulting percentage of people
who liked the air quality could be as low as 76.3 percent if the survey had
included the 100 people in the cubicle farms (458 / 600 = 76.3 percent).
Quite different from the 91.6 percent that was reported.
Now let’s assume the company sent the survey to all 600 people in its
company, thereby avoiding any intentional selection bias. What if the
people who decided to complete the survey were somehow different from
those who opted not to complete the survey? The people who decided to
take the survey are what we call “self-selected”; they willingly raised their
hand and asked to participate. The difference between responders and
nonresponders becomes critically important to understand because we know
from the epidemiological literature that self-selectors are very different
from others. (You might think of the Yelp effect—the people who post on
Yelp are usually either extremely satisfied or extremely dissatisfied, and
they have time to post a review on a website.)
For Company A, we would want to know who the self-selected
responders are. Are they all of the marketing department, executives, and
building managers responsible for air quality—the people who most
certainly know that Company A just invested millions of dollars into this
new buildings and also know that the company is going to use these results
to market its products? Despite this company’s best attempts at a
representative survey, did the administrators in the cubicle farm all decline
to answer the survey, so in the end the survey really just sampled those in
the private offices again?
Understanding and evaluating selection bias, in all its forms, is so
important that in nearly every single peer-reviewed epidemiological study,
the very first table in the paper is one that shows the sample size and
examines, side by side, any potential differences between responders and
nonresponders. Epidemiologists do this to show that there was no selection
bias introduced as a result of who ended up taking the survey. In our
hypothetical, if the results are to be believed, the headline finding would
have to include a similar table showing that the 500 who took the survey
were similar to the 100 who did not across things like age, gender, title,
salary, education, office type, and office location.
This problem can be avoided, even with a smaller sample size, through a
random selection process.
Loss to Follow-Up (and the Healthy Worker Effect)
Now, even if Company A addressed the small sample size and
representativeness issue, there is still another potential for selection bias: it
only surveyed the people who were in the office that day. In
epidemiological terms, this is a type of selection bias that can arise from
what is called loss to follow-up (and a kind of corollary, “the Healthy
Worker Effect”).
This type of bias arises because, on average, people who are at work are
different from those who are not. Those not at work may be absent because
they are sick or otherwise unable to work, or because they have moved on
to another job and can no longer be contacted. They are “lost to follow-up.”
Let’s say Company A did manage to survey 500 of its 600 total
employees with a representative and random survey with no self-selection
bias. Are the 500 people who were in the office that day the true
denominator? In other words, do they represent the entire population
potentially “at risk”? In addition to employees out for client meetings or
conferences or vacation, what if someone else was out sick that day? Then
he or she wouldn’t be included in the survey. And what if the building was
the reason that employee was out sick? That is, what if you were only
surveying “healthy workers.” What if a few people in the company
absolutely hated the new workplace, so much so that they just quit and no
longer worked there when the survey was administered? All of these
employees would be lost to follow-up and wouldn’t be included in the
survey either. (Instead of just calling this the “Healthy Worker Effect,” we
might call this the “Happy Worker Effect,” where the only people left in the
company are those who actually like the company; the disgruntled or
unsatisfied having moved on.)
This problem can be avoided by ensuring that the survey captures all of
those “at risk,” not just the healthy and satisfied.
This is just a hypothetical, so we could explore these issues in Fatal Flaw
1—we don’t actually know the sampling details for Company A that
underpin the claim that “91.6 percent of employees say they feel healthier
because of indoor air quality improvement.” And therein lies the problem.

Fatal Flaw 2: Dependent Measurement Error

With the basics of selection bias behind us, we want to get to another major
problem with these POSs: their use to find causal associations between
design features and outcomes. Those conclusions can be erroneous as a
result of the potential for these POSs to create what is called dependent
measurement error.3
To show you how this can be a problem, we’ll start with a hypothetical
and then show you an actual example. Suppose we ask you, a happy person,
how you like the room you’re in right now. You say, “It’s great. I love the
air quality and lighting in here.” Then suppose we also ask you how you’re
feeling. You answer: “Great.” Any headaches? “No.” Any fatigue? “No.”
Now, we turn to your colleague. You know the one. We ask him, How
are you feeling today? “Terrible.” Any headaches? “All day, every day.”
Any fatigue? “I’m exhausted.” Then we ask him, How do you like the
building and room you’re in right now? “I hate it.” How is the air quality?
“It’s terrible.” And so on. You get the picture.
This POS is really testing whether people are stoics or complainers. The
stoic is likely to answer all questioners similarly—in a positive manner.
And the complainer will likely do what complainers do—answer everything
negatively. This is the dependent measurement error and here’s why it is so
insidious. What researchers, survey analysts, or companies typically do next
is put the responses of the stoics and complainers together, along with those
of everyone else who makes up the middle ground and took the same
survey, then they plot it out and draw a nice regression line.
Voila! You have yourself a very strong, but misleading, relationship
between an “exposure” and an “outcome,” with complainers anchoring the
bottom left and stoics driving the top right. This is usually backed up by
fancy-sounding but meaningless phrases like “statistically significant”
results that give the study some imprimatur of being robust. However, if
you took the stoics and complainers out of the survey and only focused on
those in the middle (the gray open circles in our figure), the figure would no
longer show any relationship between the two variables.
 This is called dependent measurement error; the measurements of
exposure and outcome are dependent on each other. The assessments of
exposure and outcome are not disentangled. That is, they are not
independently assessed.

FIGURE 9.1    Illustration of dependent measurement error and “stoics versus complainers.”

The issue? The ensuing analysis purports to show a relationship between

two factors when actually what has been “discovered” is that this company,
like all companies, has some stoics and some complainers. The implication?
Companies then report these spurious “findings” and executives may make
decisions about their company and buildings based on them.
This problem can be avoided by using an objective measure of exposure
(for example, measuring air quality in the environment), an objective
measure of an outcome (for example, cognitive function tests), or objective
measures of both.

Doing It Right: Health Performance Indicators

The higher-order, fundamental flaw we just examined is that POSs are
subjective and only rely on human perceptions. This makes them prone to
bias and dependent error. The solution is to track independent, objective
measures of performance across an array of indicators. Businesses have
been doing exactly this for decades. Now we just need to apply these
measurement techniques to buildings.
Businesses track KPIs every second, every day, every week, every
month. They track things like revenue and return on equity; earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) and net profit
margin; and operating cash flow. But if we want to capitalize on the 90
percent cost of our buildings—the people inside them—are traditional KPIs
the right way to go about it? The short answer is no. Using traditional KPIs
has led to the mismeasurement of “people businesses,” as shown by Barber
and Strack.
“Measuring what matters,” to our mind, means measuring health
performance. The rationale is straightforward—if people constitute the vast
majority of your business expense and productivity, and their health is a
key determinant of their ability to be productive, then the most “key” KPI is
health. So, as Joe and his colleagues argue in a recent article, companies
need to start being intentional about how they measure the health and well-
being of their employees. This means measuring Health Performance
Indicators (HPIs),4 and it goes way beyond using POSs.
The HPI concept is all about tracking the factors that can be leveraged to
optimize the building for health and performance. In this book we focus on
how the HPI concept can be applied to the building, but it can be extended
to the entire business enterprise. (You might think of other factors in a
company that influence worker health and the bottom line but aren’t
building related: company culture, maternity and paternity leave, autonomy,
salary, purpose, and other health-promoting activities not linked squarely to
the building. A “toxic” or adversarial work culture can have a significant
negative impact on health, as can poor sleep, stress, and long hours.)
For now, we will stay focused on buildings and will populate our
framework with new HPIs that we think all companies should consider
tracking that relate to their building. Because really, after you have spent so
much time, effort, and money sorting through candidates to find the best
and the brightest—the internally motivated and highly skilled—wouldn’t
you want to create the optimal working environment to maximize the
performance of your investment?

The HPI Framework

In creating this HPI framework, we adopted, or rather co-opted, the
language of KPIs so that we could use terms and concepts that would be
very familiar to the business community and therefore easy to implement.
As with KPIs, there are leading HPIs (“before impact”) and lagging HPIs
(“after impact”); some are direct indicators of health (that is, they measure
the people) and some are indirect (that is, they measure the building). A
nice way to visualize this is to split the HPIs into quadrants.
FIGURE 9.2 Health Performance Indicators (HPIs) for buildings.

In their original research paper that briefly touched on HPIs, Joe and his
colleagues populated this framework with some examples. For this book,
we have relied on our presentations, workshops, and conversations over the
past two years with executives across various industries (for example,
commercial real estate, tech, and pharma) and across various functions in
their companies (for example, Human Resources, C-Suite, and facilities) to
populate the framework with some new HPI ideas. (HPIs will necessarily
be different for each company, particularly the direct indicators on the top
half of the framework, but the ones on the bottom related to buildings are
universal.)
Let’s start with the top left quadrant and work our way around
counterclockwise.

Direct and Lagging HPIs: Measuring Worker Health after the Fact
At the end of the year, businesses can track several metrics to understand
how health performance as a result of the building may have been affected
that year. This includes tracking gross-level trends on things like total
employee sick days, health-care utilization, and specific illness trends, such
as an uptick in asthma attacks or influenza cases. Importantly, the key to
determining whether these represent potential building-related issues is
what’s written in the box at the top center—you have to analyze and
benchmark results against normative spatial and temporal data (this is
known as spatiotemporal benchmarking). What the heck does that mean?
Put more straightforwardly, companies should track these indicators by
looking for differences over space and time, both within and outside their
organization.
For an example of how analyzing these types of HPIs can lead to
actionable information, take the recent investigation led by research
associate Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent on Joe’s Healthy Buildings team.5
He analyzed health record data from university students living in different
buildings and, simply by stratifying the results by building on the campus,
found that students who lived in one upperclassmen building on campus
had strikingly lower rates of allergies, year after year, over a five-year
period. The health data was a clue that something was different in this
building. But what was it? The value of analyzing the HPIs in this upper left
quadrant was that it tipped us off that there might be something interesting
in this one building. Because of what we saw in the health data, we did a
follow-up investigation. It turned out that this building was the one in the
study with mechanical ventilation, supplying filtered air at higher
ventilation rates. (Surprise, surprise.)
Just as one KPI does not tell you everything you need to know about a
company, the same holds true for HPIs. But this group of HPIs, taken
together, can provide a strong indicator, using data most businesses already
collect, of direct impacts of the building on health.
Real-World Example: Using Illness Trends to Catch a Cancer Cluster
A 300-person services firm operating out of a newly renovated space on the
outskirts of a major US city had a process for formally monitoring
employee illness trends. The building was originally part of an old
industrial complex that had been newly renovated and rehabbed as office
space, with beautiful high ceilings, tall windows, and an open floor plan in
some areas with interesting second-story office and meeting spaces that
looked out over the main hall. After reviewing the illness trends in one year
(lagging and direct HPIs), the company noticed something unusual—two of
its longtime employees who worked on the same floor had been diagnosed
with Bell’s palsy, a weakening in your facial muscles that only occurs on
one side, causing half of your face to droop. The etiology of Bell’s palsy is
unknown, but there are several hypotheses, including viral infection. There
is also some evidence that environmental factors are a risk factor, including
exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Concerned, the company opened a formal inquiry to dig deeper into the
potential problem and, in the process, learned of two more Bell’s palsy
cases in its workforce in the same time period. It hired an occupational
physician and epidemiologist who, as we suggest in the top middle box in
our HPI framework, compared the incidence rate within the building, across
buildings, and even with the general population using national disease
incidence data (that is, spatiotemporal benchmarking). The epidemiologist
confirmed that this rate of Bell’s palsy in a workforce that size was outside
the bounds of what could be expected as a result of chance alone. Based on
this finding, the firm initiated an environmental investigation led by
Certified Industrial Hygienists, who discovered that there was a plume of
VOCs in the groundwater below the building. Solvents had been dumped
onto the land many years earlier at an adjacent building, contaminating the
water below, which spread into a plume that now reached under this newly
renovated building. Testing of the indoor spaced confirmed that VOCs from
the groundwater under the building were permeating up into the new
building. (This is not that uncommon, and it is called vapor intrusion.) The
fix? Several tweaks were made to the mechanical system to help keep the
building positively pressurized (a negatively pressurized space acts like a
vacuum and sucks the VOCs into the building), and a sub-slab vapor
intrusion remediation system was put in place.

Indirect and Lagging HPIs: Proxies for Worker Health Performance

after the Fact
Moving down to the lower left quadrant, we get into the realm of indirect
measures of health. (You can ignore the box labeled “The Pulse” for now.
It’s so important that we’ll dive deeply into that after we work our way
around the HPI quadrants.) In this quadrant you’ll see a few indicators that
businesses may also track at the end of the year or end of the month—
indirect measures of health performance, such as tracking employee
perceptions (done right!) of the building and air quality, or after-the-fact
observations about the building or unusual events (unusual odors, systems
failing unexpectedly).
Consider two related HPIs here—space utilization and time spent at
office—and think how this might play out in companies with work-from-
home models. Despite the relatively recent increases in the number of
companies moving to such models in order to save money on real estate,
many companies are pushing back on that philosophy and promoting
collaboration through more face-to-face interaction at the water cooler. Take
IBM, which in 2009 went to an aggressive work-from-home model and
then pivoted to a full reversion of that policy less than a decade later.
What does this have to do with HPIs? If your goal is like that of IBM (or
other companies that want people in the office, such as Google, Apple,
Aetna, and Yahoo), then you definitely want to be sure that the building
you’re making your employees move back into is one they’ll be happy to be
in; otherwise, you run the risk of losing them. How might you find out how
effective your enhanced building is at bringing workers together to
collaborate? Track and measure an HPI like how much time people actually
spend in the building, and see whether this varies across different buildings
or before or after a Healthy Building intervention. If you like your office, or
feel more productive there, chances are that the amount of time you spend
there will go up. (If you’re thinking, sarcastically, “Yeah, people love being
tracked this way,” you might consider that this is already happening, just
not so overtly. Every time you log into your computer, the company knows
where you are, just as it does every time you send an email. More than
knowing when you are there, it even knows where you are in the building;
as you move throughout your building during the day, the phone in your
pocket is constantly pinging the Wi-Fi, so you are being tracked every
minute of the day.) This type of data can be used to understand what spaces
are working for your employees and what spaces aren’t, letting you
prioritize your next renovation.
Real-World Example: Building Performance Observations and
Perceptions
In late 2008, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission began receiving
reports from homeowners and builders about something unusual going on
in Florida. People were noticing that air conditioners and other appliances
in newly built homes stopped working after a few short months.
Replacement appliances failed just as quickly. Upon inspection, they
noticed a dark coating on the cooling coils of the failing air conditioners
and a similar dark coating on other metal surfaces—even on their jewelry.
The issue with the appliances was accompanied by a rotten-egg smell in the
home.
Within four years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission had logged
nearly 4,000 reports across 43 states, the vast majority of which occurred in
Florida. Early signs pointed to defective drywall as the culprit. (The
problematic building product, it turned out, had all been sourced from
vendors in China. Thus, the problem product and resulting issue in homes
came to be known colloquially as “Chinese Drywall.”) The commission
launched its biggest and most expensive investigation ever to identify the
root cause of the problem and find remediation solutions. A 51-home
investigation, led by Joe, Jack McCarthy, and the team of consultants at
Environmental Health & Engineering, used a combination of air-sampling
techniques and the placement of “corrosion classification coupons” in the
houses. We determined that the drywall used in this new construction was
emitting hydrogen sulfide into the homes.6 Hydrogen sulfide is highly
corrosive to copper and silver—thus the dark coating on copper and silver
surfaces (technically copper sulfide and silver sulfide)—and it’s known for
a rotten-egg smell and very low odor detection threshold (in the parts per
trillion).
Additional work by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, using
small-scale chambers to test emission rates of chemicals from the defective
drywall, confirmed what was found in the homes—hydrogen sulfide and
other reduced sulfur compounds coming off the drywall.7 They also found
that these emission rates increased with temperature and humidity.8 Once
the problem was identified, the main challenge in remediation was, How do
you determine where it was used in each home? (Painted drywall looks the
same whether it is problematic Chinese drywall or nonproblematic
drywall.) Our subsequent study led to a way to “see through the wall” and
identify markers of Chinese drywall using a slick real-time forensic
fingerprinting technique (portable X-ray fluorescence and Fourier-transfer
infrared spectrometry, in case you were curious). A follow-up health
investigation by the US Department of Health and Human Services
concluded that the people in houses with problematic drywall could have
experienced adverse health effects from the hydrogen sulfide, most notably
exacerbation of preexisting respiratory conditions, eye and nasal irritation,
and nasal tract lesions.9
The takeaway from this case is that oftentimes the first indication that
something is potentially wrong in your office, home, or school is a
noticeable change in building performance (for example, failing systems,
corrosion, or damaged walls). In the Chinese Drywall case, the forensic
investigation was aided by a unique feature—the failing systems and
appliances were caused by a chemical that was pungent. If it happened to be
caused by a chemical with no odor, the mystery of the failing appliances
would have taken longer to uncover, while people would be breathing in
whatever was in the air.

Indirect and Leading HPIs: Ahead of the Curve

The lower right quadrant is the most critical quadrant when we are talking
about HPIs related to buildings. This is where a company, building owner,
or manager can have the greatest impact on the health and productivity of
employees, and therefore on the business. And because these are leading
indicators, the business can be sure that it is getting the benefits from the
building immediately, rather than waiting for a problem to arise and only
addressing it after negative impacts have started accruing.
Let’s start with the most important first step in a Healthy Building life
cycle: building design. Many of the 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building
can be built into the DNA of a building right at the beginning in the design
stage. Want higher ventilation rates? Design for it. Want healthier building
materials? Spec them. Want higher-efficiency filters? Buy them. In short, if
you want a Healthy Building and the economic benefits that come with it,
the best thing is to design for it.
 Then, after you design the building for health, make sure you are getting
what you paid for by commissioning the building. Designing a building,
building it, and then not testing it is akin to buying an airplane and putting it
in service without first giving it a test flight. No one would want to get on
that first flight, and no one should want to be the first one in a new building
that hasn’t been fully tested either. Commissioning is a “test flight” for your
building. (Fine, the analogy isn’t perfect because an untested building
doesn’t run the risk of immediately killing its occupants. But notice we used
the word “immediately” …)
To extend this imperfect analogy, you also probably wouldn’t want to get
on an airplane that had a test flight but then was never checked again.
That’s why ongoing commissioning of your building is recommended, not
just one-time commissioning. Ever wonder why flying is the safest form of
transportation? It’s because health and safety have been built into the heart
of the industry. Airplanes get an “A Check” every 200–300 flights. It’s
reasonable that your building should get similar checkups. By this point in
the book, we hope you are motivated by the health performance benefits,
but just in case, commissioning also comes with considerable energy
savings—a study from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that
commissioning can yield energy savings between 13 and 16 percent.10
Additional HPIs in this quadrant focus on ensuring that the building is
meeting preset conditions, like building certification prerequisites, a safety
and security plan, following green cleaning procedures, and using
integrated pest management techniques. By tracking and measuring these,
the business is controlling nearly everything it can with regard to building
performance. Health is built into its DNA.
Real-World Example: How Material Selection Can Reduce the Toxic
Load
Kaiser Permanente, a US-based health-care company with over 200,000
employees, pays a lot of attention to the health of its patients and of its staff.
It also pays a lot of attention to what goes into its buildings, of which it has
many—over three dozen hospitals and over 600 medical offices. In 2006 it
started examining the evidence supporting the use of antimicrobials in its
building materials (that is, it was interested in healthier material selection).
Conceptually the use of these chemicals might appear to makes sense; it
seems logical on first glance that a hospital would want its walls and
flooring to have antimicrobial properties.
But it turns out that what might on the face of it seem logical—the desire
to have antimicrobials embedded in finishes, fabrics, and just about every
high-touch surface in a health-care facility—was simply not supported by
the science. A number of studies had shown that it was just as effective to
use soap to wash hands as it was to use an antimicrobial soap, that there
was no evidence that using these chemicals in surfaces and finishes made
patients healthier, that their overuse came with the unwanted effect of
promoting antibiotic resistance, and that many of these chemicals, most
notably triclosan, were actually harmful to human health. (Triclosan, like a
few of the chemicals we discussed in Chapter 7, is a halogenated chemical
with two phenyl rings that interferes with thyroid hormone function and
reproductive success.)11
What did Kaiser Permanente do? First, it issued a recommendation that
these chemicals not be used in its buildings. Then it banned triclosan
outright because of its known human toxicity. And finally, most recently, it
banned a whole host of other chemicals widely used in other buildings and
hospitals from use in surfaces in its facilities.12 The result? Healthier
buildings, because of a reduced toxic load from unnecessary antimicrobial
chemicals. It raises the question, If Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest
health-care providers in the country, has deemed it unnecessary and even
harmful to use these chemicals in its facilities, why do you have them all
over your office building and home?

Direct and Leading HPIs: Real-Time Measures of Employee Health

and Performance
The bottom right quadrant is where every business should spend its energy
and focus to ensure that its building is being leveraged for the health and
performance of its employees, but we recognize that the top right quadrant
is where everyone thinks they should focus their attention. In an ideal
world, wouldn’t we all want clear, leading indicators of employee health
and performance? We could get there, sure enough, by requiring employees
to take periodic cognitive function tests and participating in measuring real-
time biometric data to track their personal health. But we’ll let you in on a
secret: that’s what academics do so you don’t have to. We have already
done the studies, wiring everyone up to collect biometric and cognitive
function data and then assessing how indoor environmental factors
influence human physiological performance. That’s how we know that
everything in that bottom right quadrant is important to measure and track.
That said, there are some things in the top right quadrant that are worth
exploring. The most important of them is “employee experience,” which
can be summed up as, “Listen to your employees—are they happy or
upset?” Ask your building manager about the temperature complaints he or
she gets every day and you’re likely to get an eye roll and a snide comment
about how some complainer-type employees are always unhappy with this
or that. But dismissing these complaints is an economic mistake, as we
showed in Chapter 6. A better approach is to empower your facilities
manager to think as if he or she were in the health-care business and to treat
these complaints and reports as vital to the company’s success.
Last, as we move into the world of personalized health, sometimes called
mHealth for “mobile health,” we will be able to track, monitor, and support
employee health performance in real time through the use of smart phones
and wearable technologies. Researchers can now use moment-by-moment
data from the sensors in phones to understand behaviors, social interactions,
speech patterns, physical activity, and more, in what our Harvard colleague
J. P. Onnela has coined as “digital phenotyping.”13 But we dare you to tell
your employees that you’re going to digitally phenotype them and analyze
the tone of their social interactions! Our guess is you would see a sharp
decline in positive sentiment correlated with the timing of the
announcement. That said, keep an eye on this quadrant as new AI-enabled
analytical approaches and smart building sensors and technology start being
adopted in the building community. Our guess is that digital phenotyping
and sentiment analysis at scale is not far off.
Real-World Example: Tracking Real-Time Employee Absence to
Identify Problems Early
The top engineer at a large multinational told us a story about something
that happened on a floor in one of its buildings. That particular floor had
about 30 employees, each of whom earned a six-figure salary. Several
workers in the space started reporting sick building symptoms, such as
headaches, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating. At first it was dismissed by
managers who thought these were “complainer-type” employees. Then the
problem escalated, as more and more employees on that floor joined in the
chorus and many began calling in sick and refusing to work in the building.
Executives in the firm noticed this uptick in absenteeism. When the top
engineer was summoned to determine whether the building was the
potential cause, he inspected the mechanical system and found that the
motor for the outdoor air damper for the building had failed, causing the
damper to be stuck in the closed position. In other words, no outdoor air
was coming into the building. The motor for the damper was quickly fixed
after this discovery, and the negative reports immediately stopped. Problem
solved.
The downside was that some of the damage was already done: 30
employees with a combined salary of well over $3 million annually
($250,000 for that month) had been distracted and disabled for an entire
month, and several had refused to show up for work. The upside is that the
firm caught the problem before it went on for multiple months or years—or
someone got seriously sick.
It turns out that the real-time monitoring of the employee experience,
when combined with what we’ll talk about in the next section—real-time
air-quality monitoring—would likely have caught this issue even earlier.

Taking the Pulse of the Building

So far we’ve conveniently ignored that big box in the middle of our bottom
two quadrants. That’s because we wanted to save the best, and most
important, for last. Buildings, like the human body, change every minute.
So it’s absolutely critical to have a mechanism in place to constantly check
the pulse of the building.
If you want to take the pulse of the building, and (indirectly) of your
employees, you need to do environmental monitoring; it’s your first line of
defense if you want to be certain that your building is operating as it should.
Without a monitoring program in place, you’re flying blind and it’s highly
unlikely that you are tapping into the full potential of your employees.
Think about how we typically take the “pulse” of our buildings today.
Most buildings get a one-time stamp of approval at the opening. A great
example of this is the LEED plaque on the wall at the Landmark Center
building at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health where Joe
works. Yes, it may very well signal the performance of that building when it
was first opened, but is it realistic to assume that this building, certified 16
years ago, still performs that way today? Of course not. Yet that plaque
remains on the wall, purporting to tell all who enter about the credentials of
our space. Would you assume that your car, or your laptop, or your furnace
at home continues to perform like new for years (or decades)? No way. You
should have the same skepticism when it comes to buildings. A commercial
or institutional building is a very complex machine, and it needs attention in
ways that are not always obvious: you can’t really tell that something is
wrong in the way you can with a leaky radiator or flat tire.
Fortunately, a key market shift is under way. Thanks to advances in
sensor and Internet of Things technology, we can now keep the pulse of a
building as never before. We are quickly shifting from static to dynamic:
indoor environments that we can monitor and track continuously, and
buildings that can react in real time, too. Make no mistake, there is massive
potential here, because for the first time ever we will be able to monitor and
influence indirect HPIs: all of those factors that help determine how the 90
percent costs of our buildings, its people, can best perform.
Here are two quick examples to show you why monitoring
environmental performance is so important, and to rebut the argument that
“buildings are set in stone.”

Example 1: Invisible Hazards

Take this recent example, where we monitored environmental performance
of a newly renovated office space housing a group of (expensive)
knowledge workers as part of our global study of workers in office
buildings. For background: By all accounts, when you walk into the space,
it is clean, welcoming, neatly designed, and managed by a top-notch
facilities team at a high-profile organization. Nothing would suggest
anything is “off” in this space. In short, it’s a place where you’d want to
work, or you’d want your son or daughter to work. Well, we started
monitoring this space. Take a look at the data for airborne dust (PM2.5).
 The first thing that should jump out at you is the difference in
concentrations between work hours and nonwork hours. Between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., the indoor particle concentrations are much
lower than the early morning, evening, and overnight. The second thing that
you might have noticed is that the levels indoors are frequently quite high.
(For reference, the acceptable level for outdoor air, codified in the U.S.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, is 12 ug / m3.)

FIGURE 9.3 Indoor particle concentrations in a newly renovated office.

