Building and Environment 114 (2017) 140e147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

jo urn a l homepage: w ww.els ev ier. co m/locate/buil denv

Occupant perception of “green” buildings: Distinguishing

physical and psychological factors
€ rqvist
Mattias Holmgren*, Alan Kabanshi, Patrik So
Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Ga€ vle, Ga€ vle, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Studies have found a preference bias for “environmentally friendly” or “green” artifacts and buildings. For
Received 15 August 2016 example, indoor environments are more favorably viewed when the building is labeled/certified “green”,
Received in revised form in comparison with one that is not labeled/certified, even though the two environments are actually
2 December 2016
identical. The present study explored how physical properties of the indoor environment (high vs. low
Accepted 12 December 2016
temperature) and labeling (“green” vs. “conventional”) interacts in their effect on environment
Available online 14 December 2016
perception. Participants performed a series of tasks in four indoor environments with different labels
(low vs. high carbon footprint) and different temperatures (23 C vs. 28 C). Label and temperature were
Keywords:
Green buildings
manipulated orthogonally. The participants' environmental concern was also measured. The environ-
Indoor environment mentally concerned participants assigned higher thermal acceptance and satisfaction scores to the
Bias environment labeled “low carbon footprint” (i.e., “green” certified) compared to the environment labeled
Satisfaction “high carbon footprint” (i.e., not “green” certified), but only in the cooler thermal environment. Envi-
Environmental certification ronmentally indifferent participants' perception of the environment did not differ depending on label or
room temperature. The results suggest that a “green” label positively influence the perception of the
indoor environment for occupants, but only when the temperature is within the acceptable range as
proposed in guidelines for “green” buildings.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction compared to people who rate the same indoor environment

