We are often challenged about the studies we choose to include in Autocase, or not. A Harvard study1 on how green office environments maybe linked with higher cognitive function scores is a good example. A pdf of the paper in question is available here and news release here.
We are always searching for research work that will help bolster the case for healthier buildings based on improved worker productivity, but when the cognitive scores from a study are considerably better than productivity improvements from previous studies, we need to look more closely.
We look deeper into questions like:
All this is to say that we dig deeply into every study, and we aim to be as transparent as possible about our choices for inclusion. For more on our research grading scheme, read here. The benefits of research like that from Harvard are far-reaching in that they inspire additional, ongoing examination of workplace conditions. We all are the beneficiaries, especially now that Autocase puts that learning to work in building design.
P.S. We have tried to contact the authors about our concerns and questions. They have not replied. The study has for CO2 concentrations, an apparent mis-match between the stated results and the statistical table that we don’t understand. If the authors do reply, and they satisfy us, we’ll include their results. Until then, we’ll wait until other research corroborates their results.
1Allen, J. G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., & Spengler, J. D. (2015). 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(6), 805-812. linkBack to blog