Taking the pulse of this space with real-time monitors shows that
something is amiss—the level of indoor airborne dust in this newly
renovated office is very frequently above 12 ug / m3, and there are
significant changes occurring throughout a 24-hour period. Because these
particle levels are not visible to the naked eye, the only way we knew about
this issue was because the monitoring tipped us off. So, what is happening
here?
This is a building in Chengdu, China, where the outdoor PM2.5
concentration on the day of our sampling was about 40 ug / m3. Why, then,
are indoor concentrations in this building so low during the day? We
explored this, and lo and behold, we found that the filters used in this
building were MERV 14, which has a very high capture efficiency against
PM2.5. (You may recall our discussion of MERV efficiency in Chapter 6 that
showed a MERV 8 filter has a PM2.5 capture efficiency of approximately 50
percent. A MERV 14 has a capture efficiency around 90 percent.) The cost
differential of upgrading the filter? Twenty dollars. The cost of the “energy
penalty” for the pressure drop because the fans work a little harder to push
air through a tighter filter? A few bucks a year. Compare that to the cost of
the potentially acute health effects for PM2.5 for the ten employees in this
space, breathing the air day in and day out, at levels above the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, in a building owned by a high-profile
organization.
Now what about that other interesting part of this figure: the differences
over the course of the day? By this point in the book you likely guessed
why the pollution levels are high outside of working hours. The building
mechanical ventilation system starts at exactly 8:00 a.m. and shuts off at
7:00 p.m. Measuring the pulse of the building with real-time sensors made
the invisible visible, revealing just how much the building system was
protecting the health of workers in this company during the day. And when
that system is off, or if employees work into the evening, the indoor air
starts to look a lot like outdoor air. This is a great example of an avoidable
risk, made possible by measuring the pulse of a building and implementing
a simple, cost-effective filter intervention.
Now, if you are reading this in the United States or Europe and think this
example doesn’t apply to you because “our outdoor air pollution isn’t that
bad,” think again. Yes, air pollution levels may be lower in these place, but
still, in California there are close to three thousand premature deaths per
year attributed to PM2.5 alone. And in Europe nearly half a million
premature deaths are attributed to outdoor air pollution each year. Is your
building protecting you? The only way to know is to take its pulse.

Example 2: Day-to-Day Fluctuations

Buildings change day to day, and hour to hour. Take, for example, this real-
world data from a building in Los Angeles, overlaid on the classic
psychrometric chart we mentioned in Chapter 4.
 The details of psychrometry go far beyond the scope of this book, but for
our purposes, what you need to know is that it essentially defines the
relationships among temperature, humidity, and moisture, which then
allows us to figure out the “sweet spot” of thermal health. In the figure here,
we show the psychrometric chart and that sweet spot, as defined by
Standard 55.1 of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers; this is the zone where 80 percent of people report
being “comfortable.”
Here’s why we introduce this. This is real data from one commercial
office building, where each blue dot represents the conditions at a worker’s
desk. You can quickly see that in the figure on the left, everyone is in that
sweet spot, but in the figure on the right, things have changed and nearly
everyone has migrated out of that sweet spot. The temperature has dropped
down below the point at which it is comfortable. This may be what is
happening in office buildings where employees regularly complain about
the cold.
FIGURE 9.4    Psychrometric chart showing office workers falling out of temperature
“comfort” ranges on consecutive days.

Now consider this—the two graphs map out data points that are one day
apart! That’s right, even in this high-performing, Class A office building,
with no discernible changes to how the building was operated day to day,
there were big differences in temperature and humidity. This figure
represents a day of diminished productivity: all of those blue dots out of the
sweet spot on day 2 represent top-line revenue and bottom-line profits
walking out your door.
Showing this figure also serves another purpose. The only way to “see”
this happening in your building is by monitoring for these factors in real
time. Active monitoring reveals that people are frequently working in
impaired conditions that diminish their potential to be productive. Very
often they don’t even perceive it—and if they do say something, their
comments are generally discounted.
If you’re not constantly keeping the pulse of the building and proactively
responding, then the way you will find out about these issues is when some
of the blue dots place a call to your facilities team, or email their manager.
And that’s if you’re lucky. What if it takes three or four days for these
complaints to roll in? That’s three or four days of low throughput, as we
showed in the section on thermal health in Chapter 6.
Let’s go back to Health & Wealth Inc. to explore the economic
implications here. Recall that this 40-person hypothetical company had a
fully loaded average salary of $75,000 per year. Assuming employees at
this company work a typical 250 days per year, the company is spending
$12,000 per day on payroll. In Chapter 6 we presented data from a study
showing that there was a 1 percent loss of productivity per 2°F temperature
change outside typical “comfort” ranges. The figure in this chapter
conveniently shows about a 4°F change (2°C), on average, which would
correspond to that 2 percent decrease in productivity.
Putting that all together, this slight change in temperature could be
costing the company an estimated $240 per day in productivity (2 percent
of $12,000). You might be thinking $240 isn’t much. Even $240 multiplied
by those three or four days may not seem like much. But what if we now
told you that this temperature issue lasted for the entire month? Now it’s
$240 times 20 working days, which costs the company $4,800 that month.
And if the problem continues for a full year? The total grows to $57,600.
Worse yet, what if instead of your company being 40 people, you had a
company of 400 people, or 4,000 people? This slight change in indoor
temperature can become a multimillion-dollar hit to your bottom line.
Now, imagine you deployed real-time monitors. You would capture this
change immediately. Your team would respond before employees started
complaining. You’d then save a day’s worth of lost productivity capacity.

Big Picture
In each of the six real-world cases we have given you, there was no initial
indication that anything was wrong in the building. These were successful
companies in beautifully designed office spaces that, to the naked eye,
seemed like ideal environments to work in. Without tracking HPIs, in each
case, the company would have been blind to important building-related
issues affecting its employees.
What’s next? The goal of Part II is to help you define and operationalize
a Healthy Buildings strategy. In Chapter 6 we introduced the 9 Foundations
of a Healthy Building. We also gave you some practical guidance for things
you can do in your building right now that will put the building to work for
you and affect your bottom line. All of this is supported by hard scientific
data and is evidence based.
 In Chapter 7 we looked at how the products we put into our buildings
can influence our health. And in Chapter 8 we discussed the current Healthy
Building certification systems available on the market. In this chapter, we
looked at how (and how not) to measure and track the health performance
of your building. In other words, how do we go about verifying that our
spaces are continually optimized for health and wealth?
In the closing chapters, we will consider Healthy Buildings in the
context of energy, air pollution, climate change, and public health (Chapter
10), and then we will look at the future of the Healthy Buildings movement
(Chapter 11). We urge you to stay with us here for this reason: we will
explore critical topics like how new technologies will impact market
performance, how buildings impact society and the environment, and how
this all impacts you and your business.
 
CHAPTER TEN

Beyond the Four Walls

Architecture must not do violence to space or its neighbors.
—I. M. PEI

UP UNTIL THIS POINT in the book we have largely looked inside

buildings. We’ve explored the physical configurations and mechanical
systems that drive performance, and we have demonstrated the ways in
which a Healthy Building is a sound investment for owner, tenant, and
employees alike. To wit, we’ve focused on two primary objectives:
enhancing human performance and enhancing business performance. We
are confident that we have shown this to be a winning endeavor. But there is
a wider and equally important objective: to serve another key stakeholder in
the Healthy Buildings movement—the general public.
The now famous BlackRock letter and other responsible capital trends
have forced an expanded conversation about environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) measures and the broader purpose of business. For those
in the building industry, this has set up a challenging question (and one they
must now answer): “What is the social performance of your real estate
asset?” If the evidence allows a landlord to answer well, we can open a door
to new investment opportunities: investments and investors that are focused
on “doing well by doing good.”
In this chapter we will extend our analytical tools beyond a building or
two and a handful of large tenants out into the broader world. We will look
at the energy efficiency–Healthy Building equation; the contribution of
buildings to greenhouse gases; calculation of health benefits at the portfolio
or city level; and opportunities in resilience finance.
The Nexus of Buildings, Energy, Health, Climate, and
Resilience
We opened the book by talking about some of the mega-changes shaping
our world, our buildings, and all of us. Perhaps the most important of these
mega-changes are the four major forces of population growth, rapid
urbanization, resource depletion, and a changing climate. These are altering
our natural landscape and creating both challenges and opportunities for
people and for fixed assets. With regard to climate change, it’s a
straightforward, five-part story:
Buildings: Buildings consume 40 percent of the energy produced
globally.1
Energy: Of that global energy, 80 percent is produced by fossil fuels.2
Health: Burning fossil fuels emits air pollutants that create an immediate
health burden for the population.
Climate: Burning fossil fuels also emits greenhouse gases, which leads
to climate change and a cascade of effects that affect human health,
ecosystems, and property.
Resilience: Buildings are affected by air pollution and the changing
climate, and this is having an impact on real estate valuations and
decision-making as a result of pollution, flooding, drought, wildfire,
and more.
Buildings are clearly part of the air pollution and climate problem, but
Healthy Building strategies can ensure that they are part of the solution, too.
Here’s how: Healthy Buildings that incorporate energy-efficiency
approaches can offset some of the emissions of air pollutants, thereby
providing what is called a health “co-benefit.” To understand how this
works, and how it can be quantified in terms of ESG, we need to quickly
dive into the science behind air pollution and health.

Health Impacts from Burning Fossil Fuels

The famous Harvard Six Cities Study begun in the 1970s and concluded in
the 1980s put air pollution on the map, literally and figuratively.3 The study
recorded the health status of 10,000 adults and 10,000 children who lived in
six different cities across the United States, each with varying levels of
PM2.5. Steubenville, Ohio, in the heart of industrial America, had the worst
air pollution in the study, and Portage, Wisconsin, 100 miles from the
nearest major US city, had the best, with four other cities having levels that
fell somewhere in between. This study was the first to show that being
exposed to higher levels of PM2.5 was associated with a greater risk of
premature mortality. The blockbuster findings became the basis for air
pollution limits in the United States, called the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and for air pollution standards globally.
Since then, the findings of the Harvard Six Cities Study have been
replicated many dozens of times. Most recently there was a “600 cities”
study, which confirmed, once again, a strong link between PM2.5 and
premature mortality, but this time across multiple countries.4 The findings
have held over time and across regions of the world. Even more important,
perhaps, is research published in 2018 showing that there are still health
risks from outdoor air pollution even when the levels are below the most
stringent air pollution limits set today.5 Further, in addition to premature
mortality risks, along the way we also have learned that PM2.5 is associated
with increased risk of hospitalizations,6 asthma attacks,7 chronic
absenteeism in schools,8 and hospital admissions for dementia, Alzheimer’s
disease, and Parkinson’s disease.9 One study even showed that higher
exposure during the third trimester of pregnancy was associated with a
higher risk of autism.10

Climate Impacts from Burning Fossil Fuels

Burning fossil fuels for energy not only releases air pollutants that have an
immediate health impact, it also releases air pollutants, such as carbon
dioxide, that are causing climate change. We are already seeing the impacts
of a changing climate in the United States in the increased frequency and
severity of hurricanes, like those that recently devastated Puerto Rico and
Houston. We also see this manifested in unprecedented wildfires, like those
occurring in California and across the Northwest United States, as well as
sea rise flooding in Miami, Norfolk, and Oakland. The risks from climate
change also include things we don’t always see directly or so overtly but
that we know are happening or are predicted to happen based on scientific
research: increases in infectious and waterborne disease; sea-level rise;
ecosystem disruption; and impacts on forestry, fisheries, and agriculture …
affecting our food security. Buildings, as major consumers of energy
globally, are contributing to these health and climate impacts in their
construction and in their operations. How can they be better contributors to
a solution?

Exploring the Health Co-benefits of Energy-Efficient

Buildings
When energy-efficient buildings reduce demand on the energy grid, this
leads to a concomitant reduction in emissions of air pollutants since less
power is demanded and less fuel needs to be transported and burned. Those
averted emissions can be thought of as a health co-benefit of the energy-
efficient buildings. This is not just a theoretical exercise; these co-benefits
can be quantified. Analysis of co-benefits (sometimes called “multiple
benefits”) of energy efficiency upgrades has been used to evaluate policy
decisions around power generation. Perhaps most notably, this type of
analysis was used to evaluate the co-benefits of the Obama
Administration’s Clean Power Plan (a study showed the plan was slated to
generate $29 billion in health co-benefits when enacted).11 Joe and his team
have now applied this methodology to buildings with a tool they call CoBE,
for “co-benefits of the built environment.”12 There are three major outputs
of the co-benefits analysis: money saved, emissions averted, and health
gained.

Output 1: Money Saved

The first output of this CoBE tool is hard cash earned through energy
savings. This type of economic cost-benefit analysis is easy, has been done
for decades, and has been the primary driver of the green building
movement and energy efficiency upgrades in buildings. The analysis is
straightforward because buildings can be metered and monitored for energy
use, the costs of energy are well understood, and the variations from
expectations are small. The US Energy Information Administration, for
example, reports on the distribution of energy use and production, and the
costs for each source, with regional factor variations across the United
States. (Individual companies have their own information on historic and
projected energy use and cost, of course.) Most building managers and
businesses have done this type of energy cost analysis already. For example,
your company may have decided to implement a green building strategy
that would save energy, such as by super-insulating to minimize air
infiltration, installing energy-recovery ventilation systems, or deploying
more efficient lighting or dynamic glass. Engineers can calculate the energy
savings from those interventions and a payback period or even estimate a
return on investment using the first cost and the projected savings.

Output 2: Emissions Averted

The CoBE tool’s second output is the air pollutant emissions averted as a
result of that reduction in fuel burned. Typically, energy savings can be
translated into metrics like “kilotons of CO2 averted,” an important metric
in our battle against a changing climate, but one that is largely
uninterpretable to all but a handful of sustainability and climate experts.
How many of us can quickly interpret what 30,600 kilotons of averted CO2
means to us or the planet? Still, the sustainability movement over the past
20 years or so has demanded that companies report these numbers. So
companies dutifully do this and typically report the number in the
sustainability section of their annual report (if they even have such a
section). But that’s where the analysis usually stops. The measure of carbon
averted addresses greenhouse gas and climate change concerns … but stops
short of making this directly relatable to the general public.

Output 3: Health Gained

The third output of CoBE is the key, because it gets directly to the “What
does this mean for health?” question. Going beyond the typical analysis that
stops with Output 1 (money saved) and Output 2 (carbon averted), Output 3
is where those measures of averted emissions—the kilotons of CO2—can be
combined with public health research to estimate the health benefit of those
reductions in air pollution. This results in a set of quantifiable, objective
metrics that actually mean something perceptible and tangible to real
people: number of lives saved, number of missed work days and school
days averted, number of asthma attacks avoided.
How do we do this in public health? The big idea is elegant and easy to
understand conceptually (in practice, it can be harder). Consider a portfolio
of buildings in a country where the decision makers have taken actions and
made investments that lead to a reduction of 30 percent in year-over-year
energy use compared with a baseline. We use publicly available data from
agencies like the aforementioned US Energy Information Administration to
discern the fuel mix for each region of the country—be it energy from coal,
nuclear, or natural gas power plants in that region. Thanks to required
reporting and other scientific studies, we also know how much air pollution
each of these different types of power plants emits per unit of energy
created and delivered. Scientists then take the emission rate of air pollutants
from those sources and put them in atmospheric models that let us estimate
the concentration of air pollution that people breathe near, and downwind
from, those power plants. With knowledge of weather patterns and how
long the chemicals and particles stay in the air, we can even track impact
across state lines (and national borders). Last, thanks to great research like
the Harvard Six Cities Study and the many hundreds since, we have what
are called “exposure-response” functions that allow us to estimate the
health risk per unit increase in the concentration of a number of specific air
pollutants. For example, some of the newest research on the health impacts
of PM2.5 found a 7.3 percent increased risk in mortality rates for every 10
μg / m3 increase in PM2.5.13 This is an exposure-response function.
Combining all of this—energy use and savings in buildings, pollutant
emission rates from various power plants, atmospheric modeling,
population demographics, and epidemiologic exposure-response functions
—is how we can estimate things like the number of lives saved and
economic metrics like missed work days attributable to energy savings from
a group of buildings. Any health co-benefits accruing outside the four walls
of the subject building can then be converted back into monetary savings to
round out an economic argument.
An Example: The Health Co-benefits of the Green
Building Movement
To show how this works in practice, we’ll quickly walk you through a study
we did about the health co-benefits of the green building movement
globally. We ran the global energy savings of green buildings in six
countries through the CoBE calculator and found that, in the United States,
engineering modifications and building management changes spurred by
the 20-year-old green building movement saved $6.7 billion in energy
(Output 1). Then we estimated the averted emissions from all of that saved
energy (Output 2). We are going to give you the important, but boring and
uninterpretable, numbers to drive home the point that this output doesn’t
mean much to most people. Those buildings saved 30,600 kilotons of CO2,
1.62 kilotons of methane, 0.32 kilotons of N2O, 36.6 kilotons of SO2, 28.2
kilotons of NOx and 0.39 kilotons of PM2.5. As we said—largely
uninterpretable to most people outside a handful of sustainability experts.
Now for Output 3, which we promised was the interesting part. In the
United States, adoption of key green buildings methods, as compared with
the nongreen baseline, prevented the following:
54,000 respiratory symptoms
21,000 lost days of work
16,000 lost days of school
11,000 asthma exacerbations
up to 405 premature deaths
256 hospital admissions
When converted to economic values, these health co-benefits amount to
another $4 billion in health and climate co-benefits, on top of the $6.7
billion in energy savings, for a total benefit of $10.7 billion. On a dollar-for-
dollar basis, for every $1 saved in energy in the United States, there was a
very significant $0.59 in health and climate co-benefits that were previously
unaccounted for (since they don’t inure directly to the building owners and
occupants). The impact is even greater in places like India and China,
where the dominant fossil fuel source is coal. There, the health and climate
co-benefits are more like $10 for every $1 saved in energy—a stunning
ratio.14
Think about what that means for a second. The entire 20-year-old green
building movement has been based on energy savings, and it turns out that
there is a nearly equal social benefit … and as much as a tenfold social
benefit savings in developing countries. This additional health co-benefit
had never been quantified until our paper was published. Yet now, for the
first time, the owners of energy-efficient buildings can quantify the social
benefits of the energy choices they’ve made in their buildings; they finally
have a way to quantify the social part of ESG.

Co-benefits Extended to the Portfolios and Individual

Buildings
This research on the effectiveness of the green building movement
showcased how a co-benefits analysis could yield a new, and important,
metric on Healthy Buildings—their social performance across wide
regions. Importantly, the approach can be applied to individual portfolios
and individual buildings, too.
We’ll give you two examples so you can see how this could work on a
more regional and local scale. Piers MacNaughton, former postdoctoral
fellow on the Harvard Healthy Buildings research team and now director of
health strategy at View, took our CoBE tool and applied it to Harvard’s
portfolio of buildings (about the same square footage as those occupied by
Google). Then we also applied this analytical approach to Carrier’s new
Center for Intelligent Buildings in Florida.
First, let’s look at Harvard’s data. Harvard undertook an aggressive 10-
year energy reduction initiative beginning in 2006. But like everyone else,
Harvard fell into the usual format of reporting energy savings (Output 1)
and an impressive 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
(Output 2), without reporting what this means to health (Output 3). To
address this, we took Harvard’s energy savings and ran it through the CoBE
calculator. Here’s what we found: all of that energy savings led to an
additional $12.3 million in savings through health and climate benefits that
Harvard had yet to formally capture or quantify. That is, it hadn’t fully
explored the benefits of its aggressive energy-conservation efforts to the
health of people who live and work in the surrounding community. This is a
story worth telling.
This analysis isn’t only suited for a university—we did it at Harvard first
because we had easy access to the data. The broader point is that this type
of approach can be applied to any portfolio—health-care systems,
commercial real estate, government complexes, and cities.
Now let’s look at how this type of health co-benefits analysis can be
done with an individual building. Carrier’s new global headquarters, which
opened in 2018, was designed, as one would expect, to showcase all of the
company’s advanced building component technologies. Perhaps
unsurprisingly for one of the global leaders in air-conditioning and building
technology, it featured high-efficiency chillers and air-conditioning,
building automation systems, and access controls. It was also designed to
highlight how the use of Carrier’s high-end products can lead to energy-
efficiency gains when compared with other choices. It turns out that the
building accomplishes this well, as it is designed to save an estimated
$172,000 per year in energy costs over its conventional rivals. As a
reminder, that’s a cost savings that goes directly to the bottom line. Now for
the health co-benefits part. Our analysis using CoBE revealed that all of that
energy savings yielded an additional $83,000 in health and climate benefits,
for a combined benefit of $255,000 per year. The big picture here is this:
Carrier is doing well for itself with the energy savings while at the same
time doing good for the community it joined with the opening of its new
building. That’s good business—and a powerful message about being a
good community partner.

Are the Goals of “Green” and “Healthy” in Conflict?

Debunking a Myth
In Chapter 4 we talked about the supposed energy-versus-health tradeoff.
We discussed the need to find the sweet spot between reducing operating
costs and spending a little more to enhance ventilation and health. We
argued, quite convincingly we hope, that the benefits of higher ventilation
rates to both people and the business amply justify the added cost required
to increase the amount of fresh air a building brings in. But does this
somehow conflict with what we’ve now presented in this chapter? In other
words, throughout the book we argue that higher ventilation rates come
with an energy cost, yet in this chapter we are talking about the benefits that
come from decreasing energy consumption in buildings. Are these positions
destined to be in conflict?
The answer is no, they don’t have to be in conflict at all. A Healthy
Building can have both higher ventilation rates and lower energy usage than
a standard design. We get challenged on this frequently during
presentations, so let’s now debunk the myth that having healthier indoor air
with higher ventilation rates is somehow incompatible with energy
efficiency. Here’s how the system can, and should, work.
The first thing we need to do is stop thinking about individual factors in
the building and start thinking about this “problem” holistically. In other
words, consider both energy and ventilation at the same time. An example:
We previously mentioned an economic analysis Joe and his team performed
where they estimated that the high-end cost for doubling ventilation rates
was $40 per person per year.15 What if that increase in ventilation were
coupled with a holistic strategy to decrease energy?
When you think of these together, some opportunities appear. In that
same paper, Joe and his team estimated what would happen if a building
simultaneously doubled ventilation and adopted just one energy-saving
feature: energy-recovery ventilation (ERV). (This is usually a form of heat
exchanger that captures some of the temperature and humidity of exhaust
air to warm or cool new intake air.) When buildings employ an energy-
saving feature like this, the costs for higher ventilation drop from $40 per
person per year to a few dollars per person per year. Essentially, adding the
ERV mitigates most of the higher energy requirement for higher ventilation
rates. It gets even more impressive if all you are doing is trying to hit a 30
percent increase in outdoor air above the minimum specified ventilation
rate. In that case, adding an ERV leads to so much money in energy savings
that, even with this 30 percent higher ventilation rate, there is an overall net
savings. In other words, using energy-efficient technologies frees you up to
make better choices regarding ventilation. It’s one way you can have higher
ventilation rates while decreasing overall energy use.
 This works even if you’re not building new buildings and can’t retrofit
your existing systems to include something like an ERV. Think of the
analysis by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that we introduced in
Chapter 9 showing that properly commissioning your existing building
systems can provide an energy savings of up to 16 percent.16
What if you paired that commissioning work with an effort to enhance
ventilation rates? We can go back to our model in Table 4.5 to see what the
holistic impacts are on the company. For that example, we have shown
energy costs of $30,000 per year. If the company saves 16 percent of costs
based on the commissioning, then its energy costs that year will go down to
approximately $25,000. If it then doubles the ventilation rate and we take
the high-end $40 per person per year cost, the incremental energy cost for
this 40-person company is $1,600. So the net effect of this holistic Healthy
Building approach with higher energy efficiency and higher ventilation
rates is that the company’s energy costs are now $26,600 per year, still a net
savings of $3,400. And don’t forget that the higher ventilation rate had the
effect of adding nearly 9 percent to the bottom line. This business can have
its cake and eat it, too, when it comes to higher ventilation rates, energy
savings, and health and climate co-benefits. We just have to tackle the
problem holistically.
As we look to where buildings are headed, there will be even more ways
to disentangle the false energy-versus-health tradeoff. When we become
smarter about when and where we pump in more fresh air—providing air in
rooms only when people are there, as opposed to dumping loads of fresh
outdoor air into empty conference rooms—then we can keep ventilation
rates high even while controlling energy costs. We can also be smarter by
using under-floor ventilation, which provides air closer to the breathing
zone of occupants than overhead ductwork, and with innovations like
demand-control ventilation, which reacts to real-time measurements of
rising CO2 concentrations in a room to tell the system precisely when it
needs to deliver more air. The solution here is to be smarter about how we
ventilate our buildings. (It is formally called ventilation effectiveness.)
Essentially, this approach is about using technology to eliminate waste.
Refuge, Resilience, Exposure, Uncertainty, and
Opportunity
Now that we have shown you how buildings are part of the problem (and
solution) of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, let’s look at the
other end of the cycle—the part where buildings can be negatively affected
by these factors. We are already seeing that pollution and climate change
are having a real impact on real estate. In many parts of the world, outdoor
air pollution is so bad that people are warned not to spend time outside
because of the severe health risks. Take events in China in December 2018
as but one example. During that time, public health “stay indoors” warnings
were issued for 79 Chinese cities that were blanketed with a thick and
dangerous layer of air pollution.17 The affected area was wide, covering
Beijing and several provinces (Shanxi, Shaanxi, Henan, and Jiangsu). This
isn’t an abstraction—it is about deadly, disease-causing, cognition-
damaging pollutants that are in the air, affecting health right now.
Now pause and reflect on what that “stay indoors” warning is really
saying. It’s saying that the building is a place of refuge from the outdoor air
pollution. In many cases, this is true. Think back to our discussion in
Chapter 6, where we talked about different filtration levels. The amount of
dense outdoor air pollution that penetrates indoors can be significantly
reduced with the right level of filtration and proper operation of a building’s
mechanical system. In such a scenario, buildings can adapt and effectively
respond to changing levels of outdoor air pollution. In other words, they are
resilient and responsive. In these situations, the recommendation to stay
indoors is a sound one. However, many buildings in the U.S., Europe,
China and other developing countries, such as India and Brazil, are not
resilient. They do not have these types of filter systems in place, so staying
indoors offers some reduction in exposure, but it does not offer the
protection that it could. The recommendation to stay indoors is good
relative to remaining outdoors, but it isn’t always really good in the
absolute sense, and it may give a false sense that the building is more
protective than it actually is.