Buildings have a huge impact on the environment through
material use [1], water waste [2], land use [3], but mostly by its
energy use as the built environment demands about 40% of global
energy [4]. One important response to building's negative impact
on the environment is environmental certification [5]. “Green”
buildings are better for the environment as they generally are en-
ergy efficient [6], water conserving [7], and use environmentally
friendly building materials [8]. They also seem to have positive
effects for the occupants, for example, “green” buildings are asso-
ciated with a high workplace satisfaction [9,10] and seem to have
psychological [11,12] and behavioral [13] benefits. Furthermore,
there seems to be a preference bias for an indoor environment in
buildings disclosed as environmentally certified. More specifically,
people assign higher comfort ratings to an indoor environment if
they are told that the building is environmentally certified,
* Corresponding author. University of Ga€vle, Kungsba
€cksva
€gen 47, SE-801 76
Ga€vle, Sweden.
E-mail address: mattias.holmgren@hig.se (M. Holmgren).
without that particular information [14]. In this paper, we seek to
explore how physical variations in an indoor environment interact
with the preference bias for “green” buildings.
Environmental certifications have had a substantial growth in
the 21st century both for residential [15] and non-residential
buildings [16]. “Green” buildings preserve natural resources
[17,18], mitigate environmental hazards [17,19], improve energy
efficiency [6,10], and safeguard the eco-system [20]. The environ-
mental advantage is undeniably the most obvious benefit of
“green” buildings, but there exist other advantages as well. For
instance, even though there usually is an extra upfront cost for
“green” compared to conventional office buildings [21,22], there is
some financial gain to be made by making a building “green”. Lau
and colleagues [23] found that “green” office buildings can save
over 55% of the energy cost compared to conventional buildings,
and Ross et al.’s [22] cash flow analysis showed that “green”
building design saves more money per square-meter compared to
conventional buildings.
Implementation of energy-efficient measures in buildings can
also lead to physical changes of the indoor environment [24] and in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.017
0360-1323/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
141 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
some cases improve the indoor climate for occupants [25]. How-
ever, some studies have shown that “green” buildings can be a
source of thermal discomfort (e.g., [9,26]). “Green” buildings are
often e completely or partly e naturally ventilated. Hence, the
temperature inside depends on the temperature outside, which
often leads to too hot temperatures in the summer or in warm
climates [27,28] and too cold temperatures in the winter or in cold
climates [29,30]. This disadvantage in “green” buildings may be
crucial, especially in view of the fact that summer temperatures are
expected to increase due to global warming [31], and because the
thermal environment (a) is of greater importance for indoor envi-
ronmental satisfaction than other dimensions (e.g., air quality;
[32]), and (b) can impair mental work performance [33,34].
In contrast to the disadvantage of thermal discomfort, subjective
measures e typically obtained from post-occupancy evaluation
studies e suggest that “green” buildings are associated with a high
workplace satisfaction [9,10,12,35,36]. For example, occupants of
“green” buildings have a greater overall satisfaction with the indoor
environment compared to occupants of a conventional building
[9,37e39], even when nearly all physical measurements of the two
environments are equal [40,41]. The same pattern is found for a more
detailed analysis of specific dimensions within the built environ-
ment, such as air quality [10,42,43] and thermal comfort [41,43].
There is also evidence suggesting that “green” buildings improve
productivity [10,44], performance on cognitive tasks [11] and have
the ability to motivate occupants' pro-environmental behavior [13].
The reason why people tend to show a preference for “green”
buildings is, however, still unclear. Research in environmental
psychology shows that a food product [45e49] or an artifact in the
built environment like a desktop lamp [50] is preferred over a
conventional counterpart when it is labeled “environmentally
friendly”. Eco-labeling of a product is enough to make individuals
believe that the product has better features compared to an alter-
native product labeled conventional, even though the two prod-
ucts, in reality, are identical. The preference bias for eco-labeled
products over conventional-labeled products has been found in the
context of buildings as well. More specifically, people assign higher
comfort ratings to an indoor environment if they are told that the
building is environmentally certified, compared to people who do
not receive such information [14]. Furthermore, occupants in
“green” buildings have higher acceptance (e.g., more tolerance and
forgiveness) for an unpleasant indoor environment, compared to
occupants in conventional buildings [51,52]; acceptance seems to
be related to the occupant's environmental concern [27].
Environmental concern (e.g., affect or worry associated with
environmental problems) is based on three different value orien-
tations as proposed by Stern and Dietz [53]. These are biospheric
(i.e., concern regarding how the environmental problems will affect
the biosphere), altruistic (i.e., concern regarding how the environ-
mental problems will affect other people), and egoistic (i.e.,
concern regarding how the environmental problems will affect the
self) values. Environmental concern has been shown to positively
influence several pro-environmental behavior intentions. For
example, purchase intentions for ecological products [54], will-
ingness to pay a premium price for renewable energy [55], will-
ingness to pay for green electricity [56], and willingness to take
action for mitigating climate change [57]. Previous research within
this area has found that altruistic environmental concern is the
strongest predictor of the magnitude of the labeling effects. For
instance, So € rqvist et al. [50] found that people with high altruistic
environmental concern made fewer errors on a color discrimina-
tion task when they performed the task under a lamp labeled
