Paper name: Sustainable workplaces and building user comfort and satisfaction.
https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/2748/1/
smith_aj_sustainable_workplaces_and_building_user_comfort_and_satisfaction.pdf
Abstract: The abstract describes the main questions of the paper, researching the
role of sustainable buildings in providing healthy workplaces in physical and
perceptual terms. sustainable building practices will reduce the effects of ill health
and reduced productivity by improving the quality of buildings for their occupants.
Introduction: In the introduction there is a part about “Sustainable construction has
focused on environmental sustainability, but this may have contributed to improved
health, satisfaction and wellbeing amongst building users. Sick building
syndrome…”. This is a repeat of that section which is mentioned also in the abstract.
The introduction does not mention anything about the UK, it is a surprise to find the
UK mentioned at first in the literature review.
Literature Review: The literature review starts with the mentioning of the
importance of sustainability (development). In the literature review, all of a sudden it
includes the “Property” and construction industry. While there is no definition about
why the researcher mentions at first only the construction industry, but later adds
property to it. “The industry also contributes economically to the UK with
employment, an emphasis on profitable growth and socially responsible investment
(SRI)”, this sentence does not add enough information but rather talks about the
economically and profitable growth. These two factors are not important or related to
the main question. The next part on page 4, talks about sustainable development
strategies of the UK and the Kyoto Protocol, this is clear. Environmental
sustainability is mentioned 4 times in this paper, yet there is no given definition about
the topic and therefore confusing. The end of page 4 and the beginning of page 5
discusses the Framework for Discussion, yet also mentions that behavior change,
and lean construction is needed. Why this is important or needed is not further
elaborated and therefore does not give enough context to sustainable development
and the main question.
Sustainable construction to sustainable workplaces: Definition of the term
“Workplace” is not given here in this context. The beginning of page 5, all of a
sudden switch from talking about sustainable workplaces to employee
disengagement. The sentence “It is important to provide workplaces that positively
influence employee well-being” is not elaborated in detail and therefore raises
confusing. A couple of sentences later a sentence is also confusing saying “Smith
and Pitt (2008) suggest that the workplace may be a key root cause.” Why a
workplace the root cause is of disengagement is not elaborated or supported by any
source. The Alinea after that is very confusing and there are multiple topics
mentioned that have no direct relations with each other and are not mentioned
earlier in the paper. That Alinea talks about the reducing complaints in the workplace
due to improving the working environment. The next sentence goes all of a sudden
without explanation about workplace satisfaction is associated with job satisfaction.
And perceptions of workplace quality have effect on the building user’s psychology.
The end of page 5 goes about the quantitative building performance measures which
fails to account for the effect of occupiers’ perceptions. Yet the switch to why
https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/2748/1/
smith_aj_sustainable_workplaces_and_building_user_comfort_and_satisfaction.pdf
Abstract: The abstract describes the main questions of the paper, researching the
role of sustainable buildings in providing healthy workplaces in physical and
perceptual terms. sustainable building practices will reduce the effects of ill health
and reduced productivity by improving the quality of buildings for their occupants.
Introduction: In the introduction there is a part about “Sustainable construction has
focused on environmental sustainability, but this may have contributed to improved
health, satisfaction and wellbeing amongst building users. Sick building
syndrome…”. This is a repeat of that section which is mentioned also in the abstract.
The introduction does not mention anything about the UK, it is a surprise to find the
UK mentioned at first in the literature review.
Literature Review: The literature review starts with the mentioning of the
importance of sustainability (development). In the literature review, all of a sudden it
includes the “Property” and construction industry. While there is no definition about
why the researcher mentions at first only the construction industry, but later adds
property to it. “The industry also contributes economically to the UK with
employment, an emphasis on profitable growth and socially responsible investment
(SRI)”, this sentence does not add enough information but rather talks about the
economically and profitable growth. These two factors are not important or related to
the main question. The next part on page 4, talks about sustainable development
strategies of the UK and the Kyoto Protocol, this is clear. Environmental
sustainability is mentioned 4 times in this paper, yet there is no given definition about
the topic and therefore confusing. The end of page 4 and the beginning of page 5
discusses the Framework for Discussion, yet also mentions that behavior change,
and lean construction is needed. Why this is important or needed is not further
elaborated and therefore does not give enough context to sustainable development
and the main question.
Sustainable construction to sustainable workplaces: Definition of the term
“Workplace” is not given here in this context. The beginning of page 5, all of a
sudden switch from talking about sustainable workplaces to employee
disengagement. The sentence “It is important to provide workplaces that positively
influence employee well-being” is not elaborated in detail and therefore raises
confusing. A couple of sentences later a sentence is also confusing saying “Smith
and Pitt (2008) suggest that the workplace may be a key root cause.” Why a
workplace the root cause is of disengagement is not elaborated or supported by any
source. The Alinea after that is very confusing and there are multiple topics
mentioned that have no direct relations with each other and are not mentioned
earlier in the paper. That Alinea talks about the reducing complaints in the workplace
due to improving the working environment. The next sentence goes all of a sudden
without explanation about workplace satisfaction is associated with job satisfaction.
And perceptions of workplace quality have effect on the building user’s psychology.
The end of page 5 goes about the quantitative building performance measures which
fails to account for the effect of occupiers’ perceptions. Yet the switch to why