Exposure and Uncertainty

In addition to thinking about how buildings can protect us from the
immediate and direct health impacts of air pollution, consider resiliency in
the face of threats from a changing climate. The 2018 Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change report predicts dire consequences under our
current energy use trends.18 The investment community is taking note. In
2018 an analysis by Ali Ayoub and Nils Kok at GeoPhy, a company that
integrates geographic variables to evaluate investments, looked at the
climate risk of buildings in the portfolios of 133 real estate investment
trusts (REITs) in the United States—over 36,000 buildings and several
billion square feet of real estate.19 They combined historic Federal
Emergency Management Agency flood risk data with projected flood risk
data to evaluate how much of each REIT’s portfolio was at high risk. What
they found is quite interesting—only 2 REITs out of 133 are not exposed to
“high” flood risk by the GeoPhy measure. For some REITs, nearly 10
percent of the properties in their portfolios are rated by GeoPhy as high
risk. This type of blending of geography, climate, and finance might be new
to you and me, but you can bet there are smart, well-informed investors—
armed with much more data than we have—making bets on properties
today. There is a good chance that health risk will join flood risk on their
radar in the near future.

Investment Opportunity
Much of John’s work is about financing resilience in real estate and
infrastructure. The type of macro analysis of REIT risk done by GeoPhy is
also percolating down to decisions on an individual basis. As an illustration
of the concepts, take the example of Mary the business owner and Nancy
the bank manager, drawn from one of John’s Harvard Business School
teaching cases. Nancy and Mary are fictitious characters, but their dilemma
is real.
Consider a simple situation: Mary, the owner of a small shop in Norfolk,
Virginia, or Miami Beach or Brownsville, Texas, whose building is self-
insured; and Nancy, the manager of a community bank that keeps
mortgages on its balance sheet. Mary thinks her building is worth $600,000.
Her mortgage is written with the assumption that there is a 1 percent
probability of a flood that would destroy the property (a 100-year flood).
 Then, a redrawn base flood elevation map in her town indicates that her
store has a much higher risk of destruction from flood than was previously
believed. The probability of flood risk is reset at 5 percent (a 1-in-20 flood
risk). The bank also receives this information. Now, on an expected value
(EV) and net present value (NPV) basis, including risk of destruction, Mary
is in violation of the loan-to-value clause in her mortgage. At this level of
exposure, the market won’t even offer flood insurance.
Should Mary sell, invest to “harden” the building, or just sit tight and
hope that the bank doesn’t act and the weather doesn’t harm her property?
As far as she can perceive on a day to day basis, nothing has changed.
Nancy holds the mortgage on the building housing Mary’s store. Mary is
now in violation of the loan-to-value covenant—and also in violation of the
base flood elevation (BFE) rider that was part of her loan approval. Should
Nancy foreclose? If not, when Mary’s note comes due, should Nancy
refinance? With what terms?
Or should Nancy’s bank offer a financial product that loans to Mary’s
business the $50,000 needed to perform resilience and “hardening” work on
the building—which would bring the new probability of destruction back
closer to 1 percent, as the building would then be able to resist most events
that would have crippled it before?
John’s recent Harvard Business Review article, “Climate Change will
Transform How and Where We Build,”20 proposes that for properties (and
municipalities) facing climate-related weather perils—whether sea rise,
river flooding, wildfire, or drought—there are basically five courses of
action. These are: reinforce, retreat, rebound, restrict, or rebuild. (The sixth,
of course, is “do nothing.”) In Nancy and Mary’s circumstances, a loan to
finance reinforcement makes sense. For many other asset owners and even
cities, restricting where development happens or retreating from some areas
may be the prudent course of action.
This simple example underscores many of the issues being faced today
by homeowners, property owners, businesses, banks, and insurance
companies in the low coastal cities of the United States. There is near
certainty that seas will rise or storms will worsen if we continue down our
current carbon path. There will be many more Marys and Nancys. How
should the two of them even think about what to do? Will there be an
industry to help you invest in making your building demonstrably more
resilient in the face of building stresses? We expect there will be a large
one.

Healthy Buildings and the Clean Energy Future

With all of our focus in this chapter on how buildings contribute to air
pollution and climate change through their energy use, and how we need to
consider adaptation and resiliency strategies in light of significant potential
health and financial risk, we want to be sure that we do not lose sight of the
bigger issue upstream. If the fuels used to generate power are cleaned up,
then the actual energy consumption becomes less of an issue and the
downstream effects of climate change will be significantly reduced.
How will we get to a clean energy future? In our opinion it’s mostly
going to depend on the improving economics of renewable energy and the
adoption of new technologies. In the United States, the lifetime levelized
cost of energy from new-generation facilities running on wind and solar is
now lower than the levelized cost of energy from a new power plant that
burns coal. On top of this favorable trend, advances in battery and energy
storage capacity are mitigating one of the primary weaknesses of wind and
solar, and microgrids are letting us have more nimble energy systems that
are responsive to local demand conditions. To complement these new
sources, the rise of blockchain technology is making it possible to verify
that energy purchases are in fact traceable back to renewable sources. This
can then be securitized and traded, thus creating and advancing new energy
markets.
We are optimistic that the world will decrease its reliance on fossil fuels,
so let’s be a bit provocative: if we design buildings to last for 100 years or
more, and much of our design constraints focus on energy, what will a
Healthy Building look like when our energy grid is clean? That is, when
energy consumption has zero external environmental costs? Designing for
health without energy constraints opens the door to a whole host of new
possibilities. If this energy-penalty-free future doesn’t seem like a reality,
consider what New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced in late 2018:
100 percent carbon-free electricity across the entire state by 2040.21 We’re
not that far off from a future of designing places to live, work, shop, and
play where we can think of health first, second, and third, and energy a
distant fourth or fifth.
Further, if we move to a future with a clean energy grid, does that mean
buildings will be off the hook in terms of their contribution to air pollution?
It turns out that the answer there is no, and it’s for a surprising reason, on
two fronts.
First, many buildings still have on-site combustion of fossil fuels. And it
accounts for a larger share of greenhouse gas emissions than you might
think. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that nearly 30
percent of greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial
buildings come from fossil fuels burned on-site.22 Here’s what we need to
do right now. We need an all-out effort to electrify our buildings: gas stoves,
hot water heaters, and boilers and burners used for space heating.
Everything in our buildings that relies on fossil fuels. Why? If we don’t, the
energy grid of the near future that is based on renewables will deliver clean
electricity, but we’ll be left burning fossil fuels on a hyperlocal scale—in
our buildings.
Second, in addition to air pollution generated from energy use, there is
something new happening. It’s what we call the dirty secret of indoor air
pollution. (The corollary to the dirty secret of outdoor air pollution we
introduced in Chapter 3.)
It turns out that in places doing a good job of ramping down traditional
sources of air pollution—like that from coal-fired power plants—the
dominant source of outdoor air pollution is now chemicals coming from
indoors. In a landmark paper published in 2018, researchers found that
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from building materials,
cleaning materials, air fresheners, and personal care products are migrating
outdoors.23 The VOCs then react with traditional outdoor air pollutants,
such as nitrogen oxides from automobile exhaust, to generate ozone and
particulates. In the 33 industrialized cities studied, these VOCs that started
indoors were found to account for the majority of outdoor air pollution.
This is a shocking finding. And it speaks to the continued importance of
buildings and building systems to public health outdoors. As we transition
from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and we electrify our
buildings, emissions of VOCs from buildings may become the dominant
source of outdoor air pollution. Building owners, managers, tenants, and
investors should be prepared for this future—one where emissions of VOCs
from buildings will be measured, managed, and perhaps even regulated.

Beyond the Four Walls

We focused much of our discussion in this chapter on the building-energy-
health-climate-resilience nexus as it impacts and takes place in the built
environment. Thankfully, there are important efforts under way to make
buildings “carbon neutral.” This burgeoning movement, sometimes called
net-zero buildings, and with a renewed emphasis on embodied carbon in
construction materials, is just getting going.
But beyond energy there is so much more to talk about in looking at the
intersection of buildings and health. Buildings influence our health through
where they are sited, through their water and resource consumption, and
through their waste generation, just to name a few additional factors that
impact both the provision of a healthy environment, and the lowering of
energy cost. The profound impact of our buildings and development on the
natural systems that sustain life on Earth cannot be overstated. As we
mentioned in Chapter 2, the situation has become so dire—with human
activity causing what has been called the sixth major extinction, which
threatens millions of species—that E. O. Wilson, in his book Half-Earth,
has declared that we need to immediately dedicate 50 percent of the planet
to nature.24
These topics are critically important, but they go beyond the scope of
this book. Our aim in this chapter is to make two key points. First, a true
Healthy Buildings strategy must consider external impacts. Second, when
we do account for these external impacts, we can further expand the circle
of those involved in, and invested in, the Healthy Buildings movement.
The now visible impact of the first four mega-changes of population
growth, urbanization, resource depletion, and climate change has forced a
rapid shift in attention to how we must think about the impact that we, and
our businesses, have on the planet. (Recall our tenth mega-change in
Chapter 2, changing values.) This attention must be balanced against the
reality that we are now an indoor species. We cannot sacrifice our indoor
world for the natural world; the two worlds must coexist. With Healthy
Buildings as an organizing principle, they can. The big question then
becomes, What forces are in play and what levers need to be pushed to
ensure that this Healthy Building movement scales beyond a few niche
markets?
 
CHAPTER ELEVEN

What’s Now and What’s Next?

The future is already here–it’s just not evenly distributed yet.
—WILLIAM GIBSON

THE GLOBAL REAL ESTATE and building industry is large and

fragmented, and its levels of sophistication are not consistent. The quality
of indoor—and outdoor—air also varies quite a bit around the world. The
rise of cheap, ubiquitous, connected sensors; the ability of those sensors to
talk to each other and share historical and predictive data; and growing
individual attention to the details of health augur significant adjustments in
who has knowledge about indoor air quality, and what they will choose to
do with that knowledge.
Ultimately, we are interested in how to accelerate an industry
transformation that is already under way. In this chapter we will present a
vision for how to hasten the spread of these ideas and suggest how they
might manifest next. We will, in other words, consider “what’s now” and
“what’s next.”

What’s Now? Adoption Curves, Industry Composition,

and Clockspeed
The current Healthy Building movement may feel like a race that’s only
open to elite companies and well-heeled landlords. In some ways, that’s the
present state of play. Much of the leading action takes place in cities like
Paris, New York, Hong Kong, London, San Francisco, Shanghai, and
Singapore. There, best-in-class participants in the real estate industry are
thinking hard about how to further differentiate their businesses and their
spaces, and how to address the apparent future concerns of occupants who
will have plenty of access to information.
We are professionally engaged with some of the leading companies in
the Healthy Buildings movement, but when we tell people that we are
collaborating with leading real estate developers in Manhattan, or that we
worked with Google on a healthier materials strategy for buildings and
consulted with Pfizer on its new planned headquarters in Hudson Yards, we
can feel the proverbial eye roll. These companies are unusual; they have the
vision and ambition to pursue endeavors like these—and they have the
resources to pull it off. So when we talk about their success, others don’t
necessarily see themselves or their companies in those stories.
We hope we’ve shown you that the benefits of Healthy Buildings aren’t
limited to the elite. This is why we intentionally made our hypothetical
Health & Wealth Inc. a small, 40-person company in a 10,000 sq. ft.
building. It was intended to reflect the vast majority of companies and
buildings, which don’t have the purchasing power and research capabilities
of a Pfizer or a Google.
Interestingly, this first group to enter the Healthy Buildings movement is
doing so in cities that are not experiencing fast demographic growth. The
total number of buildings in New York, Paris, and San Francisco increases
so slowly that each new crane on the horizon is a big deal. The Healthy
Building movement in places like these will have some limited focus on
new construction, but the biggest opportunity is in the existing building
space. Here we need to look beyond the initial category of first-mover
participants in the building industry who already pursue investments and
actions leading to certifications from LEED and WELL.
In other places in the world, demographic growth is rapid and the focus
is on new development. In much of the developing world, housing, offices,
government buildings, schools, and hospitals are going up quickly and in
large quantities. The installed base is small, so there are not a lot of older
buildings worth renovating. Buildings in many fast-growth locations may
also be in poorer countries, with less wealthy landlords, where one can see
that the outside air is palpably bad before even using instruments to
measure anything. This might be Mumbai or Mexico City or Lagos or
Chongqing.
 Both settings—cities with established building stock and cities where
new construction will dominate—feature connected people, largely young,
who are well informed and who care a lot about their health and that of their
children. There is opportunity everywhere to deliver cleaner air and
healthier buildings, regardless of the starting conditions. Moving the needle
may require a shift in how we think about these issues. Much as it is now
accepted that “outdoor air” is a public good, a status that has helped raise
attention to this issue globally, the World Health Organization has declared
“healthy indoor air” a fundamental human right. This signaling is
important.
What will it take for the means and methods in this book to propagate
throughout the industry? Our research indicates that there are three factors
to consider: diffusion of innovation, characteristics of real estate and
construction, and life span of the assets. We express these as the Healthy
Building adoption curve, industry composition, and clockspeed.

Healthy Building Adoption Curve: Knowledge

Generators, Early Adopters, and Leading Markets
The Rogers Adoption Curve is a theory that was developed at Iowa State
University in the 1950s to map out how farmers took up new ideas and
techniques in agriculture.1 The concept has been used again and again,
notably by Geoffrey Moore of the Chasm Group at the birth of the internet
era in his seminal marketing guide Crossing the Chasm and by Clayton
Christensen as one of the foundations of his enormously influential strategy
book The Innovator’s Dilemma.2 The basic idea is that the uptake of
innovations flows from innovators, to early adopters, to an early majority of
users, to a late majority, and finally to laggards. Together these customers
represent 100 percent of the market.
To use this concept to predict (and influence) the adoption of innovations
in the broader building industry, we have developed a Healthy Building
adoption curve. To see how progress can be made from a race for the elites
(the early adopters) to “all buildings everywhere” (the broad majority), it’s
worth considering where we are on this curve. The good news is that we’re
making progress, with Healthy Building strategies being adopted in leading
markets. The bad news is that we are in the steepest part of the climb.
Before we go into what will be needed to get us to the top, let’s take a look
at the first part of this adoption curve.

FIGURE 11.1    Healthy Building Adoption Curve.

Knowledge Generators
Movements usually start with knowledge generators, mostly from business
or academia, who invent new tools or come up with new techniques.
Moving from the lab to practice, a handful of inquisitive early adopters seek
out, test, and deploy new knowledge or equipment.
Readers new to the topic might suppose that the key knowledge
generators are the relatively new building certification systems that we
mentioned in Chapter 8; the Healthy Buildings movement is relatively
young, so for many people their first introduction to this topic might have
come from thoughtful promoters like WELL and Fitwel. But the history is
much deeper, and we think it’s important to recognize the true early
pioneers—the initial knowledge generators—in the Healthy Building space.
These were the early “healthy worker” researchers of the early 1900s, who
were then succeeded by researchers who started the field of “indoor air”
beginning in the 1960s and 1970s.
Today’s Healthy Building researchers stand on the shoulders of giants
who came before. These are not the high-profile science giants who are
household names like Isaac Newton or Marie Curie, but their names should
be immortalized just the same. The giant of giants was “Harvard’s first
lady,” Alice Hamilton. Hamilton was the first woman from any field
appointed to the faculty of Harvard University, and she advanced the field
of worker health (then called “industrial medicine”), memorialized in her
book Exploring the Dangerous Trades, first published in 1943.3 Hamilton
studied the work environment of the Industrial Revolution, but her focus,
methods, and findings still hold sway today, 100 years after her
appointment.
The field of worker health was largely constrained to clinical medicine
and industrial sites for much of the twentieth century, until the birth of the
environmental movement in the 1970s. This spurred the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the latter of which was the first major effort in the United
States to codify and enforce worker protections. And while many
Occupational Safety and Health Administration exposure limits were
focused on industrial and manufacturing environments, this attention paved
the way for other worker-health-focused research and entities.
Also at about this time, some scientific researchers began peeling away
from the study of outdoor pollutants to focus on the indoor environment.
Ole Fanger was a venerated researcher who gave us our first thermal health
targets for offices and other environments. (They are still in use today.)
Others, like Joe’s mentor Jack Spengler and a handful of additional
researchers across the globe, including Jan Sundell at the Karolinska
Institute in Sweden and the Danish Technical University, Lance Wallace at
the Environmental Protection Agency, and Bill Fisk at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, started turning their queries toward indoor
environments, too. They were some of the first to tell us about the potential
harms of secondhand smoke, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) off-
gassing from products in homes, low-level lead exposure and its impacts on
kids’ IQ, and the hidden hazards of mold, radon, and unvented combustion
sources in homes. This era also produced early research not just on the
hazards of bad air and sick buildings but also on the benefits of better
building strategies, notably how bringing in more fresh air can reduce sick
building symptoms and how air purifiers can be an effective tool for
controlling indoor particle levels.
These “indoor air” giants then opened the door for another cohort of
scientists studying indoor air. Contemporary researchers like Heather
Stapleton at Duke University are moving us past “Indoor Air Quality 101”
and telling us about the less obvious chemicals in our indoor environment—
those that seep quietly out of building materials and out of our rugs,
curtains, chairs, and mattresses and stealthily begin wreaking havoc on our
hormones and other bodily systems in ways we can’t immediately see.
Others, such as Frederica Perera at Columbia University and Tracey
Woodruff at the University of California, San Francisco, focus on children’s
and women’s health indoors. Others in academia and industry are using new
tools to expand our understanding of the reactions that take place on
surfaces in our buildings (and on the skin of people in those buildings)—the
field of study called indoor chemistry.4 Recently, more researchers are using
new metagenomics tools to explore the role of biological organisms in and
around us—a new field of study called the microbiome of the built
environment.
On the nanoscale side of things, our Harvard colleague Philip
Demokritou studies engineered nanomaterials currently in and on products
throughout our buildings. They are hard to track because disclosures are not
required. We don’t currently know very much about these nanoparticles
when it comes to potential human health impacts, but research in
Demokritou’s lab led by Dilpreet Singh showed that when certain nano-
enabled products are disposed of and incinerated, they catalyze the
formation of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.5 A collaboration
between researchers in France and China found that photocatalytic paints in
buildings that use titanium dioxide nanoparticles may also generate and
release formaldehyde indoors.6 Nanotechnology also holds the potential for
benefit, and Demokritou is working on a “nature-inspired antimicrobial”
using engineered water nanostructures.7 These fields are moving quickly,
and these are just some of the knowledge generators whose contributions
will be incorporated into Healthy Building strategies in the next 5 to 10
years.
During this period of increasing attention to public health, the business
world was similarly advancing thinking on the power of people to drive
business profits. Harvard Business School’s James Heskett, Earl Sasser, and
Leonard Schlesinger shared the concept of the “service profit chain.” This
management work established substantial links between employee
satisfaction and customer satisfaction, between employee loyalty and
customer loyalty, and of course between customer loyalty and profit in
service businesses.8 This has taken us a long way from the manufacturing
and process experiments of Frederick Winslow Taylor, who saw humans
more as manipulable cogs in a machine, and it paved the way for the works
by Felix Barber, Rainer Strack, and John Doerr that explored the economics
of “people businesses” and “measuring what matters.”

Early Adopters
These early pioneers of health and business science raised awareness of the
problem and created the beginning of a new scientific base of information.
As this scientific evidence accumulated, some early adopters started to
implement Healthy Building strategies, well ahead of the advent of formal
Healthy Building rating systems. Buildings like the Adam Joseph Lewis
Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College, by David W. Orr,
adopted green building strategies in the mid-1990s, at a time when most
builders had not even heard of the idea of a green building. These early
adopters in the green building spaced opened up pathways for the first
“green + healthy” buildings that followed about a decade later. The Bank of
America Tower at 1 Bryant Park in New York, owned by the Durst
Organization and designed by COOKFOX Architects, is a great example of
early leadership in the Healthy Buildings space. The design focused on
increasing fresh air, increasing access to daylight, and, perhaps most
notably, formally incorporating biophilic design into the building. Crucially,
the team also went beyond just designing a building that claimed to focus
on health at the ribbon cutting: they actually sought to measure and verify
that they were achieving their targets over time. The tower at 1 Bryant Park
does things like tracking and monitoring real-time Health Performance
Indicators such as CO2 levels on each floor. (They don’t call them HPIs yet
… but we think they will!)
This early adoption of Healthy Buildings is happening in Europe, too.
Norman Foster continued to advance his early work on breathing buildings
with the SwissRe building in London (affectionately known as The
Gherkin). Completed in 2004, it has an atria that serves as the building’s
lungs, bringing in fresh air through panels in the façade and distributing it
around the building. He continues to invoke his buildings as living,
breathing creatures; with his most recent work on the Bloomberg
Headquarters in London, he talks about using “fins as gills” that not only
enable the building to breathe (through a vortex starting at the ground
floor), but also act as filters that attenuate sound. Here he also incorporates
a living ceiling; 2.5 million petals with chilled and warm water pulsing
through to modulate acoustics and temperature.
Another recent innovative building that highlights how technology is
being incorporated into this movement is the Edge building in Amsterdam,
which opened in 2015 and which Bloomberg dubbed “the Smartest
Building in the World.”9 The developer, OVG Real Estate, created a “digital
ceiling” embedded with thousands of sensors that let the building track and
respond to light, temperature, and other factors at a hyperlocal level. The
Edge, designed by PLP Architects, represents an early marriage of smart
buildings and Healthy Buildings.
For early adopters of healthier materials, we need look no farther than
our own campus. The revitalized Harvard Smith Campus Center by
Hopkins Architects and Bruner / Cott and the brand new Klarman Hall at
Harvard Business School by Willam Rawn Associates, both unveiled in
2018, feature products and building materials that carefully avoided several
classes of toxic chemicals mentioned in Chapter 7, such as flame retardants,
Forever Chemicals, and antimicrobials. Led by Heather Henriksen, the
managing director at Harvard’s Office for Sustainability, Harvard worked
with (that is, forced) suppliers to revisit their supply chain and deliver
products without toxic chemicals. Some of these suppliers initially said they
couldn’t, or wouldn’t, do this—but then ultimately found a way. The most
important takeaway from both projects was that the sourcing of these
healthier materials had no impact on the budget, project schedule, or
product performance. We repeat: a healthier indoor environment with no
impact on budget, project schedule, or product performance. So why aren’t
we doing this more often?
As is typical for this phase of the curve, all of these players acted on the
science well before their peers acknowledged that this was a winning
strategy. Foster + Associates (Norman Foster’s firm), Oberlin, COOKFOX
Architects, OVG Real Estate, and Harvard were acting as early adopters,
pushing themselves, and the market, toward healthier buildings. These are
elite organizations, but their pushing of boundaries, investment in resources,
and establishment of best practices make it easier for others to follow.

Seeking Competitive Advantage: The Industry Anticipates User

Preferences
Where are we today? The early adopters have set the stage for Fortune 500
companies, with their global portfolios, to get in the game. This phase of
the adoption curve is happening in leading markets from Singapore to San
Francisco, but we’ll start with the New York City commercial real estate
market and expand our discussion from there.
New York City seems to be in a contest for who can have the healthiest
building. We’ve discussed our case study on the health aspects of 425 Park
Avenue, where we explored the decisions made by David Levinson and
L&L Holding about health.10 Just a few blocks away, JPMorgan Chase is
building a new headquarters and they have a bold vision, as one would
expect. In the words of Alec Saltikoff, an executive director at the bank and
a point person for the project, “Employees are our most important asset. We
have the best talent and best technology, now we want the best building.”11
Saltikoff told us that he and his team examined the science and then
applied their own analysis and came away with the conclusion that current
building standards are not designed to optimize human performance.
Ultimately, he sees pursuing excellence in JPMorgan Chase’s new
headquarters as good business, and as consistent with their company
philosophy. “By virtue of enabling our people to perform their best, we are
also serving our clients and simultaneously serving our shareholders,” he
said. “Creating an environment that maximizes these three factors becomes
a competitive advantage. We don’t see the building and people as one-time
investments—they are part of a systemic and philosophical approach
consistent with the vision of our founder, J. P. Morgan Chase, who set the
goal of ‘first-class business in a first-class way.’ We are now creating a
first-class building.”
Pfizer is moving its New York headquarters to Hudson Yards in New
York and adopting Healthy Building certifications. Tishman Speyer
announced that its entire portfolio would be certified under the Fitwel
system. And several more major companies that we can’t name are making
similar moves. The race is on. It’s a race because these savvy real estate
players are asking the same questions that David Levinson shared about 425
Park Avenue: What would happen to tenancy and rents if he didn’t design
his building for health, but all of his competitors did?
This is not just a contest going on in New York City. Look at what Apple
is doing with its new headquarters in Cupertino, California. The new
headquarters, designed, like 425 Park Avenue, by Norman Foster, will
feature real-time air-quality monitoring using technology from a company
that runs tubing into each room to draw air into centralized monitoring
locations, “sniffing” the air every few seconds. They will be measuring CO2
in real time throughout the building.
If you look at what the major service providers in the facilities
management and user experience space are doing, you will find more
evidence of the seismic shifts under way. JLL has its “Healthy and
Productive Workplace” offering and its 3-30-300 analysis discussed in
Chapter 3. CBRE has a healthy office research arm and has certified its
headquarters in Los Angeles as a WELL building. The list of leading
companies continues, from Boston Properties to Kilroy Realty and many
others.
It’s not just the owner-operators and facilities management companies
that are in the arena, either. Once a critical mass of leading companies with
massive global portfolios started to design with Healthy Buildings in mind,
building suppliers and technology companies began moving in this
direction with them. Take Carrier, a major supplier of building technology
to real estate developers best known for its air-conditioning business unit.
We mentioned in Chapter 10 that Carrier recently designed, built, and
moved into a new building of its own called the Center for Intelligent
Buildings. This was designed specifically as a space where prospective
buyers could walk through the building to discover the often hidden aspects
of how building systems work. Importantly, this living showroom is not just
about how chillers and mechanical systems operate—it showcases how
these building technologies promote health and human performance.
View is another building product company focused on health. View
makes dynamic glass—windows that that can automatically change their
tint to adjust the glare coming in based on the time, day, and season. This
comes with significant energy savings (20 percent reduction in operating
expenses). But take a look at how its leaders are positioning the company:
the first thing its website talks about is how the company’s glass affects
health and productivity. They even created a new position, director of
health strategy, and quickly filled it with a public health expert, Piers
MacNaughton. Why the health focus? MacNaughton says, “At View we’ve
come to realize that in the built environment, health is the primary
motivator.”12 Taken in isolation, these examples from JLL, Carrier, and
View may not seem like much, but this turn toward health in the built
environment represents nothing short of a seismic shift in the market.
New technologies are transforming possibilities for monitoring and
conforming with every one of the 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building.
New healthy lighting offerings from Philips or Lighting Science Group no
longer talk about light levels and lux—they address how their products
affect circadian rhythm and health. There are sensor startups like Aclima,
Awair, and Yanzi that sell monitoring systems to track real-time air quality
in offices and homes. And there are some big building product
manufacturers, like Velux and View, that are leading the charge toward
“smart” building technology by incorporating sensors right into their
skylights and dynamic glass windows. In the building safety and security
startup space are companies like Evolv, which is deploying rapid screening
technologies combined with employee-recognition systems to improve the
security checkpoint process—increasing speed and effectiveness (“secure
flow”), while decreasing the burden and associated stress of this function.
Add to this landscape the many companies innovating in energy. This list
includes established global players like Schneider Electric, with its strong
focus on energy efficiency, microgrid solutions, digital buildings,
monitoring, and optimization. (Schneider Electric, long known for its
energy services, is now also moving into the Healthy Building space with
digital services for smart buildings, like its Workplace Advisor, which
monitors and reports real-time space utilization and indoor environmental
quality.) The energy innovation movement also includes startups like Phase
Change Energy Solutions, which uses the natural heat-absorbing and heat-
releasing properties of so-called phase change materials as a super energy-
efficient insulator. Products like this come with an energy benefit, but they
come with a health benefit, too. The demand for these types of energy-
saving and health-promoting products is set to grow rapidly.
Then there are companies working on better ways to clean the air. This
includes the big incumbents and recognized brands in the portable air
purification space, like the health-care company Dyson (we’re going to
convince you yet …), and startups like EnVerid, which can install a system
within your existing ductwork to capture and purge VOCs, CO2, and other
chemicals.
Investors are getting in the game, too. In 2018, JLL introduced a $100
million fund to invest in Healthy Building technologies. SoftBank created
its $100 billion Vision Fund, which has a heavy focus on “PropTech”—
technology and companies that focus on real estate buying, selling, and
management. And recently, colleagues of ours at Harvard have been
engaged with PGGM, a multibillion-dollar pension fund, which is exploring
how to invest in “healthy companies.” Healthy Buildings are part of that
conversation.
We’ve introduced a few specific companies at this point not to promote
them but because they provide good examples for how the market is
advancing, and how much innovation and rapid adoption are now taking
place. We chose to single out these particular companies because we’ve
gotten to know them well. We’ve met with dozens of executives from
different organizations, and there is a reason these companies show up in
our book: we think they are doing it right, or are on the path to doing it
right. (We’ve also seen a lot of “how not to do it”—but that deserves its
own book.)
All of these people and companies—the knowledge generators, the early
adopters, and the leading market players—have paved the way for the rise
of Healthy Building certification systems. The early adopters and players in
leading markets now want a way to independently validate what they’re
doing for investors, tenants, and employees. This has given us the WELL
Building Standard, Fitwel, RESET, and probably a few more coming soon.
Some developers are working with us to use the 9 Foundations of a Healthy
Building as a guide toward creating a Healthy Building.
All signs point to a growing Healthy Building market. There is
unequivocally momentum in the system. Now the trillion-dollar question is,
Are these just one-off flagship projects, or will this become the new
business as usual?