“environmentally friendly” compared to when the same lamp was
labeled “conventional”. Because previous studies have shown that
altruistic environmental concern is the stronger predictor of the
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 141
label effect, the analysis of the current study was, for simplicity,
limited to altruistic environmental concern.
1.1. Purpose
Taken together, previous research suggests that physical factors
(e.g., temperature) and psychological factors (e.g., associations with
“green” labeling) together influence the effects of “green” buildings
on occupants. It is yet unclear, however, how these two factors
individually influence the occupants and how the factors interact.
To explore how the “green” label and temperature interact in their
effects on occupant's perception of an indoor environment,
bottom-up processes of perception e which depend on the physical
characteristics of the stimulus, such as room temperature e has to
be separated from top-down processes of perception e which
depend on cognitive factors, such as the perceiver's beliefs, desires
and expectations with regard to the “green” label.
The purpose of the experiment reported here was: (a) to
investigate whether individuals' judgments of perceived indoor
environment satisfaction and individuals' judgements of indoor
thermal environment acceptance are biased towards a preference
for “green” buildings over a conventional alternative, (b) to inves-
tigate how room temperature (a physical factor) and “green” la-
beling (a psychological factor) interacts in their effect on occupant's
room perception, and (c) to examine how occupant's environ-
mental concern modulate the interaction between temperature
and labeling. To this end, we influenced the bottom-up part of
perception by manipulating room temperature in two conditions
(i.e., a thermal environment with 23 C or 28 C, in two identical
rooms). Moreover, we manipulated the top-down part of percep-
tion by labeling the two rooms either “low carbon footprint” (i.e.,
environmentally friendly) or “high carbon footprint” (i.e., conven-
tional), by having the participants believe that one of the two
room's indoor environment was managed by an environmentally
certified energy system, whereas the other room's indoor envi-
ronment was managed by a conventional system.
We hypothesized that the participants would be more satisfied
with the “green”-labeled room compared to the other room. We
also predicted that the participants would be more accepting of the
thermal environment in the room with the “low carbon footprint”
label compared to the room with the “high carbon footprint” label,
especially in the lower thermal environment. Furthermore, we
expected that the magnitude of this preference bias for the room
labeled “low carbon footprint” would be associated with altruistic
environmental concern.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A total of 78 individuals (50% women) at the University of Ga €vle
(mean age ¼ 25.94 years, SD ¼ 7.73) were recruited to participate in
the experiment. Four participants of the 78 did evidently not follow
instructions and were therefore excluded from the analysis. All
participants received a small honorarium for their participation.
2.2. Experimental facilities
The study was conducted in a climate chamber (7.2 m 8.6 m,
ceiling height 2.7 m) at the University of Ga€vle. The chamber was
divided by a wall to make two rooms (room 1: 4.1 m 7.2 m; room
2: 4.3 m 7.2 m); configured as two open plan offices, each con-
sisting of 4 workstations (Fig. 1).
Each room had an internal heat load of about 615 W (4 occu-
pants and lighting) and was ventilated with a mixing system. The
142 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
overall ventilation system and setup is shown in Fig. 1B. The indoor
climate of both rooms were interconnected and controlled by the
same system, which was connected to a programmable logic
controller (PLC) and a proportionaleintegralederivative control
(PID-control). The PID-control maintained the specified room
temperatures (measured at the height of 1.5 m in each room) and if
deviations occurred, the control system sent a feedback instruction
to the air handling unit (AHU) to either increase or reduce the
supply air temperature so as to correct the room temperature. For
example, when the temperature was above the specified value, the
PID-control told the AHU to cool the supply air until the desired
room temperature was attained. The overall system airflow rate
was set to 113 L/second (100% outdoor air supply), which was above
the 80 L/second (40 L/second for each room or 10 L/second per
person) recommended in ISO7730 (2005) of a category I building.
This slightly higher airflow rate was used to compensate for the
cooling capacity of the air handling unit which could only cool the
supply air up to 14 C as opposed to the required 10 C for one of the
conditions. Each room had two ceiling mounted mixing supply
diffusers (0.6 m 0.6 m) and two ceiling return grills
(0.6 m 0.6 m) with a common exhaust unit installed inside the
ceiling and in the center of the larger room.
Two air temperature conditions were used: 23 C and 28 C. The
air velocity in the occupied zone in both rooms was less than
0.15 m/s. Relative humidity was not controlled but varied between
Fig. 1. The figure displays two rooms within a climate chamber where the experiment was conducted, seen from above (panel A) and from the side (panel B). A temporary wall split
the chamber in half. Each room had four workstations where the participants were sitting when responding to the tasks and questions.
Environment
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 142
20% and 30%. Preliminary tests showed that room temperature and
air velocity conditions were identical in both rooms; as such, we
took an assumption that conditions in the two rooms were the
same. To ensure steady state conditions, all experimental condi-
tions were set 12 h prior to data collection.
2.3. Experimental design
A within-between mixed factorial design was used with two
independent variables. One independent variable was carbon foot-
print labeling of the experimental facility, manipulated within par-
ticipants in two conditions: low carbon footprint label vs. high
carbon footprint label. The order between the two carbon footprint
label conditions was counterbalanced between participants, such
that the participants were randomly assigned to begin the experi-
ment either in the room labeled “low carbon footprint” or in the
room labeled “high carbon footprint”. Moreover, the labels of the