Industry Composition: A Big Sector with a Long Tail

It’s difficult to get a handle on the magnitude of the value of “built
environment” assets in the world. On a planet with over 7 billion people,
many families’ primary assets are their homes. Commercial real estate
alone as an investable, tradable asset class is worth trillions of dollars. Add
to that schools, courthouses, hospitals, and factories and the industry is very
large indeed: in excess of $260 trillion in US dollars, according to the
global real estate advisory Savills.13 Real estate of one form or another leads
all other global stores of wealth.

How Is the Wealth Distributed?

In the commercial real estate space, the largest publicly traded property
owner in the United States is Simon Property Group, with a market
capitalization of about $50 billion. The 10th largest is Equity Residential
with a market value of about $24 billion, and the 100th is Acadia Real
Estate Trust with a market capitalization of just over $2.4 billion. The top
200 in aggregate have market capitalization well over a trillion dollars …
but the biggest one represents just 5 percent of that total.14 This means that
there are a few large players and a very long tail down to mom-and-pop
investors who might own a few apartments and a neighborhood shopping
center with five stores in it.
At the same time, capital providers like banks and mortgage companies
see a similar industry spread. From the largest to the top 100 to the next
1,000, the curve looks much the same. Caliber Home Loans, number 1,
originated $43.9 billion in transactions in 2017. PrimeLending, number 10,
did $14.5 billion. Move down to number 75, Homeowners Financial Group,
and the volume drops to just over $1.4 billion. Again, a very large market
with a few big players and very long tail of smaller ones.15

Why Is Understanding the Spread of Wealth Important?

The largest landlords, in the biggest cities, with the most high-profile
tenants, with the largest balance sheets, looking at the longest leases—and
courting the most sought-after knowledge workers—have the capability and
the competitive interest to be at the absolute cutting edge and to let people
know it. Those resources, those contracts, and those interests fall off
quickly in markets that are not as robust, in labor markets that are not as
competitive, and where rents don’t justify large capital expenditures.
Innovations do eventually propagate—office buildings in even the smallest
out-of-the-way towns are now expected to have elevators and air-
conditioning—but it will not be automatic. The “Class A” buildings in big
cities with multinational corporations as tenants are the first to take up most
new ideas in the real estate industry, and it can often take longer for the
benefits to become apparent to smaller tenants in “B” or “C” space in
smaller cities. Naturally, we hope that this book jump-starts and accelerates
that idea dissemination since it’s so important to people’s health and well-
being.
This means opportunity for many kinds of service firms, ranging from
architects to contractors to Healthy Building specialists. Since only the
largest firms have extensive in-house capability, almost all of the facilities
thinking is outsourced. Sometimes this is to global behemoths like JLL,
CBRE, and WeWork, and other times it is to local, smaller firms that have
specialist knowledge, like Terrapin Bright Green, Environmental Health &
Engineering, and KGS Buildings. These firms are differentiating
themselves by focusing on energy, sustainability, … and health.

Clockspeed: Cycle Time for Adoption

Think of biology. Some small species of insects have a life span of days;
small mammals like mice or moles have a life span of just months or years;
people and elephants can live to 90 or 100; and some whales and tortoises
may live well past the century mark. In a quickly propagating species like
fruit flies, generations come and go in days or weeks and evolution can
happen quickly. For people (or for whales), evolution is a lot slower.
The same phenomenon exists in industry. A new social networking app
might have a life span of a few weeks or months before fading away or
being subsumed. A new chip like the Intel Core i9 might have a selling life
span of five years. In cars, brake calipers and brake shoes haven’t changed
in decades. When catalytic converters came on the scene, even though they
were quickly mandated in the US fleet, it took almost 20 years for them to
become 90 percent established. Why? Because cars have useful lives of 10
to 20 years. So it takes more than 20 years to change out the whole fleet.
In his seminal book Clockspeed, Charles Fine of MIT identifies this
phenomenon and describes how businesses can work with their internal
systems and, even more importantly, with their customers and their supply
chains (in the world of our book, architects, contractors, and building
product manufacturers), to accelerate a time cycle, adopt new technology
faster, and compete better.16
Why do we care? Because buildings have an even longer life span than
turtles. There is a good chance that as you read this you are in a home or at
an office that’s more than 50 years old. You probably wouldn’t even think
the age of the structure was worth mentioning unless it was around 100
years old. Consider Boston, where 85 percent of the building square footage
expected to be in place by 2050 already exists.17 The cycle time for the
dissemination of advances in building technology can be very long indeed.
In slow demographic growth economies like the United States, it will thus
take a long time for the ideas in this book to fully propagate.
At the same time, most homes, offices, hospitals, and schools regularly
undergo major renovations, sometimes taking things right down to the shell
of the building. During major renovations, when the space is vacant and
there is already disruption, is a good time to act on sustainability, on energy
efficiency … and on making your building truly and measurably healthy.
This window does not come around that often—and if this book is
successful, we will ensure that decision makers don’t miss that window.
On a global scale, the opportunities in new construction are enormous. In
the United States alone, about $1.2 trillion of new construction is put in
place each year (about 6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product of
$19 trillion).18 Globally the amount of new construction is thought to be
about $12.7 trillion annually, according to the Construction Intelligence
Center.19 Even though the existing stock is large, this massive level of new
activity justifies building things right, starting now.
Like the real estate and finance industries, the construction industry is
highly skewed. The largest firm in the Western world, Vinci from France,
earned about $46 billion in revenue in 2017—less than 1 percent of the
total.20 There are few other industries in the world where the market leader
has less than 1 percent share. This means that the opportunity to be an
intellectual and operational leader in health is everywhere … and firms can
take the leadership mantle.

What’s Next: Sensors, Awareness, Communication, and

Analytics
So far we have mostly considered technologies that are widely available
today. We have argued for awareness and substantially increased investment
in indoor air quality and other aspects of health you can measure in office
settings. But the world is changing. What might be next for building
owners, homeowners, workers, and investors?
Imagine this future scenario:
Nina and David were super excited about the arrival of their new baby, Sam. They were
selecting a new apartment in the big city. The air in the big city was pretty bad, with almost
daily warnings about outdoor air pollution, but they had read The 9 Foundations of a Healthy
Building and were up on the science of how outdoor air pollution becomes indoor air pollution.
Nina and David wanted to find a nice place for Sam, so they checked the online real-time
indoor air quality trend data—now reported at a microscale level as a result of ubiquitous
outdoor air monitoring in cities—and projection statistics compiled by the Fitbit, Alibaba,
Dyson, Zillow, and Chase Consortium. They wanted to see which apartments in which
complexes were rated the highest against key pathogens, as well as the pollutants that had led
to so many of David’s childhood allergies.
Armed with this info—much like shopping for a vehicle with Carfax in hand—the couple
went to negotiate with apartment landlords. They cared about location and access to transit,
although since neither worked in a traditional office those factors were not so important to
them. They looked at two nice complexes in the city: the Starnight Building, a relatively
modest design in a new building where the developers had made a big deal about so-called
indoor air quality, touting its LEED, WELL, and Fitwel ratings; and the Warwick Building,
 which was older but very fancy, with lots of tall ceilings and plenty of woodwork from
renewable sources.
In the end they paid a rent premium for an apartment in the Starnight Building, where, their
analysis concluded, they would pay less for energy consumption in the long run because of the
landlord’s extensive capital investments in the building. More importantly, they calculated that
they would sleep better and that Sam would breathe better. The air quality was objectively
superior at the Starnight, based on data available from Morningstar’s analysis of data from the
consortium. Social media reports confirmed that others had had good experiences. A few years
from now, they reasoned, Sam would score higher on his standardized college entrance
examinations thanks to the advantage of clean air and water and its proven cumulative impact
on brain development and human cognition. Nina and David were fortunate to have a choice;
many other young parents couldn’t afford a premium-air building like the Starnight.

The Future Is Already Here

Some may find this story farfetched and alarmist. But consider what Google
is already doing with its Sidewalk Labs project in Toronto. It is creating,
digitizing, and democratizing data on city performance at an unprecedented
local scale. Air pollution data is part of what they are monitoring,
measuring, and reporting. Then look at what Google did in San Francisco
with a company, Aclima, where they placed air pollution sensors on the top
of Google Street View cars.21 As the Street View cars did their normal
routine, driving through every city street to update images and data for
Google Maps, they were simultaneously collecting air pollution data. For
the first time ever, residents could get a block-by-block look at air pollution
in the city. Guess what? It varies significantly, even within a city. Now this
hyperlocal monitoring approach is being exported to other cities. It’s not
hard to imagine a future in which air pollution monitors are on every
streetlight (LED lights can already act as sensors for VOCs and other
pollutants) or on every Google Street View car, or every Lyft car or UPS
delivery truck. Nina and David will have this type of air pollution data at
their fingertips.
As for indoor environmental quality data, consider what some
companies like Yanzi and Awair are already offering today: the ability to
install air-quality monitors on every desk in a large building or each room
in a home within one day to stream real-time data about the indoor
environment. Joe’s team has deployed monitoring networks like these in
buildings across six countries as part of a research project on buildings and
cognitive function. Many consumer products have air quality sensors built
right into them and are already collecting environmental data indoors.
Millions of homes already have environmental data being collected through
these products, all of which can be freely shared and analyzed in open data
cloud applications. This is just the beginning—seeing air pollution sensors
in an office or apartment building will be as common as seeing a thermostat
on the wall. (That’s really just an air-quality sensor, too, when you stop to
think about it.)
We are convinced that there will be ubiquitous sensing and air-quality
data at consumers’ fingertips in short order. But maybe you think what is
farfetched about our Nina and David example is that, despite all of this data
being readily available, consumers won’t use it to make decisions. So let us
move from a hypothetical to a real-world scenario, and move from homes to
commercial real estate.

Talent and Tenancy

Recently we got a call from an executive at a Fortune 500 company (we
can’t disclose who). This executive oversees the global real estate portfolio
for the company, as well as the development of a new corporate campus. He
called us because something happened that had never happened to him
before—he got a call from his executive counterpart in the Human
Resources Department asking all sorts of questions about green and Healthy
Buildings. Specifically, this HR executive wanted to know if their new
headquarters was going to be a “Healthy Building.” Why? She told him that
the company was recruiting a top candidate for a job in the firm and this
candidate was asking questions about the building she would be working in.
The top prospect was interviewing the building! (A 2017 article titled “Are
You Interviewing Your Building?” written by John Mandyck, then chief
sustainability officer at United Technologies, seems prescient.22)
This type of “bottom-up” demand for Healthy Buildings is likely to
increase for three primary reasons. First is the expectation of transparency
in all things, spurred on by social media. There is not much question that
people share information, whether they are job seekers, home buyers,
employers, credit rating agencies, or folks just looking for a good restaurant
or a competent plumber. A recent example of this sharing related to work is
the rise in popularity of the website Glassdoor, where people anonymously
post about the company they work for, including their boss, workplace
culture, salary, and, increasingly, the building. Here are a few examples of
recent posts:
“Smells bad”: “Smells like garbage every day … better pay for the
work and ventilation system for the summer.”23
“Building smells like sewage”: “Yes, I would also hope this was a
joke, but the building smells like sewage in between 7 and 9 A.M. in
the morning. This just gives me even more the impression that they
don’t mind their employees.”24
“Perks, but noisy open office”: “There is no noise insulation in the
ceiling so you’ll hear noise from the above floor. Sales and customer
service teams are answering phones with no sound insulation in
between desks. Years of complaining to management and facilities
has barely gotten anywhere.”25
“Unsafe and unprofessional workplace”: “The place is filthy and
product is strewn everywhere. Fire exits and emergency equipment
are blocked.”26
“Great people but the office is way too cold”: “The office is too
cold—so cold that it’s sometimes hard to focus on the job.”27
“Great mentors, bad lighting”: “The building we were in had very
few windows, grey wall-to-wall carpeting, and dim lighting. Luckily
they were talking about moving when I left!”28
You may not know it, but employees are already interviewing your
building.
There are already huge catalogs of shared information about music,
politics, travel, mutual funds, and more; why wouldn’t there be
crowdsourced data and a rating platform for air quality in apartments,
homes, offices, schools, hospitals, and government buildings? The ability to
contain information and control ratings has escaped into the world—and it’s
not coming back under corporate control.
Second, many companies are realizing that they are now in the health
business, and they are marketing themselves as such. Consider the
announcement that Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase just
created a new health-care venture led by our colleague Atul Gawande. Or
consider that Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, said in 2019 that health-care
disruption may ultimately be Apple’s legacy, not the iPhone. Every
company is a health-care company now—in some instances, literally.
Health and health care represent a third of the multitrillion-dollar US
economy, so it’s not surprising that these companies are aggressively
moving into this space. Many forms of media are also raising awareness of
health issues. It’s possible to rely on mainstream media like the New York
Times, social media like Facebook, YouTube, and Reddit, broadcast media
like Oprah or CNN, and sifting and sorting algorithms like Google to look
at websites like WebMD, Mayo Clinic, or the New England Journal of
Medicine to learn more and more factual information about what goes into
our bodies—whether ingested, inhaled, or injected. This barrage of
information ensures that consumers are aware of what constitutes a healthy
life, and it’s only a matter of time before buildings join the health zeitgeist.
To understand the scale of what we’re talking about, think about it this way:
health care represents a third of the US economy, and construction
represents about another 10 percent, so between the two, we are looking at
influencing almost half of the US economy in some manner in the Healthy
Buildings movement.
Third, look at the rise of sensors, analytics, and big data, and think about
what this means when it comes to providing objective and verifiable
information on whether the building you are buying into is healthy. The
Nina, David, and Sam scenario only makes sense if sensors are ubiquitous,
and they are rapidly becoming so. Not long ago all a building could really
tell you in real time was temperature and humidity—and you had to look at
the gauge with your own eyes. A professional air-quality expert or Certified
Industrial Hygienist taking samples to a lab had to wait days or weeks to
measure things like lead paint, mold spores, asbestos particles, or
formaldehyde. Today, your Nest or Ecobee or Carrier thermostat can tell
you the history of the temperature and humidity in each room in your
house, and your Yanzi or Awair is starting to do the same for CO2, CO,
particulates, and much more. What’s more, indoor air purifiers from Dyson
or Honeywell don’t just purify the air; they sense the environment and
respond to out-of-boundary conditions, as well as displaying the data and
sending it to your phone—or anywhere else you’d like. Imagine an
apartment or office landlord aggregating all the readings in the building,
anonymizing them, and tuning airflow and filtration for optimum levels
with real-time feedback from the Internet of Things operating in the
building. Big data and analytics could crunch this info for thousands or
millions of indoor spaces. The big players in the building management
system space are moving in this direction. Quickly.
Sensors aren’t just in the inanimate space. Your Fitbit or Apple Watch
can monitor heart rate and breathing, and some wearables measure blood
sugar and more. (The promise of measuring personal health is what
underpins Apple CEO Tim Cook’s vision of Apple becoming known as a
health-care disrupter.) Your device can share this information with your
building to explore causal relationships between your space and your mood,
but more importantly, it can then interact with the building systems to
intervene autonomously. Do you think people won’t be willing to share this
kind of personal information? They already do on apps like Strava, where
athletes exchange information about details like VO2 max (maximum
oxygen uptake during exercise), and connected exercise devices like
Peloton that can track your RPMs and BPMs, allowing you to share your
fitness and performance metrics.
Many third-party aggregators of this kind of information exist in other
domains: if you have a 401(k) or IRA or other investment vehicle, mostly
likely you rely on services like Morningstar or Lipper. Those financial
analysis entities look at millions of data points for direction and trends of
investments—and to measure the performance of the human (and machine)
managers making decisions. Green building indexes already exist. For
example, GRESB aggregates self-reported data on sustainability aspects of
real estate portfolios and delivers this to investors. It added a health module
to it sustainability reporting, showing where it thinks the market is headed.
Then there are companies like GeoPhy, which we mentioned in Chapter 10,
that aggregate publicly available information on real estate risk such as
natural disasters exacerbated by climate change. This type of data is also
fed into the investor market. A Morningstar rating or Carfax for your office
or school is not farfetched; it’s right around the corner.
The large pools of capital like pension funds, endowments, insurance
companies, and sovereign funds look at two main criteria in their
investments in debt and equities: What is the expected rate of return, and
what is the risk or uncertainty around realizing that return? There is not
much question that a building that repels renters or condo buyers is exposed
to the uncertainty of lower rents and higher vacancies as better-informed
tenants or buyers look at the data, realize the long-term impact of air and
water on themselves and their loved ones, and gravitate to the objectively
superior building. Investors will figure this out.
Will the ability to measure air quality—and to tie it incontrovertibly to
health—become significant enough to people to actually move the needle
over from other selection considerations like location, views, aesthetics, and
cost? Today, no. Someday? Most definitely. A future of smart and
connected curated indoor spaces is inevitable. The rise of the informed
shopper—with choices enabled by sensors, open data, mobile platforms,
apps, analytics, and social media—will be one of the key forces pushing us
further up the Healthy Building adoption curve. Individuals, and the
businesses that shelter or employ them, will drive best practice faster than
government and regulation will be able to. This will amplify the positions
of leaders—and laggards—among landlords, lenders, and vendors in the
office, apartment, and institutional building industry.

The Future of Healthy Buildings

Our goal for this book was to present a vision for how to scale and
accelerate a shift to healthier buildings for all. What happens next is … up
to you. Faced with the collision of rapid population growth and rapid
urbanization, nothing short of the health of people and the planet is at stake.
Collectively we have the power—and responsibility—to influence the
design and operations of billions of square feet of buildings around the
world, thereby influencing the health of tens of billions of people globally.
The Healthy Building strategies in this book must not only benefit the 1
percent. Early adopters in major cities are essential for demonstrating that
these strategies can be implemented and can yield business wins, without
affecting budget or timeline. But are these first Healthy Buildings just
vanity projects, or are the movement and awareness the new “business as
usual”? The true measure of success will be determined based on how
scalable these strategies are: how deeply and how quickly the core aspects
of Healthy Buildings are picked up in suburbs, in smaller buildings, in
museums and city halls, and in urban and peri-urban agglomerations all
over the world. Getting Healthy Buildings right is an imperative. It can
mean improving the lives of billions of people on the planet.
If you are reading this book, you are an influencer in the built
environment and in the future of Healthy Buildings. You will guide the
approach of using a human health lens to create better indoor spaces for
people in schools, hospitals, theaters, restaurants, retail shops, places of
worship, and commercial real estate of all sizes. If you are a landlord,
building manager, architect, designer or contractor, business executive,
sustainability professional, scientist, investor, or facility manager, or if you
live and work indoors, you have a chance to maximize the potential for you
and your colleagues or your family to live a healthy life.
You also are living at a time when advances in health science and
building science are occurring rapidly—whether it’s new empirical
observations about human cognition under differing indoor conditions or
the invention of personal air-quality sensors that can be placed anywhere
and immediately make the air quality visible. That means you can act.
Throughout this book we have shown you how to harness the
extraordinary power of indoor spaces to drive performance and
productivity. You are now armed with everything you need to make a
cogent argument for Healthy Buildings in your organization. Hard science
showing how buildings influence our health? Check. A financial argument
for why Healthy Buildings are a sound business argument? Check. Tools for
how to measure and track health performance? That, too. We have given
you a sense of the global forces at play and the technological shifts that are
creating the perfect conditions for an exciting future. This is an
unprecedented moment in history—the convergence of health science,
building science, and business science is giving us a chance to unlock the
potential of our buildings to create economic value and advance health. It’s
a simple formula, really: Healthy Building strategies are Healthy People
strategies and therefore Healthy Business strategies. It seems like a cliché,
but these can lead us together to a Healthy Planet. How will you be part of
this future?
  

Conclusion
Buildings, Business, Health, and Wealth

We need a new generation of humanitarian design ideas underpinned by scientific research.

—NORMAN FOSTER

MANY PEOPLE FEEL IT is no longer acceptable just to work in a

building that makes them less sick; employees are starting to demand a
space that makes them “more healthy.” Getting there will require us to go
from accepting “acceptable” indoor air quality (the current ventilation code)
to demanding a space that is optimal for human health and performance.
This is within reach.
Our goal in writing this book was to communicate, in simple language,
the many ways in which our buildings shape our health and impact our
businesses. If you remember nothing else in this book, we hope you will
remember to ask yourself the question that we posed early on: “Why are we
ignoring the 90 percent?”
We have become an indoor species, spending 90% of our time indoors.
And while many countries have a comprehensive regulatory structure
monitoring outdoor air pollution, there is nothing comparable for indoor
environments. This is the case even though, as we have shown, the majority
of your exposure to outdoor pollution occurs indoors. Further, indoor
sources of pollution can be significantly higher than outdoor pollution,
although we don’t tend to think of indoor contaminants as “pollution” per
se. We should. There are signs that this is beginning to change. A 2019
article in the New Yorker spoke of the problem of “indoor smog”—a label
that makes a strong link between our traditional notions of outdoor
pollution and our indoor world.1
We also wanted to make the point that Healthy Building strategies are
good business strategies. For many twenty-first-century “knowledge
worker” businesses, people costs are by far the largest single portion of
their income statement. Office rent may be second, and the two of them
together might account for 90 percent of the costs of those firms. We argue
that a work environment that helps people to improve their health,
productivity, and creativity provides more bottom-line benefit than does
scrimping on ventilation, filtration, materials selection, and the incremental
energy and operating costs.
There is also a bigger picture and ultimate motivating force for our work
together in writing this book. We want you and your business to win, for
sure … but we also want you to see Healthy Buildings in the larger context
of the global mega-changes of population growth and urbanization that we
mention. The global changes coming are so massive—almost 2 billion
additional people by 2050, the vast majority of whom will live in cities—
that buildings need to be a part of the solution to our sustainable
development challenges. Buildings last a long time and they affect our lives
for decades—even centuries. The decisions we make today regarding our
buildings will determine the collective health of people and the planet now
and for future generations. There isn’t a lot of good news coming from
scientists concerned with the environment, but buildings can be one of the
rare cases where personal benefits and social benefits are not in conflict. We
can have individual wins for our businesses while also having wins at a
population-wide scale.
The way we see it, one of the most accessible ways to influence the
health of people around the world is to influence the design, operation, and
maintenance of the billions of square feet of enclosed space where we live,
work, learn, play, pray, and heal. We think the key to making this theory of
change operational is to show that it’s a “win for all” scenario; that acting in
your own self-interest can influence others to do the same, and that,
building by building, we can begin to improve the health of all people, in all
buildings, everywhere, every day.
Healthy Buildings as a Win for All
In the preface, we outlined four groups of people who might find our book
useful: business owners; employees; building investors, owners, and
developers; and all of us (society). The ultimate beauty of the Healthy
Buildings movement is that there are wins for everyone involved once we
consider how Healthy Buildings influence four performance factors: human
performance, business performance, social performance, and market
performance. These interests expand from individuals to businesses to
regions to the economy. So let’s revisit highlights from what we’ve covered
and group them among these four performance factors to make clear that
with Healthy Buildings, everyone wins.

Human Performance: A Chance to Do Your Best

Let’s start with the unequivocal fact that a Healthy Building benefits the
people who work and live inside it. We opened our book with a heavy focus
on just a few factors where the science is irrefutable: bringing more fresh
air into a building and filtering it more effectively are associated with better
health outcomes. As a reminder, higher outdoor air ventilation rates have
been linked with fewer sick building symptoms, lower disease transmission,
and fewer missed days of work. More recently, rigorous double-blind
method research in office environments shows that higher ventilation rates
have a direct impact on our cognitive function. Specifically, better indoor
air quality led to better performance in the decision-making of knowledge
workers. This is not theoretical—we have shown you the empirical
evidence.
We then extended this analysis by posing and answering the question,
What else constitutes a “Healthy Building”? That brought us to the 9
Foundations of a Healthy Building, a synthesis of 40 years of science on all
of the factors that drive human health indoors—ventilation, air quality,
thermal health, water quality, moisture, dust and pests, lighting and views,
noise, and safety and security. You are now armed with all the scientific
evidence you need to create a healthier building.
Then, in Chapter 7, we ventured into the world of healthier building
materials. Pretty building designs are sometimes mucked up by the junk we
purchase and use inside them. (Recall our bodybuilder-on-steroids analogy.)
Some products are laden with chemicals that act in a very subtle manner on
our health; their slow workings on our minds and bodies are not easily
sensed in the way that volatile organic compounds emitted from a scented
surface cleaner immediately make your eyes water. These semivolatile
chemicals slowly migrate out of products and into our bodies, quietly
wreaking havoc on our hormone signaling system.
Building on these foundations, in Chapters 8 and 9 we showed you not
only that the science is clear but also that all of this is actually measurable
and trackable using Health Performance Indicators (HPIs). We have given
you the four-quadrant framework for measurement with HPIs, discussed
certification systems that allow you to independently verify that
performance (and offered our view on what every Healthy Building
certification system should include), and talked about new sensor
technologies that allow us to manage our buildings (and measure the health
of our personal environments) in real time. This part of the book is the key
link between the academic science and action in the real world. We can talk
all day long about what should be done in the abstract based on the hard
science, but unless there is a way to measure and track this, health
performance of the building won’t be part of the equation for most
businesses.
You now have the tools to design, operate, maintain, and manage a
Healthy Building. If you follow a Healthy Building strategy, you can create
a building that not only is not assaulting your health or that of your
employees but is in fact acting as a place of refuge and health promotion.
So the first winners are the people inside buildings. That is enough of a
motivator for some, but so far this has not been sufficient to spur all
landlords, tenants, and investors to seek action and move us up the adoption
curve. What’s the next step?

Business Performance: Enlightened Self-Interest

While the basic health science on indoor environments has accumulated
over decades, this alone has not really influenced practice. But newer
techniques and new learning about how indoor environments affect human
cognitive performance, concentration, and productivity have been a game
changer. How so? They have brought in another winner in the Healthy
Buildings movement: the business owner. We believe that these research
findings flip the conversation. Instead of incremental decisions about
additional costs, more rigorous health measures are now about profit. To
wit: rather than tighten the budget on energy for ventilation, it’s understood
that spending a little more on better indoor air will allow you to reap
dividends in the form of greater productivity, fewer sick days, better
employee retention, and a net benefit to bottom-line profit. Until recently,
the industry couldn’t really measure how buildings were affecting the
people who worked in them. Now we can.
Here, again, the evidence is empirical. Recall in Chapter 4 that we
explored the costs of higher ventilation rates. We put this into a pro forma
for our hypothetical consulting company, Health &Wealth, Inc. and saw
that, indeed, there were costs for this company to increase ventilation rates.
But that’s a naïve analysis that doesn’t factor in the benefits. Once you
account for benefits from lower absenteeism and better human performance
(“payroll effect” and “productivity boost” in our financial model), we
showed that the costs for this one improvement are trivial compared with
the significant benefits to the company—a 10.7 percent net gain to the
bottom line. For one intervention. Where all the employees had to do was
breathe! No training needed. No yearlong rollout of a new program. No
change to workplace culture. Just breathe.
Even better, we showed in our model that there is room for the building
owner to charge the tenant a rent premium for this better building. In our
case, we factored in a substantial increase of 10 percent. This part is
absolutely critical because it begins to address the issue of split incentives
that have long hindered the adoption of Healthy Building strategies. Why
would a building owner take on any additional costs if the benefits were to
go to the tenant? Well, now we have the answer—they can take on the
additional cost and justify a premium for that better building. The financial
gains from adopting Healthy Building strategies are so massive that there is
plenty to go around. The employees win, the business owner wins, and the
building owner wins.
Therein lies the central tenet of our book: buildings impact people’s
health, and now we can objectively quantify how an investment in the
building is an investment in the company. Healthy Buildings improve
human performance. Better human performance improves business
performance.

Social Performance: The ‘S’ in ESG for Buildings

We spent most of this book on the first two factors—human performance
and business performance. Then, in Chapters 10 and 11, we introduced
some new ideas regarding factors that will enable the nascent Healthy
Buildings movement to scale faster and farther: social performance and
market performance.
In Chapter 11 we looked at how buildings impact health and wealth
beyond the four walls, leading to better social performance. This is big,
because it moves the Healthy Buildings conversation from being one about
individual gains to being one where the people outside and around the
neighborhood also benefit. Healthy Buildings are central to the larger
conversation about sustainability, environmental health, and public health.
Our climate is changing, and this is a direct result of climate-forcing
gases that are being released into the atmosphere. A changing climate has
brought on important questions about uncertainty, risk, financing, and
resilience in the real estate sector. Consider our hypothetical building
owner, Mary, and her counterpart from the bank, Nancy. A redrawn flood
map moved Mary’s property from a 1-in-100-year risk to a 1-in-20-year
risk, putting her in violation of the loan agreement. This raised important
challenges and questions that we are seeing all over the country—and world
—today. Does Mary take steps to “harden” her building against extreme
weather? Does the bank foreclose or refinance? If it refinances, under what
terms? Beyond the local level, these types of questions are being asked at
the institutional investor level as well. Sophisticated investors are using
machine learning techniques and geographical information systems (GIS) to
overlay real estate data with atmospheric data, climate predictions, and
social demographics to estimate financial risk and support better decision-
making.
With the building-energy-health-climate-resiliency nexus concept, we
showed that buildings are part of the problem, yes, but also that Healthy
Building strategies are part of the solution. Our energy system, dominated
by fossil fuel combustion, is releasing greenhouse gases like carbon
dioxide. With an all-out effort under way to address this situation, it’s only
natural that in addition to focusing on the generation side of the equation—
moving to renewable energy sources—we also need to focus on the demand
side. Here is where buildings enter the spotlight. As consumers of 40
percent of energy globally, buildings are responsible for a third of all
greenhouse gas emissions (80 percent of global energy from fossil fuels ×
40 percent used by buildings).
Healthy Building strategies that reduce energy use come with a health
co-benefit in terms of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. More
immediate are the health benefits to the surrounding community from the
reduction of air pollutants that are emitted from fossil fuel consumption. Air
pollutants like PM2.5 that have an acute effect on health will be reduced as
buildings reduce their energy use. As with human performance and business
performance, the social performance benefit can also be quantified. And
these benefits are massive—for every $1 saved in energy in the United
States, another $0.59 is gained in health and climate co-benefits, on
average. In the developing world, it is closer to $10 saved in health and
climate benefits for every $1 saved on energy.2 As the energy grid gets
cleaner through the adoption of renewable energy sources, buildings will
not be off the hook. Over the past few years there is intense scrutiny of on-
site fossil fuel consumption in buildings and the embodied carbon in
materials like concrete and steel. The conversation on the social
performance of buildings is just beginning.
Expanding the definition of Healthy Buildings to include energy
conservation and other quantifiable outward-looking measures becomes a
way to link the business interests of the property industry with the business
interests of the public. Put another way, we can empirically demonstrate
that Healthy Buildings provide benefits not only to the individuals in the
building and the owners of the building but to everyone else as well—to
society as a whole.
Why does this matter? It means that governments and municipalities
have a reason to get in the Healthy Buildings game. Rest assured, the
quantification of health co-benefits does not just matter to governments. It
matters for real estate developers, owners, and investors, too. With the rise
of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, real estate
developers, owners, and investors are now being asked about the S in ESG.
What is the social performance of your real estate asset? This has been hard
to quantify in the past—but that is no longer the case.

Market Performance: Consumers Get It

Rounding out the list of winners are the owners, developers, and investors
who will win with the rise of informed shoppers and with the growing
market demands for Healthy Buildings. For starters, let’s look at how
Healthy Building investors are poised to win, and how this will help
propagate the Healthy Building movement. When David Levinson and
L&L Holding show that they can command some of the highest rents in
New York City for their “Tower for the People” at 425 Park Avenue, the
value of that property increases, as does the value of the investment for
their primary investor, Tokyu Land US Corporation. What do you think is
likely to happen with Tokyu Land’s next investment? It might choose to
only invest in Healthy Building projects in the future, because it will have
been demonstrated that this is a competitive advantage and a winning
investment strategy.
What do you think Levinson’s competitors will do when they see his
building has commanded these high rents? New billion-dollar buildings and
developments are going up in Manhattan every month. We can guarantee
you that others will see what’s happening and respond with their own
designs. They recognize demand. When a player like Amazon hosts a
nationwide competition for its new headquarters, developers, investors, and
owners perk up—“How can I attract the Amazons of the world to my
building?”
And then what do you think is happening in other markets beyond New
York City? They are paying attention, too. From Seattle to Boston, from
London to Hong Kong, from Shanghai to Bangkok, developers are planning
new Healthy Buildings.
In the mind of an investor and developer, perhaps even more important
than competing today is competing in the future. In Levinson’s vision,
pursuing elements of a Healthy Building at 425 Park Avenue is about
future-proofing the building; if he doesn’t aim for a Healthy Building now,
the tenants who can pay the high rent premiums this year will just skip on
over to the other side of town for a developer at Hudson Yards or around
Wall Street who will offer a measurably better environment for the health
and productivity of the tenant’s knowledge workers. It’s an arms race to
better indoor air quality—and that’s a good thing.
But more important than the top-down approach to Healthy Buildings is
what’s coming next—the rise of the informed shopper, whom we
introduced in Chapter 11. The ubiquity of data and a barrierless approach to
sharing personal information are creating bottom-up pressures for Healthy
Buildings. Not only are we seeing buildings install sensors, but we are
seeing workers bring their own sensors with them. Smaller, cheaper, better,
and more connected. This is changing how the big commercial real estate
players are thinking about their business. Bryan Koop, executive vice
president for the Boston region of Boston Properties, a listed real estate
trust with $2.5 billion in annual revenue, gave us this example. He has seen
workers in some of the buildings his company manages bring in
inexpensive real-time air-quality sensors and then bring that data to
management. Not only did they bring the data to management, but they also
brought the data to all of their coworkers in the same department. Real-time
building environmental data is now being shared at the proverbial water
cooler. The ensuing concern essentially shut down work in that department
for over a week while the issue was addressed.
Koop sees this as all part of the shift from caveat emptor (“buyer
beware”) to caveat venditor (“seller beware”) that’s happening in every
industry. Car buyers walk into a showroom these days and know more
about the market price than the sellers do. Long gone are the days when the
salesperson plays a game and walks to the back room to talk with the
manager to “see if I can get you a better deal.” Nowadays, while that
salesperson leaves to talk with the manager in the back, the shopper is on
his or her phone comparing car prices from every showroom in a 50-mile
radius. By the time the salesperson comes back, the buyer knows more than
the seller. Progressive Insurance jumped in front of this trend years ago with
a set of advertisements telling customers that Progressive was posting all of
its competitor’s prices on its own web page; it knew customers were
searching for the best deal across several websites anyway, bouncing
around from site to site comparing prices, so they simplified the process for
shoppers and put its prices next to their competitors on their own website.
 This is coming to the real estate sector, and forward-thinking executives
are preparing. Like Progressive, Koop at Boston Properties has a plan for
how to leverage this shift in mind-set and put Boston Properties out in front.
His strategy is to talk about air quality and other Healthy Buildings factors
first, so that when a potential customer goes to another building and that
building owner doesn’t talk about air quality, Koop will win. “Who
wouldn’t want to be in a healthier building, and who wouldn’t be willing to
pay for it?” he asks.
The final piece of the bottom-up pressure is coming from the
crowdsourced approach to evaluating companies and products popularized
by websites like Yelp and Trip Advisor. With a few clicks a potential
customer will know more about your restaurant or resort than you do by
reviewing inside accounts about the service, experience, and impressions—
complete with pictures. The days when a company controlled its brand with
grandiose prose on its website next to Photoshopped images of its property
or restaurant are over.
This approach has now reached commercial real estate with websites like
Glassdoor. The vast majority of comments today on Glassdoor are about
concerns like salaries, titles, and management styles. But we pulled a few
examples of cases in which employees were starting to talk about their
buildings and shared these with you in Chapter 11. This, we hope, is eye
opening to our readers. As a forensic investigator, Joe has been called to the
scene for investigations of cancer clusters and disease outbreaks in
buildings, but in prior years these have largely remained under the radar,
staying out of the news and the public realm. What happens when
employees in a building where an alleged cancer cluster exists start posting
on a site like Glassdoor? When the next talented recruit does her research
on your business and sees that negative buzz, do you think she’ll accept
your job offer? When the owner goes to sell the building, will a potential
buyer and investor see these issues and walk away, or will they demand a
discounted price? In addition to potential health risks of a poorly
performing building, there are very real brand risks. Healthy Buildings will
become a risk-management tool for companies, helping them to protect
their employees, brand, reputation, and investment.
Top firms are acting on these principles. When we spoke with Maureen
Ehrenberg, global head of facilities management at WeWork, she said that
most employers today seek to have a happy, healthy, and engaged
workforce and want to attract and retain top talent. She also agreed with the
central concept we present throughout this book—that the building is key to
making this happen. When she talks about a “smart” workplace, the goal is
to leverage technology for the purpose of enabling better operations of a
space from a comfort, ease, and access perspective that drives employee
productivity.
It doesn’t stop there. For Ehrenberg, it’s also about “a commitment to the
environment, health, and well-being, and an emphasis on helping people to
‘do what they love’ … founded upon the principles of a better tomorrow.”3
In essence, she is saying indoor air quality is good business, yes, but
creating healthy work environments is also a commitment to a better future
for all. Human performance meets business performance meets social
performance meets market performance.

So What Should I Do?

This book is aimed at the commercial real estate market in leading cities.
But the lessons extend to other building decision makers, whether for a
house purchase or a courthouse or a hospital or an airport, from New York
to Singapore to Lagos. Individuals, vendors, lenders, and owners make
choices. Here are a few of the key action steps:
Ventilation is cheap and it matters. Run the fans, get fresh air, and
filter it.
There are 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building. Start with the basics
and move up the menu.
Measure healthy environments objectively and follow that with slight
increments in capital spending that will bring large increments in the
verifiable health of workers. Your most important key performance
indicators (KPIs) are your health performance indicators (HPIs).
The “Beyond the 4 Walls” impacts are important. Healthy Buildings
will play a central role in the ESG conversation moving forward.
Plan for a world where buyers and tenants know all about the
performance of individual rooms and what to do with the information.
Real-time sensors, aggregated data, benchmarking, social media
 connections, and predictive analytics will have force in the market as
more and more people and firms “interview the building.”
Make sure that health and human performance are factored into the
cost benefit analysis and decisions around your building. Otherwise,
performance and productivity will be “value engineered” right out of
your building, taking top talent and profits with it.

The Closing Handshake

With the analysis presented in this book, we think we’ve given evidence
that overturns many of the arguments used as traditional barriers to
adopting Healthy Building strategies—concerns about single winners, split
incentives, first costs, certification costs, energy costs, and scientific
evidence on health and performance. We’ve given you strong arguments to
break these barriers down. Doing so will require, as many things do, smart
leadership; leaders who can realize that the benefits far outweigh the costs.
So much so that the decisions you make today about your buildings could
very well determine whether you and your company are successful.
Just a few years ago, John wrote a Harvard Business School case study
called “Design Creates Fortune: 2000 Tower Oaks Boulevard” that explored
the economic benefits of better indoor environments and better employee
health and performance through Vedic design.4 The financial benefits were
easy to model in a spreadsheet but hard to prove at that time. What wasn’t
clear, until now, is how the building performance and those benefits could
be objectively quantified using health science.
Just a few years ago, Joe and his team conducted the COGFx Study,
which explored the health benefits of better indoor environments and
included some initial analysis of the economic benefits of this approach.
The health benefits were clear, but what wasn’t clear, until now, is how the
financial performance of Healthy Building strategies could be objectively
quantified using business science.
This is why we sought each other out to collaborate on this book. We
were both tired of the hand-waving in our respective fields. For Joe, it was
hand-waving around the financial performance of Healthy Buildings. For
John, it was hand-waving around health performance in buildings. With this
book we’ve turned the hand-waving into a handshake between the business
and health worlds. We are happy to take your hands as well and walk
together, using these new tools and techniques, into a future of healthier
buildings and healthier people, more effective workers and stronger bottom
lines, and more resilient cities and communities.
  

Notes

1. WHO ARE WE AND WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

1. L. Iyer, J. D. Macomber, and N. Arora, “Dharavi: Developing Asia’s Largest Slum (A),”
Harvard Business School Case 710-004, July 2009, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?
num=37599.
2. The Twenty-Second Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
3. S. Ro, “Here’s What the $294 Trillion Market of Global Financial Assets Looks Like,”
Business Insider, February 11, 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/global-financial-assets-2015-
2; US Department of the Treasury, “Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates,” Resource Center, accessed
October 2, 2019, https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages
/TextView.aspx?data=yield.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Legionella (Legionnaires’ Disease and Pontiac
Fever),” November 26, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/about/history.html.
5. A. Mavridou et al., “Prevalence Study of Legionella spp Contamination in Greek Hospitals,”
International Journal of Environmental Health Research 18 (2008): 295–304; J. E. Stout et al., “Role
of Environmental Surveillance in Determining the Risk of Hospital-Acquired Legionellosis: A
National Surveillance Study with Clinical Correlations,” Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology 28 (2007): 818–824; J. L. Kool et al., “Hospital Characteristics Associated with
Colonization of Water Systems by Legionella and Risk of Nosocomial Legionnaires’ Disease: A
Cohort Study of 15 hospitals,” Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 20, no. 12 (1999): 798–
805.
6. World Health Organization, “Legionellosis,” February 16, 2018, http://www.who.int/news-
room/fact-sheets/detail/legionellosis.
7. World Health Organization, Health Effects of Particulate Matter (Copenhagen, 2013), http://
www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulate-matter-final-Eng
.pdf.
8. Q. Di et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population,” New England Journal of
Medicine 376, no. 26 (2017): 2513–2522.
9. I. Kloog et al., “Acute and Chronic Effects of Particles on Hospital Admissions in New-
England,” PLoS One 7, no. 4 (2012): e34664.
10. V. Strauss, “Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Stumbles during Pointed ‘60 Minutes’
Interview,” Washington Post, March 12, 2018.
11. Schools for Health: Foundations for Student Success (Boston: Healthy Buildings Program,
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 2018), https://schools.forhealth.org.
 12. David A. Coley, Rupert Greeves, and Brian K. Saxby, “The Effect of Low Ventilation Rates on
the Cognitive Function of a Primary School Class,” International Journal of Ventilation 6, no. 2
(2007): 107–112.
13. Oluyemi Toyinbo et al., “Modeling Associations between Principals’ Reported Indoor
Environmental Quality and Students’ Self-Reported Respiratory Health Outcomes Using GLMM and
ZIP Models,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, no. 4 (2016):
385.
14. Ulla Haverinen-Shaughnessy and Richard J. Shaughnessy, “Effects of Classroom Ventilation
Rate and Temperature on Students’ Test Scores,” PloS One 10, no. 8 (2015): e0136165.
15. Jisung Park, “Hot Temperature and High Stakes Exams: Evidence from New York City Public
Schools” (working paper, Harvard University, 2018), https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jisungpark/files
/paper_nyc_aejep.pdf.
16. Michael S. Mott et al., “Illuminating the Effects of Dynamic Lighting on Student Learning,”
SAGE Open 2, no. 2 (2012).
17. William J. Sheehan et al., “Association between Allergen Exposure in Inner-City Schools and
Asthma Morbidity among Students,” Journal of American Medical Association Pediatrics 171, no. 1
(2017): 31–38.

2. THE GLOBAL MEGA-CHANGES SHAPING OUR WORLD, OUR BUILDINGS, AND US

1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World
Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, ST / ESA / SER.A / 423 (New York: United Nations, 2019).
2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “2018 Revision of World
Urbanization Prospects,” May 16, 2018, https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-
revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
3. McKinsey Global Institute, India’s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining
Economic Growth, April 2010.
4. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962).
5. E. O. Wilson, Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (New York: Liveright, 2016).
6. Joseph G. Allen et al., Building for Health: The Nexus of Green Buildings, Global Health, and
the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (Boston: Healthy Buildings Program, Harvard T. H. Chan
School of Public Health, October 2017).
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2015 Fact
Sheet (Washington, DC, July 2018), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents
/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf.
8. World Bank, “Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption (% of Total),” 2015, https://data.worldbank.org
/indicator/ EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS.
9. John Holdren, speech at Harvard University Center for the Environment, March 21, 2017.
10. World Health Organization, “Constitution of WHO: Principles,” accessed December 2018,
https://www.who.int/about/mission/en/.
11. Aaron Antonovsky, “The Salutogenic Model as a Theory to Guide Health Promotion,” Health
Promotion International 11, no. 1 (1996): 11–18.
12. I. Papnicolas, L. R. Woskie, and A. K. Jha, “Health Care Spending in the United States and
Other High-Income Countries,” Journal of the American Medical Association 319, no. 10 (2018):
1024–1039.
13. National Business Group on Health, “Large U.S. Employers Project Health Care Benefit Costs
to Surpass $14,000 per Employee in 2018, National Business Group on Health Survey Finds,” press
release, August 8, 2017, https://www.businessgrouphealth.org/news/nbgh-news/press-releases/press-
release-details/?ID=334; A. W. Mathews, “Employer-Provided Health Insurance Approaches
$20,000 a Year,” Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2018.
14. John A. Quelch and Emily C. Boudreau, Building a Culture of Health: A New Imperative for
Business (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2016).
15. Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg, How Google Works (New York: Grand Central, 2014).
16. Google, “Smelling the Carpet: Making Buildings Healthier, Along with the People in Them,”
accessed May 18, 2019, https://sustainability.google/projects/smelling-the-carpet/.
17. Correspondence with Kate Brandt, June 20, 2019.
18. H. Jung, “Modeling CO2 Concentrations in Vehicle Cabin” (SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-
1497, 2013), https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-1497.
19. Merriam-Webster, s.v. “sick building syndrome,” accessed October 3, 2019, https://www
.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sick%20building%20syndrome.
20. Correspondence with Greg O’Brien, June 19, 2019.
21. Gianpiero Petriglieri, Susan J. Ashford, and Amy Wrzesniewski, “Thriving in the Gig
Economy,” Harvard Business Review, April 11, 2018, https://hbr.org/2018/03/thriving-in-the-gig-
economy.
22. J. Manyika et al., “Independent Work: Choice, Necessity, and the Gig Economy,” McKinsey
and Company, October 2016, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-
growth/independent-work-choice-necessity-and-the-gig-economy.
23. US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Protecting Temporary Workers,”
accessed August 25, 2019, https://www.osha.gov/temp_workers/.
24. Ethan S. Bernstein and Stephen Turban, “The Impact of the ‘Open’ Workspace on Human
Collaboration,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373, no. 1753 (2018), https://
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239.
25. Correspondence with Greg O’Brien, June 19, 2019.
26. John D. Macomber and Griffin James, “Design Creates Fortune: 2000 Tower Oaks
Boulevard,” Harvard Business School Case 210-070, March 2010, 9.
27. Correspondence with Rebecca Boll, November 11, 2019.
28. R. G. Eccles and S. Klimenko, “The Investor Revolution,” Harvard Business Review, May–
June 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/05/the-investor-revolution.
29. Larry Fink, “2018 Letter to CEOs: A Sense of Purpose,” BlackRock, accessed October 3,
2019, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2018-larry-fink-ceo-letter.
30. David Gelles and David Yaffe-Bellany, “Shareholder Value Is No Longer Everything, Top
C.E.O.s Say,” New York Times, August 18, 2019.
31. Marc Benioff, “We Need a New Capitalism,” New York Times, October 14, 2019.

3. WHY ARE WE IGNORING THE 90 PERCENT?

1. N. E. Klepeis et al., “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for
Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental
Epidemiology 11, no. 3 (2001): 231.
2. Velux, “The Disturbing Facts about the Indoor Generation,” accessed October 3, 2019, https://
www.veluxusa.com/indoorgeneration.
3. Tweet from Richard Corsi, @CorsIAQ, January 24, 2014.
4. Environmental Protection Agency, “NAAQS Table,” accessed October 3, 2019, https://www
.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
 5. Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection and General Administration of Quality
Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Ambient Air Quality
Standards, GB 3095-2012 (Beijing, 2012). Priemus and E. Schutte-Postma, “Notes on the Particulate
Matter Standards in the European Union and the Netherlands,” International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 6, no. 3 (2009): 1155–1173; Japanese Ministry of the
Environment, “Environmental Quality Standards in Japan—Air Quality,” accessed August 26, 2019,
https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/aq/aq.html.
6. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Permissible Exposure Limits—Annotated
Tables,” accessed October 3, 2019, https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html.
7. Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, “A Surprising Way to Cut Real Estate Costs,” September 25,
2016, http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/services/corporates/consulting/reduce-real-estate-
costs.
8. Building Owners and Managers Association International, “BOMA International’s Office and
Industrial Benchmarking Report Released,” September 18, 2018, https://www.boma.org/BOMA
/Research-Resources/3-BOMA-Spaces/Newsroom/PR91818.aspx.
9. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Employment Statistics: May 2018 State
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates—Massachusetts,” last modified April 9, 2019,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ma.htm.
10. R. W. Allen et al., “Modeling the Residential Infiltration of Outdoor PM2. 5 in the Multi-
ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (MESA Air),” Environmental Health Perspectives
120, no. 6 (2012): 824–830.
11. C. Chen and B. Zhao, “Review of Relationship between Indoor and Outdoor Particles: I / O
Ratio, Infiltration Factor and Penetration Factor,” Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011): 275–288.
12. Environmental Protection Agency, “Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 edition,” EPA / 600 / R-
09/052F, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/efp/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
13. Lance A. Wallace, Project Summary: The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM)
Study, EPA / 600 / S6-87/002 (Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, September
1987).
14. Rachel Weiner, “Lumber Liquidators to Pay $33 Million for Misleading Investors about
Formaldehyde in Laminate Flooring,” Washington Post, March 12, 2019.
15. R. E. Dodson et al., “Impact of Attached Garages on Indoor Residential BTEX
Concentrations,” in HB 2006: Healthy Buildings: Creating a Healthy Indoor Environment for
People, Proceedings, vol. 1, Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), Building Related Diseases and Human
Response, ed. E. de Oliveira Fernandes, M. Gameiro da Silva, and J. Rosado Pinto (Porto, Portugal:
Universidade do Porto, 2006), 217.
16. US Environmental Protection Agency, “Idle-Free Schools Toolkit for a Healthy School
Environment,” accessed August 25, 2019, https://www.epa.gov/schools/idle-free-schools-toolkit-
healthy-school-environment; P. H. Ryan et al., “The Impact of an Anti-idling Campaign on Outdoor
Air Quality at Four Urban Schools,” Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts 15, no. 11
(2013): 2030–2037.
17. N. Twilley, “Home Smog,” The New Yorker, April 8, 2019.
18. A. W. Nørgaard et al., “Ozone-Initiated VOC and Particle Emissions from a Cleaning Agent
and an Air Freshener: Risk Assessment of Acute Airway Effects,” Environment International 68
(2014): 209–218.
19. D. K. Farmer et al., “Overview of HOMEChem: House Observations of Microbial and
Environmental Chemistry,” Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts 21, no. 8 (2019): 1280–
1300.
 20. C. J. Weschler et al., “Transdermal Uptake of Diethyl Phthalate and Di(n-butyl) Phthalate
Directly from Air: Experimental Verification,” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 10
(2015): 928–934; G. Bekö et al., “Dermal Uptake of Nicotine from Air and Clothing: Experimental
Verification,” Indoor Air 28, no. 2 (2018): 247–257; G. C. Morrison et al., “Role of Clothing in Both
Accelerating and Impeding Dermal Absorption of Airborne SVOCs,” Journal of Exposure Science
and Environmental Epidemiology 26, no. 1 (2016): 113.
21. Environmental Protection Agency, “Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition,” EPA / 600 /
R-09/052F, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/efp/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
22. D. L. Bohac et al., “Secondhand Smoke Transfer and Reductions by Air Sealing and
Ventilation in Multiunit Buildings: PFT and Nicotine Verification,” Indoor Air 21, no. 1 (2011): 36–
44.
23. K. Murphy, “What’s Lurking in Your Countertop?,” New York Times, July 24, 2008.
24. J. Allen et al., “Assessing Exposure to Granite Countertops,” Journal of Exposure Science and
Environmental Epidemiology 20 (2010): 263–280; J. Allen et al., “Predicted Indoor Radon
Concentrations from a Monte Carlo Simulation of 1,000,000 Granite Countertop Purchases,” Journal
of Radiological Protection 33 (2013): 151–162.
25. John Mandyck and Joseph Allen, “The Nexus of Green Buildings, Global Health, and the
U.N. Sustainable Development Goals,” at the Distinguished Sustainability Lecture Series, Jaipur,
India, October 4, 2017.