two rooms were counterbalanced, such that room 1 was labeled
“low carbon footprint” and room 2 was labeled “high carbon foot-
print” for half of the participants, and the other way around for the
other half. The other independent variable was room temperature,
manipulated between participants in two conditions: 23 C vs. 28 C.
Half of the participants were assigned to the 23 C condition, and the
other half to the 28 C condition. Eight people were able to partici-
pate simultaneously. Each participant was given a compendium to
143 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
administer data collection throughout the experiment.
2.4. Experimental procedure and the compendium
An overview of the experimental procedure and the timeline are
presented in Fig. 2.
2.4.1. Room labels
When the participant came to the laboratory, they were told
that they would perform various tasks in two different rooms that
were operated by two different supply systems: One system with a
low carbon footprint (common in “green” buildings) and one with a
high carbon footprint (common in conventional buildings). Unbe-
knownst to the participants, the two rooms were two parts of the
same climate chamber, and there were in fact no differences be-
tween the two rooms with regard to air supply systems. The first
page of the compendium included a statement about the reason
why the two roomsdsupposedlyddiffered in their carbon foot-
print. More specifically, the statement about the two rooms read:
“One of the two rooms that you will work in is equipped with envi-
ronmental certified systems that together result in a low carbon
footprint of the room (low carbon footprint). The other room is
equipped with systems used in conventional/ordinary buildings, which
together make the carbon footprint of the room high (high carbon
footprint).” The participants were told to read this statement before
the experiment proper.
2.4.2. Acclimatization task
Thereafter, the participants conducted a task merely imple-
mented for the participants to acclimatize to the room temperature.
The task was to read a text (834 words) about a fictitious culture
and to answer 40 multiple-choice questions on the text contents
[58]. The participants performed this task in the first room they
were in (either in the room labeled “low carbon footprint” or in the
room labeled “high carbon footprint”) during their participation in
the experiment. The allocated time for this task was 10 min, which
is enough time to get acclimatized to a new temperature [59]. After
the allocated time, the experimenter entered the room, interrupted
the task and instructed the participants to move on to the next task.
2.4.3. Filler tasks
After the acclimatization task, the participants conducted
another set of reading and Sudoku-problem tasks for 15 min. When
the time was up, the experimenter interrupted the participants and
asked them to move on to the part where they were going to rate
the indoor environment.
2.4.4. Subjective ratings of the indoor environment
First, the participants were asked to respond to questions
regarding the temperature, which were “Do you find the temperature
in the room with a high carbon footprint comfortable?” and “Do you
think that the temperature in the room with a high carbon footprint is
acceptable, considering the rooms' carbon footprint?”. Next they were
Fig. 2. The figure presents an overview of the experimental procedure. The accumulated time was approximately 60 min.
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 143
asked to make an estimate of the temperature in the room in degrees
Celsius. Satisfaction measures were assessed with the following
questions: “How satisfied are you with the lighting in the room with the
high carbon footprint where you now are sitting?”, “How satisfied are
you with the air quality in the room with the high carbon footprint
where you now are sitting?”, and “How satisfied are you with the sound
proofing of the room with high carbon footprint where you now are
sitting?”. Responses were used to calculate an index of the partici-
pants overall satisfaction of the room. All the questions above had a
response scale ranging from 1 to 9, end-points labeled. Please note
that the formulation of these questions was only used in the room
framed as having a high carbon footprint. When in the room labeled
“low carbon footprint”, the questions were reframed, for example:
“How satisfied are you with the air quality in the room with the low
carbon footprint where you now are sitting?” (The bold text was added
here to highlight the difference).
2.4.5. Room switch
After the evaluations were completed, the participants were
instructed to follow the experimenter to the next room. They
conducted another set of filler tasks, this time in a room with the
same temperature as before but with a different carbon footprint
label, and subsequently conducted the subjective ratings of the
indoor environment of the new room.
2.4.6. Environmental concern scale
After evaluating the indoor environment of the second room, the
participants responded to a set of questions used to assess envi-
ronmental concern ([60]; Swedish version adopted from Hansla
et al. [56]). The participants read a question, “How concerned are you
that today's environmental problems will affect … ?” and then
responded to 12 items covering different things that may be affected
by environmental problems. The response scales ranged from 1 to 9
(end-points labeled). Reliable measures were attained by averaging
responses of egoistic (M ¼ 5.59, SD ¼ 2.06, Cronbach's a ¼ 0.92),
biospheric (M ¼ 7.25, SD ¼ 1.60, Cronbach's a ¼ 0.91), and altruistic
consequences (M ¼ 7.07, SD ¼ 1.71, Cronbach's a ¼ 0.85). An
adjustment was made before including the altruistic environmental
concern index in the analyses (as proposed by Haugh [61]). This
adjustment was calculated by subtracting the grand mean, across all
three dimensions (egoistic, biospheric, and altruistic environmental
concern), from the mean score of the altruistic environmental
concern index. The altruistic environmental concern scores left after
this adjustment procedure indicate how much lower (or higher) the
score is compared with the other dimensions. Thus, an absolute
score of 8 (made on the scale from 1 to 9) on the altruistic envi-
ronmental concern scale can still be low when the index is adjusted.
3. Results
3.1. Thermal acceptance and thermal comfort
To explore the interaction between room label, thermal
144 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 144