4. PUTTING THE BUILDING TO WORK FOR YOU

1. B. Franklin and W. T. Franklin, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin
(London: Colburn, 1809), 3.
2. J. Allen et al., “Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation,
and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of
Green and Conventional Office Environments,” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 6
(2016): 805–812.
3. J. Allen, “Research: Stale Office Air Is Making You Less Productive,” Harvard Business
Review, March 21, 2017, https://hbr.org/2017/03/research-stale-office-air-is-making-you-less-
productive.
4. J. F. Brundage et al., “Building-Associated Risk of Febrile Acute Respiratory Diseases in Army
Trainees,” Journal of American Medical Association 259, no. 14 (1988): 2108–2112; P. J. Drinka et
al., “Report of an Outbreak: Nursing Home Architecture and Influenza-A Attack Rates,” Journal of
the American Geriatrics Society 44, no. 8 (1996): 910–913; C. W. Hoge et al., “An Epidemic of
Pneumococcal Disease in an Overcrowded, Inadequately Ventilated Jail,” New England Journal of
Medicine 331, no. 10 (1994): 643–648; L. D. Knibbs et al., “Room Ventilation and the Risk of
Airborne Infection Transmission in 3 Health Care Settings within a Large Teaching Hospital,”
American Journal of Infection Control 39, no. 10 (2011): 866–872; D. K. Milton, P. M. Glencross,
and M. D. Walters, “Risk of Sick Leave Associated with Outdoor Air Supply Rate, Humidification,
and Occupant Complaints,” Indoor Air 10, no. 4 (2000): 212–221; O. A. Seppanen and W. J. Fisk,
“Summary of Human Responses to Ventilation,” Indoor Air 14, suppl. 7 (2004): 102–118; P.
Wargocki and D. P. Wyon, “The Effects of Moderately Raised Classroom Temperatures and
Classroom Ventilation Rate on the Performance of Schoolwork by Children (RP-1257),” HVAC&R
Research 13, no. 2 (2007): 193–220.
5. ASHRAE, “The Standards for Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality,” accessed October 4, 2019,
https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standards-62-1-62-2.
 6. S. E. Womble et al., “Developing Baseline Information on Buildings and Indoor Air Quality
(BASE ’94): Part I—Study Design, Building Selection, and Building Descriptions” (presentation,
Healthy Buildings ’95, September 11–14, 1995), https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/237729515_Developing_Baseline_Information_on_Buildings_and_Indoor_Air_Quality_BASE_’94
_Part_I_Study_Design_Building_Selection_and_Building_Descriptions.
7. W. J. Fisk, “The Ventilation Problem in Schools: Literature Review,” Indoor Air 27, no. 6
(2017): 1039–1051.
8. M. J. Mendell et al., “Association of Classroom Ventilation with Reduced Illness Absence: A
Prospective Study in California Elementary Schools,” Indoor Air 23, no. 6 (2013): 515–528.
9. R. L. Corsi et al., “Carbon Dioxide Levels and Dynamics in Elementary Schools: Results of the
TESIAS Study,” Proceedings of Indoor Air 2 (2002): 74–79.
10. X. Cao et al., “The On-Board Carbon Dioxide Concentrations and Ventilation Performance in
Passenger Cabins of US Domestic Flights,” Indoor and Built Environment 28, no. 6 (2018).
11. J. G. Allen et al., “Airplane Pilot Flight Performance on 21 Maneuvers in a Flight Simulator
under Varying Carbon Dioxide Concentrations,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental
Epidemiology 29, no. 4 (2019): 457–468.
12. D. K. Milton et al., “A Study of Indoor Carbon Dioxide Levels and Sick Leave among Office
Workers,” Environmental Health 1 (2002): article 3.
13. P. Wargocki et al., “The Effects of Outdoor Air Supply Rate in an Office on Perceived Air
Quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) Symptoms and Productivity,” Indoor Air 10, no. 4 (2000):
222–236; B. W. Olesen, “Indoor Environment Health-Comfort and Productivity,” 2005, http://
perfectproblems.com/testashrae/Olesen-Health-comfort-productivity.pdf; W. J. Fisk, “Health and
Productivity Gains from Better Indoor Environments and Their Relationship with Building Energy
Efficiency,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25 (2000): 537–566.
14. P. MacNaughton et al., “Economic, Environmental and Health Implications of Enhanced
Ventilation in Office Buildings,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
12, no. 11 (2015): 14709–14722.

5. CREATING AND CAPTURING VALUE

1. Market Research Hub, “Global Construction Outlook 2021,” April 30, 2017, https://www
.marketresearchhub.com/report/global-construction-outlook-2021-report.html.
2. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Average Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States,”
August 23, 2018, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS.
3. “Median Age of Maturing U.S. Housing Stock is 37,” Realtor Magazine, August 13, 2018,
https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2018/08/13/median-age-of-maturing-us-housing-stock-is-37; N.
Zhao, “Half of US Homes Built before 1980,” Eye on Housing, National Association of Home
Builders, August 1, 2018, http://eyeonhousing.org/2018/08/half-of-us-homes-built-before-1980/.
4. L. Zullo, “Tenant Energy Performance Optimization Case Study: Li & Fung USA, Empire State
Building,” NRDC, April 19, 2013, https://www.nrdc.org/resources/tenant-energy-performance-
optimization-case-study-li-fung-usa-empire-state-building.
5. Harvard University, “Green Revolving Fund,” accessed October 4, 2019, https://green.harvard
.edu/programs/green-revolving-fund.
6. P. MacNaughton et al., “Economic, Environmental and Health Implications of Enhanced
Ventilation in Office Buildings,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
12, no. 11 (2015): 14709–14722.
 7. M. Hamilton et al., “Perceptions in the U.S. Building Industry of the Benefits and Costs of
Improving Indoor Air Quality,” Indoor Air 26, no. 2 (2016): 318–330.

6. THE 9 FOUNDATIONS OF A HEALTHY BUILDING

1. Piers MacNaughton et al., “The Impact of Working in a Green Certified Building on Cognitive
Function and Health,” Building and Environment 114 (2017): 178–186.
2. P. MacNaughton et al., “Economic, Environmental and Health Implications of Enhanced
Ventilation in Office Buildings,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
12, no. 11 (2015): 14709–14722.
3. B. Stephens, T. Brennan, and L. Harriman, “Selecting Ventilation Air Filters to Reduce PM2.5
of Outdoor Origin,” ASHRAE Journal, September 2016, 12–20.
4. J. G. Laurent et al., “Reduced Cognitive Function during a Heat Wave among Residents of
Non-air-conditioned Buildings: An Observational Study of Young Adults in the Summer of 2016,”
PLOS Medicine 15, no. 7 (2018): e1002605.
5. O. Seppänen, W. J. Fisk, and Q. H. Lei, “Effect of Temperature on Task Performance in Office
Environment” (paper, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, July 2006),
http://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-60946.pdf.
6. Tyler Hoyt et al., “CBE Thermal Comfort Tool,” Center for the Built Environment, University
of California, Berkeley, 2017, http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/.
7. B. Kingma and W. van Marken Lichtenbelt, “Energy Consumption in Buildings and Female
Thermal Demand,” Nature Climate Change 5, no. 12 (2015): 1054.
8. A. Lydgate, “Is Your Thermostat Sexist?,” New Yorker, August 3, 2015.
9. S. Karjalainen, “Thermal Comfort and Gender: A Literature Review,” Indoor Air 22, no. 2
(2012): 96–109.
10. Y. Zhai et al., “Human Comfort and Perceived Air Quality in Warm and Humid Environments
with Ceiling Fans,” Building and Environment 90 (2015): 178–185.
11. Joseph Allen and Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent, “Want Air Conditioning and a Healthier
Planet? Here’s One Step We Can Take Today,” The Hill, July 30, 2018, https://thehill.com/blogs
/congress-blog/energy-environment/399549-want-air-conditioning-and-a-healthier-planet-heres-one.
12. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Thermal Stress and Deaths during Heat Waves,”
accessed May 13, 2019, https://iaqscience.lbl.gov/cc-thermal.
13. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,” March 22,
2018, https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations.
14. ASHRAE, Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems, ANSI / ASHRAE
Standard 188-2018, 2018, https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/ansi-ashrae-standard
-188-2018-legionellosis-risk-management-for-building-water-systems.
15. D. L. Ryan, “High Lead Levels Found at Hundreds of Massachusetts Schools,” Boston Globe,
May 2, 2017.
16. Environmental Protection Agency, Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water Systems, March 2016, https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/documents/occtmarch2016updated.pdf.
17. J. Allen et al., The 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building (Boston: Harvard T. H. Chan School
of Public Health, 2017), 21, https://forhealth.org/9_Foundations_of_a_Healthy_Building.February
_2017.pdf.
 18. D. Licina et al., “Clothing-Mediated Exposure to Chemicals and Particles,” Environmental
Science and Technology 53, no. 10 (2019): 5559–5575.
19. Environmental Protection Agency, “Update for Chapter 5 of the Exposure Factors Handbook:
Soil and Dust Ingestion,” September 2017, http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p
_download_id=532518.
20. P. J. Lioy, Dust: The Inside Story of Its Role in the September 11th Aftermath, foreword by T.
H. Kean (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011).
21. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “OSHA Factsheet: Laboratory Safety Noise,”
accessed October 7, 2019, https://www.osha.gov/Publications/laboratory/OSHAfactsheet-laboratory-
safety-noise.pdf; “Chapter 39: Noise Hazard Assessment and Control,” accessed October 7, 2019,
http://www2.lbl.gov/ehs/pub3000/CH39.html.
22. D. Owen, “Is Noise Pollution the Next Public Health Crisis?,” New Yorker, May 6, 2019.
23. S. Pujol et al., “Association between Ambient Noise Exposure and School Performance of
Children Living in An Urban Area: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study,” Journal of Urban
Health 91, no. 2 (2013): 256–271.
24. A. W. Correia et al., “Residential Exposure to Aircraft Noise and Hospital Admissions for
Cardiovascular Diseases: Multi-airport Retrospective Study,” British Medical Journal 347 (2013):
f5561.
25. S. Ganesan et al., “The Impact of Shift Work on Sleep, Alertness and Performance in
Healthcare Workers,” Scientific Reports 9, no. 1 (2019): 4635; S. M. James et al., “Shift Work:
Disrupted Circadian Rhythms and Sleep—Implications for Health and Well-Being,” Current Sleep
Medicine Reports 3, no. 2 (2017): 104–112.
26. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, Painting,
Firefighting, and Shiftwork, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans
98 (Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer Press, 2010).
27. O. Keis et al., “Influence of Blue-Enriched Classroom Lighting on Students’ Cognitive
Performance,” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 3, nos. 3–4 (2014): 86–92; B. M. T. Shamsul et
al., “Effects of Light’s Colour Temperatures on Visual Comfort Level, Task Performances, and
Alertness among Students,” American Journal of Public Health Research 1, no. 7 (2013): 159–165.
28. L. M. James, “Blue-Enriched White Light in the Workplace Improves Self-Reported
Alertness, Performance and Sleep Quality,” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
34, no. 4 (2008): 297.
29. E. O. Wilson, Biophilia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984).
30. R. Ulrich, “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery,” Science 224, no.
4647 (1984): 420–421.
31. J. Yin et al., “Physiological and Cognitive Performance of Exposure to Biophilic Indoor
Environment,” Building and Environment 132 (2018): 255–262.
32. J. Yin et al., “Effects of Biophilic Interventions in Office on Stress Reaction and Cognitive
Function: A Randomized Crossover Study in Virtual Reality,” Indoor Air, published ahead of print,
August 16, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12593.
33. J. Yin et al., “Restorative Effects of Biophilic Indoor Environment: A Between-Subjects
Experiment in Virtual Reality,” Environment International (2020).
34. J. Allen et al., 9 Foundations, 23
35. Juliette Kayyem, conversation with authors, May 2019.
36. B. J. Allen and R. Loyear, Enterprise Security Risk Management: Concepts and Applications
(Brooksfield, CT: Rothstein, 2017).
37. W. J. Fisk, D. Black, and G. Brunner, “Benefits and Costs of Improved IEQ in US Offices,”
Indoor Air 21, no. 5 (2011): 357–367.
7. OUR GLOBAL CHEMICAL EXPERIMENT

1. R. Ruiz, “Industrial Chemicals Lurking in Your Bloodstream,” Forbes, July 11, 2012, https://
www.forbes.com/2010/01/21/toxic-chemicals-bpa-lifestyle-health-endocrine-disruptors
.html#7679e596bb91.
2. R. Harrington, “The EPA Has Only Banned These 9 Chemicals—Out of Thousands,” Business
Insider, February 10, 2016, https://www.businessinsider.com/epa-only-restricts-9-chemicals-2016-2.
3. ABC News, “Schwarzenegger Has No Regrets about Steroid Use,” February 25, 2005, https://
abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Health/story?id=532456&page=1.
4. C. Potera, “Reproductive Toxicology: Study Associates PFOS and PFOA with Impaired
Fertility,” Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 4 (2009): A148; C. C. Carignan et al.,
“Urinary Concentrations of Organophosphate Flame Retardant Metabolites and Pregnancy Outcomes
among Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization,” Environmental Health Perspectives 125, no 8.
(2017): 087018.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act,” September
19, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act.
6. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962).
7. L. N. Vandenberg et al., “Low Dose Effects of Bisphenol A: An Integrated Review of In Vitro,
Laboratory Animal, and Epidemiology Studies,” Endocrine Disruptors 1, no. 1 (2013): e26490.
8. J. R. Rochester and A. L. Bolden, “Bisphenol S and F: A Systematic Review and Comparison
of the Hormonal Activity of Bisphenol A Substitutes,” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 7
(2015): 648.
9. J. Allen, “Stop Playing Whack-a-Mole with Hazardous Chemicals,” Washington Post,
December 15, 2016.
10. Silent Spring Institute, “The Detox Me Action Kit by Silent Spring Institute,” accessed
October 7, 2019, https://silentspring.org/detoxmeactionkit/.
11. N. Kristof, “What Poisons Are in Your Body?,” New York Times, February 23, 2018.
12. A. M. Calafat et al., “Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in the U.S. Population: Data from the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2004 and Comparisons with
NHANES 1999–2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 11 (2007): 1596–1602.
13. J. Allen, “These Toxic Chemicals Are Everywhere—Even in Your Body. And They Won’t
Ever Go Away,” Washington Post, January 2, 2018.
14. V. Barry, A. Winquist, and K. Steenland, “Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Exposures and
Incident Cancers among Adults Living Near a Chemical Plant,” Environmental health Perspectives
121, nos. 11–12 (2013): 1313–1318.
15. C8 Science Panel, “The Science Panel Website,” accessed August 16, 2019, http://www
.c8sciencepanel.org/.
16. P. Grandjean et al., “Serum Vaccine Antibody Concentrations in Children Exposed to
Perfluorinated Compounds,” Journal of the American Medical Association 307, no. 4 (2012): 391–
397.
17. G. Liu et al., “Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Changes in Body Weight and Resting Metabolic
Rate in Response to Weight-Loss Diets: A Prospective Study,” PLoS Medicine 15, no. 2 (2018):
e1002502.
18. Science Daily, “Unsafe Levels of Toxic Chemicals Found in Drinking Water for Six Million
Americans,” August 10, 2016, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160809121418.htm.
19. C. Lyons, Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof, and Lethal: The Hidden Dangers of C8
(Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007).
 20. S. DeVane, “State Investigates Rising GenX Levels at Chemours Plant,” Fayetteville
Observer, January 18, 2019.
21. A. Blum et al., “Children Absorb Tris-BP Flame Retardant from Sleepwear: Urine Contains
the Mutagenic Metabolite, 2, 3-Dibromopropanol,” Science 201, no. 4360 (1978): 1020–1023.
22. Michigan Department of Public Health, “PBBs in Michigan—Frequently Asked Questions,
2011 Update,” https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch_PBB_FAQ_92051_7.pdf.
23. Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Michigan PBB Registry, “Research,” accessed August
24, 2019, http://pbbregistry.emory.edu/Research/index.html.
24. F. J. Di Carlo, J. Seifter, and V. J. DeCarlo, “Assessment of the Hazards of Polybrominated
Biphenyls,” Environmental Health Perspectives 23 (1978): 351.
25. K. Norén and D. Meironyté, “Certain Organochlorine and Organobromine Contaminants in
Swedish Human Milk in Perspective of Past 20–30 Years,” Chemosphere 40, nos. 9–11 (2000):
1111–1123.
26. Tom Webster, presentation at Boston University School of Public Health, 2006.
27. J. G. Allen et al., “Critical Factors in Assessing Exposure to PBDEs via House Dust:
Environment International 34, no. 8 (2008): 1085–1091; J. G. Allen et al., “Exposure to Flame
Retardant Chemicals on Commercial Airplanes,” Environmental Health 12, no. 1 (2013): 17; S.
Harrad and S. Hunter, “Concentrations of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Air and Soil on a
Rural–Urban Transect across a Major UK Conurbation,” Environmental Science and Technology 40,
no. 15 (2006): 4548–4553; R. J. Letcher et al., “Bioaccumulation and Biotransformation of
Brominated and Chlorinated Contaminants and Their Metabolites in Ringed Seals (Pusa hispida) and
Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) from East Greenland,” Environment International 35, no. 8 (2009):
1118–1124; M. A. McKinney et al., “Flame Retardants and Legacy Contaminants in Polar Bears
from Alaska, Canada, East Greenland and Svalbard, 2005–2008,” Environment International 37, no.
2 (2011): 365–374; S. Hermanussen et al., “Flame Retardants (PBDEs) in Marine Turtles, Dugongs
and Seafood from Queensland, Australia,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 57, nos. 6–12 (2008): 409–418.
28. T. J. Woodruff, A. R. Zota, and J. M. Schwartz, “Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant
Women in the United States: NHANES 2003–2004,” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 6
(2011): 878–885; K. Inoue et al., “Levels and Concentration Ratios of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Serum and Breast Milk in Japanese Mothers,” Environmental
Health Perspectives 114, no. 8 (2006): 1179–1185; S. Harrad and L. Porter, “Concentrations of
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Blood Serum from New Zealand,” Chemosphere 66, no. 10
(2007): 2019–2023; L. Zhu, B. Ma, and R. A. Hites, “Brominated Flame Retardants in Serum from
the General Population in Northern China,” Environmental Science and Technology 43, no. 18
(2009): 6963–6968.
29. H. Viberg, “Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers 203 and 206 during the Neonatal
Brain Growth Spurt Affects Proteins Important for Normal Neurodevelopment in Mice,”
Toxicological Sciences 109, no. 2 (2009): 306–311; L. H. Tseng et al., “Developmental Exposure to
Decabromodiphenyl Ether (PBDE 209): Effects on Thyroid Hormone and Hepatic Enzyme Activity
in Male Mouse Offspring,” Chemosphere 70, no. 4 (2008): 640–647; T. E. Stoker et al., “In Vivo and
In Vitro Anti-androgenic Effects of DE-71, a Commercial Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE)
Mixture,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 207, no. 1 (2005): 78–88; L. H. Tseng et al.,
“Postnatal Exposure of the Male Mouse to 2, 2′, 3, 3′, 4, 4′, 5, 5′, 6, 6′-Decabrominated Diphenyl
Ether: Decreased Epididymal Sperm Functions without Alterations in DNA Content and Histology in
Testis,” Toxicology 224, nos. 1–2 (2006): 33–43.
30. J. B. Herbstman et al., “Prenatal Exposure to PBDEs and Neurodevelopment,” Environmental
Health Perspectives 118, no. 5 (2010): 712–719; J. D. Meeker et al., “Polybrominated Diphenyl
Ether (PBDE) Concentrations in House Dust Are Related to Hormone Levels in Men,” Science of the
Total Environment 407, no. 10 (2009): 3425–3429; K. M. Main et al., “Flame Retardants in Placenta
and Breast Milk and Cryptorchidism in Newborn Boys,” Environmental health Perspectives 115, no.
10 (2007): 1519–1526.
31. J. G. Allen et al., “PBDE Flame Retardants,” 60.
32. T. Hamers et al., “Biotransformation of Brominated Flame Retardants into Potentially
Endocrine-Disrupting Metabolites, with Special Attention to 2,2′,4,4′-Tetrabromodiphenyl Ether
(BDE-47),” Molecular Nutrition and Food Research 52, no. 2 (2008): 284–498.
33. C. M. Butt and H. M. Stapleton, “Inhibition of Thyroid Hormone Sulfotransferase Activity by
Brominated Flame Retardants and Halogenated Phenolics,” Chemical Research in Toxicology 26, no.
11 (2013): 1692–1702.
34. H. M. Stapleton et al., “Identification of Flame Retardants in Polyurethane Foam Collected
from Baby Products,” Environmental Science and Technology 45, no. 12 (2011): 5323–5331.
35. California Environmental Protection Agency, “Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Tris (1,3-
Dichloro-2-Propyl Phosphate),” July 2011, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65
/chemicals/tdcpp070811.pdf.
36. Carignan et al., “Urinary Concentrations,” 087018.
37. P. Callahan and S. Roe, “Playing with Fire,” Chicago Tribune, May 2012, http://media.apps
.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html.
38. J. G. Allen et al., “Linking PBDEs in House Dust to Consumer Products Using X-Ray
Fluorescence,” Environmental Science and Technology 42, no. 11 (2008): 4222–4228.
39. D. Michaels, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your
Health (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of
Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global
Warming (New York: Bloomsbury, 2011).
40. R. Hauser and A. M. Calafat, “Phthalates and Human Health,” Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 62, no. 11 (2005): 806–818.
41. I. Colón et al., “Identification of Phthalate Esters in the Serum of Young Puerto Rican Girls
with Premature Breast Development,” Environmental Health Perspectives 108, no. 9 (2000): 895–
900.
42. C. G. Bornehag et al., “The Association between Asthma and Allergic Symptoms in Children
and Phthalates in House Dust: A Nested Case–Control Study,” Environmental Health Perspectives
112, no. 14 (2004): 1393–1397.
43. A. S. Nair, “DuPont Settles Lawsuits over Leak of Chemical Used to Make Teflon,” Reuters,
February 13, 2017.
44. T. Kary, “3M Settles Minnesota Lawsuit for $850 Million,” Bloomberg, February 20, 2018,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/3m-is-said-to-settle-minnesota-lawsuit-for-up
-to-1-billion.
45. Literature Review of Remediation Methods for PCBs in Buildings (Needham, MA:
Environmental Health and Engineering, 2012).
46. HomeAdvisor, “How Much Does It Cost to Remove Asbestos?,” accessed October 7, 2019,
https://www.homeadvisor.com/cost/environmental-safety/remove-asbestos/; Literature Review of
Remediation Methods.
47. C. Pellacani et al., “Synergistic Interactions between PBDEs and PCBs in Human
Neuroblastoma Cells,” Environmental Toxicology 29, no. 4 (2014): 418–427.
48. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, “Chemicals Known to the State to
Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity,” October 26, 2018, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads
/proposition-65/p65list102618.pdf.
 49. Perkins + Will, “Transparency,” accessed August 26, 2019, https://transparency.perkinswill
.com.

8. HEALTHY BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS

1. U.S. Green Building Council, “LEED v4,” accessed October 8, 2019, https://new.usgbc.org
/leed-v4.
2. GRESB Infrastructure, 2016 Report (Amsterdam: GRESB, 2016), https://gresb.com/wp-content
/uploads/2017/07/2016_Infrastructure_Report.pdf.
3. U.S. Green Building Council, personal communication, November 5, 2019.
4. P. MacNaughton et al., “Energy Savings, Emission Reductions, and Health Co-benefits of the
Green Building Movement,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 28, no. 4
(2018): 307–318.
5. PR Newswire, “Tishman Speyer Launches Global Tenant Health and Wellness Initiative with
Fitwel® Certification of Its Portfolio,” October 23, 2017, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/tishman-speyer-launches-global-tenant-health-and-wellness-initiative-with-fitwel-
certification-of-its-portfolio-300541249.html.
6. Fitwel, “How Does the Fitwel Process Work?,” accessed October 8, 2019, https://fitwel.org
/certification.
7. RESET homepage, accessed October 8, 2019, https://www.reset.build/.
8. WELL, “WELL v2 Pricing,” https://www.wellcertified.com/certification/v2/pricing.
9. Urban Land Institute, Center for Sustainability and Economic Performance, The Business Case
for Healthy Buildings: Insights from Early Adopters (Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2018),
https://americas.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/ULI-Documents/Business-Case-for-Healthy-
Buildings-FINAL.pdf.
10. John Macomber, Emily Jones, and Joseph Allen, “A Tower for the People,” Harvard Business
School, 2020 (in press).
11. Interview of David Levinson, April 24, 2019.
12. Merlin Fulcher, “Foster Scoops Prize New York Tower,” Architects’ Journal, October 3, 2012,
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/foster-scoops-prize-new-york-tower/8636694.article.
13. David Levinson, interview with Joe and John, April 23, 2018.
14. David Levinson, interview with Joe and John, April 3, 2019.
15. J. Carreyrou, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2018).

9. MOVING FROM KPIs TO HPIs

1. F. Barber and R. Strack, “The Surprising Economics of a ‘People Business,’ ” Harvard

Business Review, June 2005, https://hbr.org/2005/06/the-surprising-economics-of-a-people-business.
2. J. Doerr, Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World
with OKRs (New York: Penguin, 2018).
3. Tyler J. VanderWeele and Miguel A. Hernan, “Results on Differential and Dependent
Measurement Error of the Exposure and the Outcome Using Signed Directed Acyclic Graphs,”
American Journal of Epidemiology 175, no. 12 (2012): 1303–1310.
4. J. G. Allen et al., “Green Buildings and Health,” Current Environmental Health Reports 2, no. 3
(2015): 250–258.
 5. J. G. Laurent et al., “Influence of the Residential Environment on Undergraduate Students’
Health,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2019), https://www.nature
.com/articles/s41370-019-0196-4.
6. J. G. Allen et al., “Elevated Corrosion Rates and Hydrogen Sulfide in Homes with ‘Chinese
Drywall,’ ” Science of the Total Environment 426 (2012): 113–119; Environmental Health &
Engineering, Final Report on an Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment of Residences Containing
Chinese Drywall, January 28, 2010, https://www.CPSC.gov.
7. R. Maddalena et al., Small-Chamber Measurements of Chemical-Specific Emission Factors for
Drywall, Report LBNL-3986E (Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, June 2010).
8. R. Maddalena, Effect of Environmental Factors on Sulfur Gas Emissions from Problem
Drywall, Report LBNL-5026E (Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, August 2011).
9. US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Health Consultation—Possible Health Implications from Exposure to Sulfur Gases Emitted
from Chinese-Manufactured Drywall (Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, May
2, 2014).
10. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, “Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for
Reducing Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” 2009, http://cx.lbl.gov/2009-assessment.html.
11. L. M. Weatherly and J. A. Gosse, “Triclosan Exposure, Transformation, and Human Health
Effects,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 20, no. 8 (2017): 447–469.
12. Kaiser Permanente, “Banning Use of Antimicrobial Agents for Infection Control,” December
11, 2015, https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/total-health/health-topics/kaiser-permanente-rejects-
antimicrobials-for-infection-control.
13. J. P. Onnela, “Research Areas: Digital Phenotyping,” Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public
Health, July 26, 2017, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/onnela-lab/research/.

10. BEYOND THE FOUR WALLS

1. Energy Information Administration, “How Much Energy Is Consumed in U.S. Residential and
Commercial Buildings?,” May 3, 2018, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=86&t=1.
2. World Bank, “Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption (% of Total),” accessed October 9, 2019,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS.
3. D. W. Dockery et al., “An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six US Cities,”
New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 4 (1993): 1753–1759.
4. C. Liu et al., “Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities,” New
England Journal of Medicine 381, no. 8 (2019): 705–715.
5. Q. Di et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population,” New England Journal of
Medicine 376, no. 26 (2017): 2513–2522.
6. A. Zanobetti et al., “A National Case-Crossover Analysis of the Short-Term Effect of PM 2.5
on Hospitalizations and Mortality in Subjects with Diabetes and Neurological Disorders,”
Environmental Health 13, no. 1 (2014): 38.
7. R. Khalili et al., “Early-Life Exposure to PM 2.5 and Risk of Acute Asthma Clinical
Encounters among Children in Massachusetts: A Case-Crossover Analysis,” Environmental Health
17, no. 1 (2018): 20.
8. P. MacNaughton et al., “Impact of Particulate Matter Exposure and Surrounding ‘Greenness’ on
Chronic Absenteeism in Massachusetts Public Schools,” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 14, no. 2 (2017): 207.
 9. M. A. Kioumourtzoglou et al., “Long-Term PM2. 5 Exposure and Neurological Hospital
Admissions in the Northeastern United States,” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 1
(2015): 23–29.
10. R. Raz et al., “Autism Spectrum Disorder and Particulate Matter Air Pollution before, during,
and after Pregnancy: A Nested Case–Control Analysis within the Nurses’ Health Study II Cohort,”
Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 3 (2014): 264–270.
11. J. J. Buonocore et al., “An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-Benefits for a US Power Plant
Carbon Standard,” PloS One 11, no. 6 (2016): p.e0156308.
12. Harvard Healthy Buildings Program, “CoBE: Co-benefits of the Built Environment,” 2019,
http://cobe.forhealth.org/.
13. Di et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality.”
14. P. MacNaughton et al., “Energy Savings, Emission Reductions, and Health Co-benefits of the
Green Building Movement,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 28, no. 4
(2018): 307–318.
15. For Health, “The CogFx Study—Indoor Environmental Quality,” accessed October 9, 2019,
https://research.forhealth.org/2016/12/17/cogfx/.
16. Evan Mills, Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, July 21, 2009),
http://cx.lbl.gov/documents/2009-assessment/lbnl-cx-cost-benefit.pdf.
17. Reuters, “Total of 79 Chinese Cities Trigger Air Pollution Alerts: Xinhua,” December 1, 2018.
18. “Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees C,” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
19. Ali Ayoub and Nils Kok, “Who Cares about Climate Risk?,” GeoPhy, May 8, 2018, https://
medium.com/geophy-hq/who-cares-about-climate-risk-ca68236f2e62.
20. J. D. Macomber, “Climate Change Is Going to Transform Where and How We Build,”
Harvard Business Review, October 16, 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/10/climate-change-is-going-to-
transform-where-and-how-we-build.
21. Emma Foehringer Merchant, “NY Governor Wants Zero-Carbon Electricity by 2040,” GTM,
December 18, 2018, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/new-york-names-100-carbon-
neutral-electricity-as-priority#gs.HnsNTS06.
22. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990–2017, April 11, 2019.
23. Brian C. McDonald et al., “Volatile Chemical Products Emerging as Largest Petrochemical
Source of Urban Organic Emissions,” Science 359, no. 6377 (2018): 760–764.
24. E. O. Wilson, Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (New York: Liveright, 2016).

11. WHAT’S NOW AND WHAT’S NEXT?

1. Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press, 1962).

2. Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great
Firms to Fail (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997).
3. Alice Hamilton, Exploring the Dangerous Trades (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1943).
4. D. K. Farmer et al., “Overview of HOMEChem: House Observations of Microbial and
Environmental Chemistry,” Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts 21, no. 8 (2019): 1280–
1300; H. Zhao, E. T. Gall, and B. Stephens, “Measuring the Building Envelope Penetration Factor for
Ambient Nitrogen Oxides,” Environmental Science and Technology 53, no. 16 (2019): 9695–9704.
 5. D. Singh et al., “Nanofiller Presence Enhances Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Profile
on Nanoparticles Released during Thermal Decomposition of Nano-Enabled Thermoplastics:
Potential Environmental Health Implications,” Environmental Science and Technology 51, no. 9
(2017): 5222–5232.
6. A. Gandolfo et al., “Unexpectedly High Levels of Organic Compounds Released by Indoor
Photocatalytic Paints,” Environmental Science and Technology 52, no. 19 (2018): 11328–11337.
7. N. Vaze et al., “A Nano-Carrier Platform for the Targeted Delivery of Nature-Inspired
Antimicrobials Using Engineered Water Nanostructures for Food Safety Applications,” Food Control
96 (2019): 365–374.
8. James L. Heskett, W. Earl Sasser, and Leonard A. Schlesinger, Service Profit Chain: How
Leading Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value (New York: Free
Press, 1997).
9. Tom Randall, “The Smartest Building in the World,” Bloomberg, September 23, 2015, https://
www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-the-edge-the-worlds-greenest-building/.
10. John Macomber, Emily Jones, and Joseph Allen, “A Tower for the People,” Harvard Business
School, 2020 (in press).
11. Alec Saltikoff, interview with Joe Allen, May 17, 2019.
12. Personal communication with Piers MacNaughton, July 17, 2019.
13. Yolanda Barnes, “8 Things to Know about Global Real Estate Value,” Savills Impacts, https://
www.savills.com/impacts/economic-trends/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-value-of-global-
real-estate.html.
14. GFM Asset Management, “Top 200 US-Listed Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) by
Market Cap as of 2017Q3,” August 3, 2017, https://gfmasset.com/2017/08/top-200-us-listed-real-
estate-investment-trusts-reits-by-market-cap-as-of-2017q3/.
15. Scotsman’s Guide, “Top Overall Volume: Scotsman Guide’s Top Mortgage Lenders 2017,”
accessed October 9, 2019, https://www.scotsmanguide.com/Rankings/Top-Lenders-2017/Results/Top
-Overall-Volume-New/.
16. Charles Fine, Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage (New
York: Basic Books, 2008).
17. Boston Green Ribbon Commission, Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report 2019, https://www
.greenribboncommission.org/document/executive-summary-carbon-free-boston/.
18. T. Wang, “U.S. Construction Industry—Statistics & Facts,” Statista, July 17, 2019, https://
www.statista.com/topics/974/construction/.
19. Reuters, “Global Construction Market 2018; Expected to Drive a Galloping Growth to
US$12.7 Trillion by 2022,” August 23, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital
/article?id=48295.
20. T. Wang, “Leading Construction Contractors Worldwide in 2017, Based on Revenue (in
Billion U.S. Dollars),” Statista, last edited August 9, 2019, https://www.statista.com/statistics/279942
/the-largest-construction-contractors-worldwide-based-on-total-revenue/.
21. Stephen Edelstein, “Google Street View Cars with Built-In Air-Quality Sensors Are Going
Global,” The Drive, September 12, 2018, http://www.thedrive.com/tech/23529/google-street-view-
cars-with-air-quality-sensors-are-going-globally.
22. John Mandyck, “Are You Interviewing Your Building?,” Huffington Post, February 8, 2017,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mandyck/are-you-interviewing-your_b_14642324.html.
23. “Smells Bad,” Glassdoor, May 1, 2016, https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-
Review-rePLANET-RVW10457626.htm.
24. “SLP Building Smells like Sewage,” Glassdoor, May 15, 2018, https://www.glassdoor.com
/Reviews/Employee-Review-Honeywell-RVW20588766.htm.
 25. “Perks, but Noisy Open Office,” Glassdoor, March 24, 2017, https://www.glassdoor.com
/Reviews/Employee-Review-Square-RVW14337633.htm.
26. “Unsafe and Unprofessional Workplace,” Glassdoor, October 1, 2017, https://www.glassdoor
.com/Reviews/Wellco-Industries-Reviews-E1603538.htm.
27. “Great People but the Office Is Way Too Cold,” Glassdoor, July 16, 2018, https://www
.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Local-Splash-RVW21504798.htm.
28. “Great Mentors, Bad Lighting,” Glassdoor, August 5, 2015, https://www.glassdoor.com
/Reviews/Employee-Review-INL-RVW7468192.htm.

CONCLUSION: BUILDINGS, BUSINESS, HEALTH, AND WEALTH

1. N. Twilley, “Home Smog,” New Yorker, April 8, 2019.

2. P. MacNaughton et al., “Energy Savings, Emission Reductions, and Health Co-benefits of the
Green Building Movement,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 28, no. 4
(2018): 307.
3. Interview with Maureen Ehrenberg, February 11, 2019.
4. John D. Macomber and Griffin H. James, “Design Creates Fortune: 2000 Tower Oakes
Boulevard,” Harvard Business Publishing Education, case study, March 21, 2010,
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/210070-PDF-ENG.
  

Acknowledgments

JOE’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I stumbled into the field of public health 15 years ago when my wife, Mary, pulled off the contact
info tab on a help-wanted poster advertising a research assistant position at the Harvard School of
Public Health. The rest is history. So my first thank-you is to Mary for grabbing that tab, and then to
Angie Craddock, Steve Gortmaker, Maren Fragala, Robin Dodson, and Debbie Bennett for giving me
my first job in public health.
Soon after I started graduate school at Boston University and met my doctoral adviser, Mike
McClean, he asked if I had ever considered a doctoral degree, and the next thing I knew I was
working with Mike as his first doctoral student. I learned from Mike how to mentor students, and I
still find that I ask myself, “What would Mike have said to me in this situation?” A special thanks to
my many great professors at BU, who reignited my scientific passion: Tom Webster, Wendy Heiger-
Bernays, Tim Heeren, Roberta White, and Dick Clapp. Thank you.
My professional life was guided by two Jacks—Jack McCarthy and Jack Spengler. Under Jack
McCarthy’s leadership at Environmental Health & Engineering (EH&E), I took what I learned in the
classroom and was mentored in how to make it practical. I received invaluable life lessons on how to
be a good scientist and communicator, under pressure. As I was at EH&E for five years, I cannot
name everyone who should be acknowledged, but special thanks to David MacIntosh, Jim Stewart,
Taeko Minegishi, Matt Fragala, Kathleen Brown, Will Wade, Brian Baker, and the world’s best
engineer, Jerry Ludwig, for problem solving with me every day.
While at EH&E I had the unbelievable good fortune of also working with the inimitable Jack
Spengler at Harvard. We started working on research together while I was at EH&E and formed a
genuine friendship. He is a true visionary. Jack has been at the forefront of every great environmental
health movement since the 1970s. So when he talks, I listen. Carefully. For 15 years he has been the
invisible hand guiding me, never asking for credit. What I love most about Jack is his spirit—
generous with his ideas and always looking forward, with an unmatched passion. About everything.
I’m forever indebted.
When I joined the Harvard faculty, I was warned by outsiders about the lack of collegiality I could
expect in academia and told that, rather than collaboration, I would find only competition. I have
found it to be the opposite. I’m grateful for Dean Michelle Williams and faculty colleagues for their
support, guidance, and encouragement: Russ Hauser, David Christiani, Francine Laden, Elsie
Sunderland, Francesca Dominici, Brent Coull, Diane Gold, Petros Koutrakis, Doug Dockery, Howard
Koh, Aaron Bernstein, Ashish Jna, Juliette Kayyem, Naomi Oreskes, and many more. To the corps of
“junior” faculty, thank you for being wonderful colleagues: Tamarra James-Todd, Jin-Ah Park, Gary
Adamkiewicz, Jamie Hart, Quan Lu, Kris Sarosiek, Zach Nagel, Shruthi Mahalingaiah, Carmen
Messerlian, and Bernardo Lemos. To the administrative teams—thank you for the magic behind the
scenes. Special thanks to Amanda Spickard and Sarah Branstrator for supporting our every move in
the Healthy Buildings program, Jen Rice and Grant Zimmerman in the Office of Technology
Development, and Heather Henriksen and the Office for Sustainability for collaborating on driving
research into practice across Harvard.
I also want to thank my Healthy Buildings team, starting with my trusted and valued associate
directors, Piers MacNaughton (now at View) and Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent, and my current
doctoral students, Anna Young, Emily Jones, and Erika Eitland. This is a special team of postdocs,
doctoral students, professional researchers, and administrators. On my first day at Harvard I was
challenged with this question: “How will your research impact the world?” I wrote this question on
the whiteboard in the Healthy Buildings program lab and we have used it as a way to reflect on the
projects and research we are taking on. I’m fortunate to be surrounded by such a stellar group of
scientists and people.
I want to thank a few of the pioneers of the Healthy Building movement individually, some of
whom I have worked with directly, and others who have influenced me through their work. This
includes Linda Birnbaum, immediate past director of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, as well as Rich Corsi, Elaine Hubal, Frederica Perera, Tracey Woodruff, Charlie Wechsler,
Bill Nazaroff, Carl Gustaf-Bornehag, and Bill Fisk. I have also been inspired and influenced by the
next crop of superstar Healthy Building researchers—the likes of Shelly Miller, Marina Vance, Jon
Levy, Brent Stephens, Pawel Wargocki, Michael Waring, Gabriel Bekö, Usha Satish, Christoph
Reinhart, and Heather Stapleton, just to name a few. I’m also thankful for the first giant in the field of
worker health, Harvard’s first female faculty member, Alice Hamilton. To find myself in her lineage
is, to say the least, humbling.
As we have said throughout this book, research in a vacuum doesn’t do anyone any good. So I am
particularly grateful for, and proud of, our collaborators in the business world: Mary Milmoe, John
Mandyck, Kori Recalde, Ashley Barrie, Caren Kittredge, Alec Saltikoff, Lucy Sutton, Colleen Pham,
Maureen Ehrenberg, Bryan Koop, the JLL team, Bob Fox, the Dursts, Samo, Janez, and Iza Login,
David Levinson, Shami Waissman, Robin Bass, Ben Myers, Gerald Chan, and Norman Foster.
To my coauthor, John Macomber, who answered my cold-call email and agreed to that first lunch,
thank you for engaging (and being engaging). Writing and reworking these chapters with you has
helped strengthen and clarify my thinking in ways I could not foresee before we started talking. I’m
glad we had that handshake.
In my personal life, I have been given the gift of a large, supportive, fun, and funny family. I am
grateful for my parents for giving me street smarts, for my 5 siblings (10 counting their spouses), 15
nieces and nephews, 30-plus cousins and aunts and uncles, and my in-laws, Margaret, Bill and Ann.
They have been a wonderful pillar of strength that has spanned my upbringing, education, and
current career.
Last, and most importantly, to Mary and our three kids, Colby, Chelsea, and Landon. I love my
work, but my first and most important job is as husband and dad. You bring purpose to my work and
fill my life with happiness.
To Mary: thanks for pulling that tab in the halls of Harvard Medical School 15 years ago, and for a
million other small nudges in the right direction ever since. You have patiently heard me talk enough
about public health and my work that I now totally agree with you when you joke, “I have at least
earned a master of public health degree by now, right?” Thanks for having fun with me and
supporting me through all of this.
Feeling grateful …
Onward!
JOHN’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Three phases of life led me to Joe and this book, and the concepts of modeling finance and
environment to try to optimize outcomes for the system, writ large, and its occupants.
When I was a student at Dartmouth College and Harvard Business School, John Kemeny
introduced me to probability theory and modeling with computing, Dana Meadows to system
dynamics and complex systems, and Bruce Greenwald to managerial economics. These concepts
resonated then and they are still important to me now.
In my professional career in construction, there were many mentors, but the team that has been
most consistent is that of my siblings and coinvestors, my brother George Macomber and sister Grace
Bird. For 30 years I’ve also had a business partner in the real estate industry. Peter Nordblom and his
late father, Rod, have modeled healthy buildings—and outside-the-box thinking about the wellness of
those who occupy our buildings—at Northwest Park and more. Thank you all for showing me how a
forward-thinking commercial landlord thinks and invests in practice.
Fred Moavenzadeh at MIT thought he saw a spark in 1988 and brought me to the front of the
classroom. While the content and the venue have changed, I’ve never left the front of the room.
Having a chance to help my own students become leaders who will make a positive difference in the
world is a real blessing. Like Joe, coming to Harvard I worried about being accepted and welcomed.
To my delight, I’ve been embraced and have found a particular affinity in the Harvard Business
School Business and Environment Initiative and the Harvard University Center for the Environment.
Arthur Segel, Rebecca Henderson, Forest Reinhardt, and Mike Toffel have been allies, colleagues,
co-teachers, cheerleaders, and course correctors when needed. Our dean, Nitin Nohria, has
illuminated a path for business to help solve the big problems of the world, and given all of us the
resources to walk down that path.
My late father, George Macomber, would say, “How can we move the ball of humanity forward?”
I hope this book will be useful to that end. My wife, Kristin, has been endlessly supportive of the
startups, the turnarounds, the teaching, and everything in between. She’s pleased when I’m away
working on education projects, and she’s happy when I’m home.
Mostly, though, I would like to acknowledge and thank my mother, Andy Macomber. She
encouraged the life of the mind, gave me free range to chase my passions and ideas, instilled in me a
sense of how to be respected and trustworthy, and reinforced the idea that for every one to whom
much is given, of him will much be required. Thank you.

FROM JOE AND JOHN

We are grateful to the team at Harvard University Press for taking a chance on us as new authors. We
were skillfully guided through the process and received smart edits from our outstanding editors Joy
de Menil and Jeff Dean. To the three anonymous peer-reviewers, we very much appreciate your
comments and insights on our first full draft. We also thank Harvard University student Sydney
Robinson, whom we brought on to work on references, but who offered so much more with her
careful reading and editing of the entire manuscript. Last, we thank the Harvard T. H. Chan School of
Public Health’s Dean’s Innovation Fund, which contributed to the support of our efforts to foster
greater collaboration between the business and health communities.
  

Index

absenteeism, monitoring, 192–93

absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME), 53
academic literature, 17–19. See also research
accredited professionals (APs), 169–170
ACGIH, 110–11
acoustics / noise, 110–13, 224
ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), 53
adoption curve, 219–228
air, 51
air conditioning, 96–97; effects of, 59–60; Legionnaires’ disease and, 10–13; personal exposure and,
52; refrigerants, 100. See also thermal health
air intakes, 49
air movement, 94, 99. See also thermal health
air pollution, 40, 99–100; buildings’ contributions to, 17; health risks of, 205; indoor sources of, 44;
private sector and, 27; studies of, 202, 205. See also climate change; contaminants; energy
efficiency; fossil fuels; particulate matter (PM); PM2.5
air pollution, indoor. See indoor air pollution
air pollution, outdoor. See outdoor air pollution
air quality, 91–94; monitoring, 236–37. See also carbon dioxide (CO2); volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)
air quality, indoor. See indoor air pollution; indoor air quality (IAQ)
air quality, outdoor. See outdoor air pollution; outdoor air quality
airplanes, 58, 62
Allen, Joe, 18, 38; background of, 7–17
allergens: in dust, 108 (see also dust); dust mites, 107–8; mold, 106–7; mouse allergens, exposure to,
19
American Industrial Hygiene Association, 170
American Institute of Architects, 80
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 60, 80, 94;
design / construction and, 75; green building movement and, 149; indoor air quality standards, 60;
Legionella risk management plan and, 102; thermal health and, 96, 98, 196; ventilation standards,
61, 79, 87
Anthropocene, 26
antimicrobials, 190–91
Antonovsky, Aaron, 27
Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), 115
Apple, 226, 235, 236
asbestos, 139, 140
Ashford, Susan, 32
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers). See
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
attack rate, 15
Ayoub, Ali, 211–12

Bad Blood (Carreyrou), 169

Barber, Felix, 175, 176, 183, 223
Bekö, Gabriel, 46
Bell’s palsy, 186
Benioff, Marc, 36
Benjamin Franklin, 56
benzene, 45
Bernstein, Ethan, 33
big data era, 34
Big Tobacco, 137
BIO program (Biophilic Interventions in Offices), 116–17
biodiversity, loss of, 25–26. See also climate change; resources
Biophilia (Wilson), 115, 116
biophilic design, 115–17
bisphenol A (BPA), 127–29, 138
bisphenol F (BPF), 127
bisphenol S (BPS), 127–29
BlackRock letter, 35–36, 200, 246
bodybuilding, 124
Boll, Rebecca, 35
Boston Properties, 248
bottom line, 66; ventilation and, 62–70. See also productivity
BPA (bisphenol A), 127–29, 138
BPF (bisphenol F), 127
BPS (bisphenol S), 127–29
Brandt, Kate, 30
Brenna, Terry, 91
Brin, Sergey, 29, 176
British Parliament, 22–23
BTEX chemicals, 45, 49–50
Building a Culture of Health program, 28
building codes, 75, 76, 77, 149
building engineers, importance of to health, 14
building materials, 224; Chinese Drywall, 188–89; selection of and reducing toxic load, 190–91;
transparency about, 144–46
Building Owners and Managers Association International, 41
building science: new technology and, 34–35; relation with business science, ix; relation with health
science, ix, 14
building stock, established, 218–19; renovations of, 231
buildingomics, 85
buildings: centrality of, vii; changing, 20, 30–32 (see also mega-changes, global); contribution to air
pollution, 17; cost of, 72; decision-making process around (see incentives; incumbents; inertia;
information); defining health worthiness of, vii–viii; depletion of resources and, 25–26; Google
and, 29–30; life span of, 230–31; as refuge, 211; usage types, 73. See also real estate
buildings, healthy. See Healthy Buildings
building-ventilation strategies. See ventilation
business: broader purpose of, 35–36, 200, 246; changing values and, 35–36 (see also environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) issues; mega-changes, global); focus on stakeholder value, 36;
health promotion strategies, 27–30. See also private sector
business performance, Healthy Buildings and, 243–44
Business Roundtable, 36
business science: importance of, 14; relation with health science and building science, ix

C8, 130–32
C8 Science Panel, 131
cancer: PM and, 17; shift work and, 114
carbon dioxide (CO2), 30, 57, 58. See also air pollution; air quality
carbon monoxide (CO), 40, 62
carbon neutral buildings, 215
Carreyrou, John, 169
Carrier, 207, 208, 226
Carrier, Willis, 59
cars, pollutants and, 30
Carson, Rachel, 25, 126
CBE Thermal Comfort Tool, 97
CBRE, 226
Cedeno Laurent, Jose Guillermo, 94, 185
Center for Active Design, 156
Center for the Built Environment at Berkeley, 97, 99
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 10, 156
certification fatigue, 153
certifications: benefits of, 148, 150; expertise and, 168–173; gaming system and, 155, 157; for green
buildings (see green building certification; LEED certification); for Healthy Buildings (see Healthy
Building certifications); importance of certifiers in, 149
Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs), 170–73, 186
changes, 22. See also mega-changes, global
chemicals, 123–146; bisphenol A (BPA), 127–29, 138; business impacts of, 138–140; chemicals of
concern, 126; cost of legacy pollutants, 139; demand-side approach to, 143–46; flame retardants,
132–38; Forever Chemicals, 101, 129–132, 138, 139; hydrogen sulfide, 188, 189; Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 140; legal settlements and, 138; PBBs, 132–
34, 139; PBDEs, 134–36; PCBs, 139; PFAS, 130–31; phthalates, 138, 142; regrettable
substitutions, 126–132; reproductive health and, 125–26, 140; supply-side approach, 143;
 transparency and, 141–46; triclosan, 191; TSCA, 126, 140–41; water and stain repellents, 129–
130. See also Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Chemours, 131. See also DuPont
Chicago Tribune, 137
China, stay indoors warnings in, 210–11
Chinese Drywall, 188–89
chlorine, 102–4
Christensen, Clayton, 219
Churchill, Winston, 22, 23–24
cigarettes, self-extinguishing, 137
CIHs (Certified Industrial Hygienists), 170–73, 186
circadian rhythms, 113, 115
cities, 5–6; changing, 20, 22, 24–26, 201, 241 (see also mega-changes, global); population in, 25;
private investors and, 6
Clean Air Act, 39
clean energy future, 213–15
Clean Power Plan, 203
climate change, 20, 26, 213, 241; buildings and, 201 (see also energy efficiency); effects of, 26;
fossil fuels and, 202–3; Healthy Building strategies and, 245–46; impact on real estate, 210–11;
Paris Agreement, 100; resiliency and, 211–12; thermal comfort and, 99–100. See also air pollution;
energy efficiency; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues; fossil fuels; mega-changes,
global
Climate Mobilization Act, 152
clockspeed, 230–31
Clockspeed (Fine), 230
CO (carbon monoxide), 40, 62
CO2 (carbon dioxide), 30, 57, 58, 61, 62
CoBE (co-benefits of the built environment), 203–8
co-benefits of the built environment (CoBE), 203–8
COGfx Study, 56–59, 61, 251. See also cognitive function
cognitive function, 56, 65; hydration and, 101; measuring, 191; ventilation and, 56–59, 65–66. See
also COGfx Study; productivity
comfort, 96. See also thermal health
commissioning, 90–91, 189–190
competitive advantage, 225–28
construction, new, 219, 231
construction industry, 3–4, 77; adoption of innovations in, 219; distribution of, 231; incumbents and,
73–76, 80; inertia in, 72–73, 76, 80; information and, 80; variation in, 217. See also real estate
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 188
consumers, demand for Healthy Buildings by, 246–250
contaminants: indoor levels of, 44–45. See also air pollution
Conway, Erik, 137
Cook, Tim, 235, 236
corporations: broader purpose of, 35–36, 200, 246. See also business; values
Corsi, Rich, 39, 46
costs, perceived, 79–80
costs, real, 79
creative workers: responsibility for health of, 32–33. See also employees
Crossing the Chasm (Moore), 219
Cuomo, Andrew, 214