environment, and altruistic environmental concern, the partici- Table 1

Results from a 2 (type of question: thermal acceptance vs. thermal comfort) 2
pants were divided into two groups based on a median split, viz.
(room label: high carbon footprint vs. low carbon footprint) 2 (thermal environ-
high (M ¼ 0.94, SD ¼ 0.47) and low (M ¼ 0.04, SD ¼ 0.46) altruistic ment: 23 C vs. 28 C) 2 (altruistic environmental concern: high vs. low) mixed
environmental concern. As can be seen in Fig. 3, participants with analysis of variance, for all participants, with thermal comfort and thermal accep-
high altruistic environmental concern had a higher degree of tance as dependent variables.
thermal acceptance for the room labeled “low carbon footprint”, Results df F p h2p
compared to the room labeled “high carbon footprint”, but only in
Main Effects
the lower (i.e., 23 C) thermal environment. In contrast, partici-
Label 1, 70 8.60 0.005 0.11
pants with low altruistic environmental concern were quite indif- Question 1, 70 0.002 0.964 0.00
ferent of the carbon footprint label of the room, as their thermal Temp. 1, 70 45.80 <0.001 0.40
acceptance was similar for the two rooms. However, there was no Alt. EC 1, 70 1.68 0.199 0.02
difference of perceived thermal comfort between the two rooms or Interactions
Label temp. 1, 70 0.003 0.954 0.00
between the two altruistic environmental concern groups. This was Label alt EC. 1, 70 6.40 0.014 0.08
confirmed by a 2 (type of question: thermal acceptance vs. thermal Label question 1, 70 20.03 <0.001 0.22
comfort) 2 (room label: high carbon footprint vs. low carbon Question temp. 1, 70 3.42 0.069 0.05
footprint) 2 (thermal environment: 23 C vs. 28 C) 2 (altruistic Question alt. EC 1, 70 0.26 0.612 0.00
Temp alt. EC 1, 70 0.40 0.531 0.01
environmental concern: high vs. low) mixed analysis of variance
Three-way interactions
(ANOVA), wherein type of question and room label were varied Label temp alt. EC 1, 70 3.16 0.080 0.04
within participants and thermal environment and altruistic envi- Label temp question 1, 70 2.33 0.131 0.03
ronmental concern varied between participants. The mixed ANOVA Label alt. EC question 1, 70 3.99 0.050 0.05
revealed a set of main effects and interactions which are presented Temp alt. EC question 1, 70 4.38 0.040 0.06
Four-way interaction
in Table 1.
Label temp alt. EC question 1, 70 5.76 0.019 0.08
To break down the four-way interaction into detail, another set
of ANOVAs was conducted for the high and low environmental
concern participants respectively (see Table 2 and Table 3). A
thermal comfort between the two label conditions.
separate 2 (type of question: thermal acceptance vs. thermal
Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between type of
comfort) 2 (room label: high carbon footprint vs. low carbon
question and room label for the participants with high altruistic
footprint) 2 (thermal environment: 23 C vs. 28 C) mixed
environmental concern, F (1, 35) ¼ 21.72, MSE ¼ 1.29, p < 0.001,
ANOVA was conducted for the high altruistic environmental 2