Declare Label project, 142

Delos, 154
demographic growth, 218–19
Demokritou, Philip, 222
demolition debris, 26
Denmark Technical University, 46, 221
dermal absorption, 46–47
design, 75, 251
Deutsche Bank, 6
DeVos, Betsy, 18
“Dharavi: Developing Asia Largest Slum” (Macomber), 5
digital phenotyping, 192
disinfectant, residual, 102–4
Doerr, John, 176, 223
doubt, 137
Doubt Is Their Product (Michaels), 137
drinking water standards, 101. See also water
Drucker, Peter, 175
Drywall, Chinese, 188–89
DuPont, 130–31, 138
dust, 43, 51, 107–10. See also PM2.5
Dust (Lioy), 109
dust masks, 44
dust mites, 107–8
Dyson, 108–9, 227

early adopters, 223–24, 238

Eccles, Robert, 35
Edison, Thomas, 113
Ehrenberg, Maureen, 249
embodied carbon, 215, 246
Empire State Building, 77–78
employee experience, 192. See also measurement; productivity
employees: cost of, 41; demand for Healthy Buildings, 249; health of, research on, 221. See also
human resources; productivity
endocrine-disrupting chemicals, 125
energy, renewable, 213–14
energy crisis, ventilation and, 31
energy efficiency, 63, 67; commissioning and, 190; emissions averted by, 204; energy-versus-health
tradeoff, 60–62, 208–10; health co-benefits and, 201, 203–8; Healthy Buildings and, 208–10;
money saved by, 203–4; productivity and, 63. See also air pollution; climate change;
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues; fossil fuels
Energy Information Administration, 204, 205
energy modeling, 41
energy-efficiency finance, 78–79
energy-recovery ventilation (ERV), 209
energy-versus-health tradeoff, 60–62, 208–10
Enterprise Security Risk Management (ESRM), 119–121
environment, impact of human activity on, 26. See also climate change; resources
environment, indoor. See indoor environment
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, 35, 36, 200, 201, 245, 246. See also climate
change; energy efficiency; health co-benefits; values
Environmental Health & Engineering, 12, 188
environmental media, 51. See also air pollution; dust; water
environmental monitoring, 193–99
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 44, 51, 105, 140; chemicals banned by, 123; creation of,
126, 221
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). See Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
equal-energy rule, 111
ERV (energy-recovery ventilation), 209
ESG (environmental, social, and governance) issues. See environmental, social, and governance
(ESG) issues
ESRM (Enterprise Security Risk Management), 119–121
exchange rate, 111
Exploring the Dangerous Trades (Hamilton), 221
exposure, personal, 52
exposure pathways, 100
exposure-related disease, 50–53

face-to-face interaction, 187

facilities managers, importance of to health, 14
Fanger, Ole, 221
Farmer, Delphine, 46
fecal contamination of water, 101
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 211
Fedrizzi, Rick, 149, 155
females, thermal comfort and, 98
fight or flight response, 118–19
filtration, 43, 53; carbon-based filters, 93; HEPA filters, 89–90, 110; MERV filters, 89, 93, 195. See
also MERV (Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value)
Fine, Charles, 230
fine particles, 89. See also particulate matter (PM); PM2.5
Fisk, Bill, 121, 221
Fitwel certification, 156–58, 170, 225
flame retardants, 132–38
Flint, Michigan, 47, 104
flood risk, 211–12
Forever Chemicals, 101, 129–132, 138, 139. See also chemicals
formaldehyde, 45, 91, 92, 222
fossil fuels, 26, 201; climate change and, 202–3; decreasing reliance on, 214; health and, 202, 206;
on-site combustion of, 214. See also air pollution; climate change; energy efficiency; resources
Foster, Norman, 166, 223–24, 226
Foundations. See 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building
425 Park Avenue, 165–68, 225, 226, 247
Franklin, Benjamin, 56
freelance economy, responsibility for health and, 32–33
fresh air, 31. See also indoor air quality (IAQ); ventilation

gain sharing, 70
Gawande, Atul, 235
gender, thermal health and, 97–98
General Services Administration, 156
GenX, 132
geography, 72
GeoPhy, 211–12, 237
gig economy, 32. See also work environments
Glassdoor, 234, 249
Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), 151
global warming. See climate change
goals: conflicting, 16. See also split incentives
Google, 29–30, 144, 176, 218; Real Estate and Workplace Services, 30; Sidewalk Labs project, 233
government, mega-changes and, 26–27
government buildings, 73
Grady Hospital, 10–14
granite countertops, 51–52
green building certification, 148, 149–153. See also certifications; Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED); LEED certification
Green Building Council, US (USGBC), 80, 149, 150, 154, 155
Green building indexes, 237
green building movement, 36, 148, 149–153; early adopters, 223; health co-benefits of, 206–7;
transition to Healthy Building movement, viii, ix. See also Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)
green buildings, relation with Healthy Buildings, 54, 208–10
Green Revolving Fund, 78
Greenbuild, 154
GRESB, 237
Gutter, Rachel, 155

Half-Earth (Wilson), 25, 216

Hamilton, Alice, 221
Harriman, Lew, 91
Harvard Business Review, 59, 175, 213
Harvard Business School (HBS), 4, 28, 224, 251; Business and Environment Initiative, 5
Harvard Graduate School of Design, 4, 29
Harvard Healthier Building Materials Academy, 144
Harvard Healthy Buildings, 207
Harvard Six Cities Study, 202, 205
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 28, 29, 131, 193
Harvard University: Center for the Environment, 5, 26; Green Revolving Fund, 78; Hamilton, 221;
Office for Sustainability, 144, 224; Smith Campus Center, 224
Hauser, Russ, 137
health, 56, 64; awareness of, 235; buildings’ influences on, 50; changing definition of, 20, 27–30
(see also mega-changes, global); economic incentive for, 27–30; energy efficiency and, 204–5;
exposure-related disease, 50–53; fossil fuels and, 201, 202; measuring, 42 (see also Health
Performance Indicators (HPIs); measurement); mobile / personalized, 192; PM2.5 and, 17–18;
prioritizing, 155; ventilation and, 64
Health and Human Services, Department of, 189
health care: companies moving into, 235, 236; economy and, 235–36; tied to employment, 28
health co-benefits: energy efficiency and, 201, 203–8; of Green Building Movement, 206–7. See also
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues
health impact of buildings, measuring. See Health Performance Indicators (HPIs); measurement
Health Performance Indicators (HPIs), 21, 183–199, 243, 250; direct and lagging HPIs, 185–86;
direct and leading HPIs, 191–93; direct HPIs, 184; environmental monitoring, 193–99; HPI
framework, 184–85; indirect and lagging HPIs, 187; indirect and leading HPIs, 189–191; indirect
HPIs, 184, 194; lagging HPIs, 184; leading HPIs, 184; monitoring, 223; real-time measures of
employee health and performance, 191–93. See also measurement
Health Product Declaration (HPD) Collaborative, 142
health promotion, 27–30
health science: relation with building science, ix, 14; relation with business science, ix
health worthiness, defining, vii–viii
health-care costs, 27–28
health-versus-energy tradeoff, 60–62, 208–10. See also split incentives
Healthy Building certifications, 148, 153–59, 220, 225, 228; CIHs and, 170–73; cost of, 159–168;
expertise and, 168–173; Fitwel system, 156–58, 170, 225; 425 Park Avenue, 165–68; ideal
protocol for, 173–74; motivation for, 154; RESET, 158; split incentives and, 165; WELL
certification, 154–56, 158, 159, 167, 168, 170, 226. See also certifications
Healthy Building movement: adoption curve, 219–228; competitive advantage and, 225–28; current
state of, 217–19; demographic growth and, 218–19; early adopters, 223–24, 238; established
building stock and, 218–19; knowledge generators and, 220–23; need for holistic approach, 85 (see
also 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building); new construction and, 219; transition to, viii, ix
Healthy Buildings, 54, 71–81; benefits of, 242–250; benefits of for investors, 6; business case for,
20–21; business performance and, 243–44; clean energy future and, 213–15; competitive
advantage and, 248; demand for, 234, 246–250; dissemination of information and, 153–54;
economic benefits of, 121; employee demand for, 246–250; future of, 238–39; as good business
strategies, viii–ix, 241; incorporation of concept into educational programs, 28–29; obstacles to
(see incentives; incumbents; inertia; information); relation with green buildings, 54, 208–10;
science of, 7. See also indoor air quality; 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building
Healthy Parks, Healthy People program, 116
healthy real estate investing paradox, 6
Healthy Worker Effect, 180
hearing loss, 110–11. See also acoustics / noise
heat waves, indoor, 99, 101
Henriksen, Heather, 144, 224
HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, 89–90, 110
Heskett, James, 222
Hierarchy of Needs, 117
high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, 89–90, 110
Holdren, John, 26
Holmes, Elizabeth, 168–69
hormones, 127, 135–36, 138, 139. See also reproductive health
hospitals: Legionnaires’ disease and, 11, 15; safety and security issues in, 119–120; views in, 116
hoteling, 32, 33
hotels, Legionnaires’ disease and, 11
housing, public-private partnerships for, 5
How Google Works (Schmidt and Rosenberg), 29
Howard, John, 32
HPD (Health Product Declaration) Collaborative, 142
HPIs (Health Performance Indicators). See Health Performance Indicators (HPIs)
human capital, 55. See also employees; productivity
human resources, 40. See also employees
human right, healthy indoor air as, 219
humidity, relative, 94, 96–97. See also thermal health
hydration, 100–101
hydrofluorocarbons, 100
hydrogen sulfide, 188, 189
hypochlorite ion (OCL-), 102
hypochlorous acid (HOCL), 102

IAQ (indoor air quality). See indoor air quality (IAQ)

IBM, 187
IEQ (indoor environmental quality), 47–48, 233. See also indoor air quality (IAQ)
Improving Your Business through a Culture of Health (course), 28
incentives, misaligned, 16, 78, 81. See also split incentives
incidental ingestion, 48
incumbents, 73–76, 80. See also American Institute of Architects; American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); Green Building Council, US (USGBC)
independent contractors: responsibility for health of, 32–33. See also employees; work environments
India: executive education in real estate in, 4–5; infrastructure in, 5
indoor age, 38
indoor air: healthy, as fundamental human right, 219; mobilization around theme of, 153–54;
research on, 221–22
Indoor Air (journal), 154
indoor air pollution, vii, 240–41; controlling, 93–94; controlling sources of, 91–92; indoor sources
of, 44–48, 222. See also indoor air quality (IAQ)
indoor air quality (IAQ), vii, 47, 60; ASHRAE standards for, 60; buildup of pollutants indoors, 31;
effects of, 6–7; green buildings and, 155; indoor CO2 levels, 61; indoor sources of pollution and,
44–48; lack of focus on, 39–40; monitoring, 92–93, 193–99, 223; in schools, 61–62; variation in,
217. See also Healthy Buildings; indoor environmental quality (IEQ); sick buildings; ventilation
indoor environment, 39; breaking chain of exposure and risk, 50–51; effects of, viii; exposure to
outdoor air pollution and, 42–44; focus on, 221; health impact of, 39; mitigating risks of exposure,
 49–50; neighbors and, 48–49
indoor environmental quality (IEQ), 47–48; data on, 233. See also indoor air quality (IAQ)
Indoor Generation, 39
indoor health, personalized, 98
indoor smog, 241
indoor time, 38–40, 240; breakdown of, 39; exposure to outdoor air pollution and, 44; lack of focus
on, 40
industrial hygiene, 170–73; assessment methods, 92–93. See also certified industrial hygienists
(CIHs)
industrial medicine, 221
industry value-added system, 73–76
inertia, 72–73, 76, 77, 80
infiltration factors, 43
information, 71, 80. See also research
infrastructure: in India, 5; need for investment in, 27
infrastructure paradox, 6
ingestion, 47
ingestion, incidental, 48
innovations, uptake of, 219
Innovator’s Dilemma, The (Christensen), 219
insurance, 16
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 211
International Living Future Institute, 142
International Society of Indoor Air Quality, 153
International Well Building Institute (IWBI), 154–55, 156
interventions, 52–53
investors, 6, 76, 228. See also real estate
iodine, 135
“Is Noise Pollution the Next Public Health Crisis?” (New Yorker), 111
IWBI (International Well Building Institute), 154–55, 156

Jha, Ashish, 27
JLL, 32, 33, 40, 226, 228
Joint Commission, 120
Jones, Emily, 166
Journal of the American Medical Association (journal), 27
JPMorgan Chase, 225

Kaiser Permanente, 190–91

Karolinska Institute, 221
Kayyem, Juliette, 119, 120
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 21, 176, 183, 250. See also measurement
Klimenko, Svetlana, 35
knowledge generators, 220–23
knowledge workers: responsibility for health of, 32–33. See also employees
Kok, Nils, 211–12
Koop, Bryan, 248
KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). See Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); measurement
Kristof, Nick, 128

L&L Holding, 166, 167, 168, 225, 247

landfill waste, from buildings, 25–26
landlords, 70, 71, 76, 77. See also investors; real estate; split incentives
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 140
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 96, 121, 188, 190, 209, 221
lead, 40, 47, 104–5
Lead and Copper Rule, 104, 105
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), 149–153. See also green building
certification; Green Building movement; LEED certification
LEED certification, 155, 158–59, 168, 193; financial return on, 152; influence of, 152; use of APs,
169–170. See also certifications; green building certification; Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)
Legionella, 11, 102, 105. See also Legionnaires’ disease
Legionnaires’ disease, 10–14, 15, 102–4
Levinson, David, 166, 167, 168, 225, 247
Li & Fung, 77–78
lighting spectrum, 114–15
lighting / views, 19, 113–17
limonene, 46
Lioy, Paul, 109
longevity, human, 25
Lumber Liquidators, 45

MacNaughton, Piers, 207, 226

Macomber, John, 3–7
George B. H. Macomber Company, 3–4
Mandyck, John, 54, 58, 234
market performance, Healthy Buildings and, 245, 246–250
Maslow, Abraham, 117
McCarthy, Jack, 188
McClean, Michael, 50
Measure What Matters (Doerr), 176
measurement, 243, 250; dependent measurement error, 181–82; environmental monitoring, 193–99;
importance of, 246; KPIs, 21, 176, 183, 250; loss to follow-up, 180; monitoring absenteeism and,
192–93; monitoring day-to-day fluctuations, 196–99; monitoring invisible hazards, 194–96; need
for, 175; Post-occupancy Survey (POS), 176–182; real-time air-quality monitoring, 193–99; real-
time measures of employee health and performance, 191–93; representativeness, 178–180; sample
size, 178; selection bias, 177–180; self-selected responders, 179. See also Health Performance
Indicators (HPIs)
mega-changes, global, 20, 22–37, 201, 216. See also buildings; cities; climate change; health;
populations, changing; private sector; resources, changing; technology; values, changing; work,
changing
men, 125
Mendell, Mark, 61
Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes and Conway), 137
MERV (Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value), 43, 90
MERV filters, 89, 93, 195
metabolic rate, 97
metagenomics, 222
mHealth, 192
Michaels, David, 137
Michigan Chemical Company, 132
micro-environments, 51–52, 53
Milton, Don, 64
Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV), 43, 89, 90, 93, 195
moisture, 105–7, 121
mold, 106–7, 121
money, 40–42, 76
Moore, Geoffrey, 219
mortality rates, 15, 17
mouse allergens, exposure to, 19
multifamily buildings, 73
museums, universities, schools, and hospitals (MUSH), 73

nanotechnology, 222
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 39–40, 202. See also outdoor air pollution; outdoor air
quality
National Geographic, 59
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 32
National Park Service, 116
natural capital, 25. See also resources
nature, 115–17
Nature Climate Change (journal), 97
net-zero buildings, 215
New York, 152
New York City, 225
New York Times, 51–52, 53, 59, 128
New Yorker, 97, 111, 241
Newsweek, 59
“Nexus of Green Buildings, Global Health, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, The”
(Allen), 17
9 Foundations of a Healthy Building, 85–87, 156, 242, 250; certification and, 158; in design stage,
189; economic benefits of, 121–22; monitoring and conforming with, technologies and, 227. See
also acoustics / noise; air quality; dust; Healthy Buildings; lighting / views; moisture; pests; safety
/ security; thermal health; ventilation; water
9 Foundations project, 86. See also 9 Foundations of a Healthy Building
9 / 11, 109
90 percent. See indoor time
nitrogen dioxide, 40. See also air pollution
Nixon, Richard, 126
noise, 110–13, 224
Novoselac, Atila, 46

Obama, Barack, 26
O’Brien, Greg, 32, 33
occupancy, total cost of, 41
Occupational Safety and Health Act, 32
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): creation of, 126, 221; indoor air quality
and, 40; noise limits, 110; on responsibility for workers’ health, 32–33
off-shoring, 33
OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), 176
Onnela, J. P., 192
open floor plans, effects of, 33
Oreskes, Naomi, 137
organophosphate (OP) flame retardants, 137
Orr, David W., 223
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). See Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)
outdoor air, as public good, 219
outdoor air pollution: data on, 233; exposure to indoors, 42–44; filters and, 90; indoor sources of,
215
outdoor air quality, 219; focus on, 39–40; “stay indoors” warnings and, 210–11; variation in, 217.
See also National Ambient Air Quality Standards; outdoor air pollution
outdoor environment, focus on, 39–40
outdoors, 115–17
Outdoors Rx, 116
overcooling, 97
ozone, 40. See also air pollution

Page, Larry, 29, 176

Paris Agreement, 100
Park Rx, 116
particulate matter (PM), 17, 30, 43, 91. See also air pollution; PM10; PM2.5
partitioning, 47
pathogenesis, 27
John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 131
PBBs (polybrominated biphenyls), 132–34, 139
PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), 134–36
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), 139
perceived costs, 79
Perera, Frederica, 222
performance, human, 55. See also employees; productivity
Perkins + Will, 144
permissible exposure limits (PELs), 40
personal exposure, 52
pest management plan, 110
pests, 107–10
Petriglieri, Gianpiero, 32
PFAS (polyfluorinated alkyl substances), 130–31, 132
Pfizer, 218, 225
pH of water, 102–5
phthalates, 138, 142
Pigpen effect, 46, 109
“Playing with Fire” (Chicago Tribune), 137
plumbing, Legionnaires’ disease and, 10–13
PM (particulate matter). See air pollution; particulate matter (PM); PM2.5; PM10
PM2.5, 17–18, 40, 43, 194–96, 202. See also air pollution; particulate matter (PM)
PM10, 40. See also air pollution; particulate matter (PM)
pollutants: indoor levels of, 45 (see also indoor air pollution); legacy, cost of, 139
pollution: changing, 22; impact on real estate, 210–11. See also air pollution; particulate matter
(PM); PM2.5
polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), 132–34, 139
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), 134–36
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 139
polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), 130–31, 132
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 138
populations, changing, 20, 22, 24–26, 201, 241. See also mega-changes, global
POS (Post-occupancy Survey), 176–182. See also measurement
Post-occupancy Survey (POS), 176–182. See also measurement
private sector: air pollution and, 27; changing role of, 20, 26–27 (see also environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) issues; mega-changes, global)
productivity, 55, 56; air quality and, 56; building-related, measuring, 176 (see also measurement);
business performance and, 244; cost of loss of, 198; energy efficiency and, 63; factors in, 55–56;
Foundations and, 121; Healthy Buildings and, 242–43; importance of, 175; lighting and, 114–15;
measuring, 175–76 (see also measurement); noise and, 111–12; open floor plans and, 33; thermal
health and, 94; ventilation and, 56–59, 62–70. See also cognitive function
Progressive Insurance, 248
Prop 65, 142–43
psychrometry, 196–98
public good, outdoor air as, 219
public health, 9

radon, 51–52
Ramanujam, Mahesh, 152
real estate, 70, 72, 77; composition of industry, 228–230; current state of industry, 218–19; decision-
making process around (see incentives; incumbents; inertia; information); green building
certification and, 150–51; in India, executive education in, 4–5; social performance of, 36, 200 (see
also environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues); 3-30-300 rule of, 40–41; variation in,
217; wealth distribution in industry, 228–29. See also buildings; Healthy Building movement;
investors; landlords; split incentives; work environments
real estate investment trusts (REITs), 211
refrigerants, 100
renovations, 231
rental rates, 70
reproductive health, 125–26, 140. See also hormones
research: dissemination of, 153–54; translating into action, 17–19, 86, 144–46. See also information
RESET certification, 158, 170
resilience, 201, 211–12; financing, 212–13
resources: changing, 20, 22, 24–26, 201 (see also mega-changes, global); depletion of, buildings and,
25–26. See also fossil fuels
risk, 52, 76–77
risk management, 120. See also safety / security
risk management plans, 15
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 28
Rogers Adoption Curve, 219
Rosenberg, Jonathan, 29

Safe Drinking Water Act, 105

safety / security, 117–121
Salesforce, 36
Salesforce Tower, 74
Saltikoff, Alec, 225
salutogenesis, 27
Sasser, Earl, 222
Satish, Usha, 57
Schlesinger, Leonard, 222
Schmidt, Eric, 29
Schneider Electric, 227
schools, 61; air quality in, 61–62; influences on students, 18–19; time spent in, 39
Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 124
Scialla, Paul, 154
Scialla, Pete, 154
scientific literature: lack of knowledge of, 17–19. See also research
security, 117–121
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), 47
sensors, 236
service profit chain, 222–23
shelter, 117. See also safety / security
shift workers, 113–14
shinrin-yoku (forest bathing), 115
shopper, informed, 247–48
Sick Building Syndrome, 31–32
sick buildings, 10–14. See also indoor air quality; Sick Building Syndrome
sick days, 64
Sidewalk Labs project, 233
Silent Spring (Carson), 25, 126
Silent Spring Institute, 128
Singh, Dilpreet, 222
single-family homes, 73
skin, absorption of pollutants through, 46–47
smart buildings, 34–35, 224, 227
social benefits of energy efficiency, 203–8
social performance, 200; Healthy Buildings and, 245. See also environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) issues
SoftBank, 228
Spengler, Jack, 39, 221
split incentives, 16, 70, 71, 77–79; certification and, 165. See also energy-versus-health tradeoff;
goals; incentives
stain repellents, 129–130
stakeholder value, focus on, 36
Stapleton, Heather, 136–37, 222
stay indoors warnings, 211
Stephens, Brent, 91
steroids, 124, 125
Strack, Rainer, 175, 176, 183, 223
Stroop Test, 94, 96
studies. See research
substitutions, regrettable, 126–132
sulfur dioxide, 40. See also air pollution
Sundel, Jan, 221
Sunderland, Elsie, 123, 131
supply chain, 73–76, 224
“Surprising Economics of a People Business, The” (Barber and Strack), 175
sustainability, 30. See also chemicals; climate change; co-benefits of the built environment (CoBE);
embodied carbon; green buildings; Half-Earth (Wilson); net-zero buildings; “Nexus of Green
Buildings, Global Health, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, The” (Allen); resources;
values, changing
sustainable development, 241
SVOCs (semivolatile organic compounds), 47
Syracuse Center of Excellence, 56

T4, 135–36
talent, 55. See also employees; productivity
Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 223
technology: building science and, 34–35; changing, 20, 34–35 (see also mega-changes, global);
future of, 231–32; monitoring air quality and, 236–37; monitoring and conforming with 9
Foundations and, 227
temperature, air, 94. See also thermal health
temperature, radiant, 94. See also thermal health
temporary workers, 32–33
tenants, 71, 77. See also real estate; split incentives
Theranos, 168–69
thermal health, 94–100; climate change and, 99–100; economic benefits of, 121; gender and, 97–98;
human performance and, 94; indoor heat waves, 99–100. See also air conditioning
thigmotaxis, 117–18
3M, 138
time indoors. See indoor time
Tishman Speyer, 156, 157, 225
total coliform, 101
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 126, 140–41
triclosan, 191
tris, 132–38
TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act), 126, 140–41
Turban, Stephen, 33

Urban Green Council, 54, 58

Urban Land Institute, 159
urbanization, 22, 26, 201, 241. See also cities; mega-changes, global
usage types, 73
USGBC (Green Building Council). See Green Building Council, US (USGBC)

value chain, 73–76

values, changing, 20, 35–36. See also environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues; mega-
changes, global
Vance, Marina, 46
vapor intrusion, 186
ventilation, 43, 53, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 87–91, 250; in airplanes, 62; bottom line and, 66; capturing
PM and, 89–90; checkups for, 90–91; cognitive function and, 56–59, 65–66; defined, 56; demand-
control, 210; economic benefits of, 121; effects of, 18, 20–21, 62–70; energy and, 209; energy-
recovery ventilation (ERV), 209; energy-versus-health tradeoff and, 60–62; health and, 56, 64;
productivity and, 56–59; reducing, 31; revenue gains from, 62–70; sick days and, 64; standards for,
60, 61; timing of, 87–89. See also indoor air quality (IAQ)
ventilation effectiveness, 210
View, 207, 226–27
views / lighting, 113–17
VOCs (volatile organic compounds). See volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 45–46, 47, 57, 58, 91; Bell’s palsy and, 186; filters and, 93;
indoor sources of, 215. See also air quality

Wall Street Journal (newspaper), 59, 169

Wallace, Lance, 221
wall-hugging trait, 117–18
Washington Post, 128, 130
water, 51, 100–105; effects of building on, 101–5; Forever Chemicals and, 101; lead in, 104–5;
Legionella and, 102–4; PFAS in, 130–31; pH of, 102–5. See also moisture
water repellents, 129–130
Webster, Tom, 135
WELL Building Standard, 154–56, 158, 159, 167, 168, 170, 226
Weschler, Charlie, 46
WeWork, 226, 249–250
whales, 39
“What’s Lurking in Your Countertop?” (New York Times), 51–52, 53
Wilson, E. O., 25, 115, 116, 216
women, thermal health and, 97–98
Woodruff, Tracey, 222
work, changing, 20, 32–33. See also mega-changes, global
work environments, 33; face-to-face interaction, 187; of Industrial Revolution, 221; worker health
and, 221; work-from-home models, 187. See also real estate
worker health, research on, 221
workers. See employees; productivity
work-from-home models, 187
workplace culture, 29
World Health Organization, 219
Wrzesniewski, Amy, 32

Yelp effect, 179

Yin, Jie, 116