h p ¼ 0.38. High altruistic participants had a higher degree of

concern participants (Fig. 2AeB). This analysis revealed a signifi-
acceptance for the room they believed had a low carbon footprint
cant interaction between all three factors, F (1, 35) ¼ 7.99,
compared to the high carbon footprint room, even though there
MSE ¼ 1.29, p ¼ 0.008, h2p ¼ 0.19, suggesting that thermal accep-
was no difference on perceived thermal comfort between the two
tance was higher for the low carbon footprint label room compared
label conditions. A significant interaction was also found between
to the high carbon footprint label room, but only in the lower
temperature and type of question, F (1, 35) ¼ 6.39, MSE ¼ 1.41,
(23 C) thermal environment, whereas there was no difference in
145 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 145

Fig. 3. The figure displays the mean thermal acceptance ratings (panel A) and the mean thermal comfort ratings (Panel B) for the high altruistic environmental concern group; and
the mean thermal acceptance ratings (Panel C) and the mean thermal comfort ratings (Panel D) for the low altruistic environmental concern group. Error bars represent standard
error of means.
146 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 146

Table 2 other room.

Results from a 2 (type of question: thermal acceptance vs. thermal comfort) 2 Another separate 2 (type of question: thermal acceptance vs.
(room label: high carbon footprint vs. low carbon footprint) 2 (thermal environ-
ment: 23 C vs. 28 C) mixed analysis of variance, for the participants with high
thermal comfort) 2 (room label: high carbon footprint vs. low
altruistic environmental concern, with thermal comfort and thermal acceptance as carbon footprint) 2 (thermal environment: 23 C vs. 28 C) mixed
dependent variables. ANOVA was conducted with the low altruistic environmental
Results df F p h2p
concern participants only (Fig. 2CeD). This analysis revealed no
significant interactions. One significant main effect was found for
Main Effects 2
temperature, F (1, 35) ¼ 14.58, MSE ¼ 12.42, p ¼ 0.001, h p ¼ 0.29.
Label 1, 35 13.85 0.001 0.28
Question 1, 35 0.89 0.768 0.00 Hence, all interactions between type of question, room label and
Temp. 1, 35 38.54 <0.001 0.52 thermal comfort which were found, were found for high environ-
Interactions mental concern participants only.
Label question 1, 35 21.72 <0.001 0.38
Label temp 1, 35 1.56 0.220 0.04
Question temp 1, 35 6.39 0.016 0.15
3.2. Indoor environment satisfaction
Three-way interactions
Label question temp 1, 35 7.99 0.008 0.19 As can be seen in Fig. 4, a tendency was found such that par-
ticipants with high altruistic environmental concern were more
satisfied with the low carbon footprint label room compared to the
Table 3 high carbon footprint label room, whereas the participants in the
Results from a 2 (type of question: thermal acceptance vs. thermal comfort) 2 low altruistic environmental concern group were indifferent of the
(room label: high carbon footprint vs. low carbon footprint) 2 (thermal environ- label. This tendency was shown by a 2 (room label: high carbon

ment: 23 C vs. 28 C) mixed analysis of variance, for the participants with low
footprint vs. low carbon footprint) 2 (thermal environment: 23 C
altruistic environmental concern, with thermal comfort and thermal acceptance as
dependent variables. vs. 28 C) 2 (altruistic environmental concern: high vs. low)
2
mixed ANOVA. The three-way interaction was almost statistically
Results df F p h p
significant in view of the conventional alpha value, F (1, 70) ¼ 3.54,
Main Effects 2
MSE ¼ 1.37, p ¼ 0.064, h p ¼ 0.05. The mixed ANOVA above did also
Label 1, 35 0.09 0.769 0.00
reveal a main effect of room label, F (1, 70) ¼ 5.91, MSE ¼ 1.37,
Question 1, 35 0.20 0.660 0.01
Temp. 1, 35 14.58 0.001 0.29 p ¼ 0.018, h2p ¼ 0.08. The three-way interaction emerged because
Interactions participants in the high altruistic environmental concern assigned
Label question 1, 35 2.96 0.094 0.08 higher satisfaction scores to the room with a low carbon footprint
Label temp. 1, 35 1.60 0.214 0.04 label (M ¼ 6.04, SD ¼ 1.93) compared to the high carbon footprint
Question temp. 1, 35 0.04 0.847 0.00
Three-way interactions
room (M ¼ 4.89, SD ¼ 1.59), t (17) ¼ 2.12, p ¼ 0.049, but only in the
Label question temp. 1, 35 0.37 0.548 0.01 lower (i.e., 23 C) thermal environment. In turn, there were no
differences between conditions amongst the low environmental
concern participants.
p ¼ 0.016, h2 p ¼ 0.15. The participants appreciated the colder

thermal environment (23 C) more than the warmer thermal 4. Discussion

environment (28 C), but only with regard to estimates of thermal
comfort. Finally, a main effect was found for room label, F (1,
2
35) ¼ 13.85, MSE ¼ 6.37, p ¼ 0.001, h p ¼ 0.28. Participants within
the high altruistic environmental concern group generally assigned
higher values to the low carbon footprint label room than to the
The present study shows that the effect of “green” buildings on
occupants' indoor environment perception depends on an inter-
action between the physical properties of the room (in this case
temperature) and the psychological associations with the “green”
147 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 147

Fig. 4. The figure displays mean satisfaction ratings for the high and low altruistic environmental concern groups. Error bars represent standard error of means.
148 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
certification. Thermal acceptance was greater in a room with a low
carbon footprint label (environmentally friendly), compared to a
room with a high carbon footprint label (environmentally un-
friendly), especially when the thermal environment was within the
acceptable range according to guidelines for “green” buildings, i.e.,
23 C [62,63]. However, this interaction arose only for participants
with high altruistic environmental concern. The pattern was the
same for ratings of indoor environment satisfaction. Participants
with high altruistic environmental concern assigned higher satis-
faction scores to the indoor environment with a low carbon foot-
print label, compared to the environment labeled as having a high
carbon footprint, but only in the lower (i.e., 23 C) thermal condi-
tion. There were no differences between conditions among the
environmentally indifferent (low altruistic environmental concern)
participants, neither for thermal acceptance nor for satisfaction
ratings.
The current study found that the degree of thermal acceptance
was greater in the environment with the low carbon footprint label.
This effect was modulated by altruistic environmental concern, but
only in the lower thermal environment. The results are in line with
previous research demonstrating a higher forgiveness factor for
“green” buildings [27,29,52], especially for participants with high
environmental concern [27]. Taken together, it seems that a “green”
label (i.e., the low carbon footprint label) have the ability to
improve the perception of the indoor environment for occupants,
but only when the temperature is within the guidelines for “green”
building design [62,63].
A large body of research has investigated people's perception of
“green” buildings. Collectively, these studies establish that there are
potentially psychological advantages to be gained from environ-
mental certification of buildings. For example, one advantage is
increased workplace satisfaction [9,10,12,35e39]. Another advan-
tage appears to be a more pleasant-full perception of specific in-
door environment qualities [10,41e43]. However, the majority of
these studies have used post-occupancy evaluation self-reports
(i.e., “the examination of the effectiveness for human users of
occupied designed environments”; [64], p. 429) as the data
collection tool.
A study by Holmgren and So € rqvist [14] found that self-reports,
regarding perceived indoor environmental comfort, are biased to-
ward a preference for an indoor environment with a “green” label
in comparison to an unlabeled alternative. The present study
replicated these results and (a) strengthen the case for a “green”
preference bias within the built environment, and (b) shows that
physical properties combined with psychological associations with
the label influence the overall indoor environment perception. In
view of these findings, studies of the psychological effects of
“green” buildings should control for the preference bias either by
making sure the participants are blind to the condition or by
experimentally manipulating the label.
One mechanism that may underpin the effects of “green” la-
beling on self-reported environment perception is social desir-
ability (i.e., the tendency to behave in a manner that is approved by
others) because being in favor of environment-protecting buildings
could be viewed as more socially approvable than being indifferent
to the certification. Whether the difference in perception of the
“green” and the “conventional” environment in this study is a mere
consequence of social desirability is, however, debatable. Research
regarding the preference bias for eco-labeled over conventional-
labeled products have shown with experimental [47,65] and
correlational evidence [48,50] that social desirability does not un-
derpin the preference bias. Another potential mechanism, that
seems more probable given the evidence against the social desir-
ability account, is that the preference bias may arise because of an
expectation or a desire that a building with a “green” label has
Environment
Environment
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 148
superior features compared to a conventional labeled alternative.
Moreover, with regard to taste perception, there is evidence sug-
gesting that labels of certain products do not only influence self-
reports, they also influence the neural response to the product
when compared to an identical unlabeled product [66e68].
Correspondingly, Linder et al. [69] found, in a biding situation, that
seeing a product with an organic label increased neural activity in
an area related to reward processing compared to seeing a non-
organic labeled product. In view of Linder et al.’s [69] finding, it is
possible that the “green” building label enhanced the rewarding
properties of the appurtenant indoor environment, which subse-
quently led to higher thermal acceptance scores and satisfaction
ratings.
5. Conclusion
We conclude from the present study that physical properties of
the indoor environment (temperature) and psychological associa-
tions with regard to environmental certification (the “green” label)
interacts in their effects on occupant indoor environment percep-
tion. The psychological advantage of “green” buildings seen in
previous research [e.g., 9, 10, 12, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] is probably in
part a result of mental biases (i.e., a preference bias for “green”
buildings) and in part a result of the physical properties of the in-
door environments. Targets for future research include to study
how ambient indoor environment factors (e.g., air quality) other
than temperature influence the perception of “green” buildings,
and to investigate potential psychological mechanisms that may
underpin the preference bias for “green” buildings.
References
[1] K. Adalbert, Energy use during the life cycle of single-units dwellings: Ex-
amples, Build. Environ. 4 (1997) 321e329.
[2] Y. Zeng, C. Yang, J. Zhang, W. Pu, Feasibility investigation of oily wastewater
treatment by combination of zinc and PAM in coagulation/flocculation,
J. Hazard. Mater. 147 (2007) 991e996.
[3] Levin, H. (1997). Systematic evaluation and assessment of building environ-
mental performance (SEABEP), paper for presentation to “Buildings and
Environment”, Paris, 9e12 June.
[4] A. GhaffarianHoseini, N.D. Dahlan, U. Berardi, A. GhaffarianHoseini,
N. Makaremi, M. GhaffarianHoseini, Sustainable energy performances of green
buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25 (2013) 1e17.
[5] J. Zuo, Z.Y. Zhao, Green building researchdcurrent status and future agenda: a
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 271e281.
[6] C. Turner, M. Frankel, Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction
Buildings, New Buildings Institute, Vancouver, WA, 2008.
[7] US Green Building Council, USGBC History, Available at, 2009, http://www.
usgbc.org/about/history [accessed 22.03.16].
[8] H.Y. Ren, S. Wang, C. Wang, General analysis on green building materials and
development in China, Appl. Mech. Mater. 744e746 (2015) 1427e1430.
[9] S. Kim, Y. Hwang, Y.S. Lee, W. Corser, Occupant comfort and satisfaction in
green healthcare environments: a survey study focusing on healthcare staff,
J. Sustain. Environ. 8 (2015) 156e173.
[10] A. Thatcher, K. Milner, Changes in productivity, psychological wellbeing and
physical wellbeing from working in a ‘green’ building, Work 49 (2014)
381e393.
[11] J.G. Allen, P. MacNaughton, U. Satish, S. Santanam, J. Vallerino, J.D. Spengler,
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, Environ. Health Per-
spect. 124 (6) (2015) 805e812.
[12] L. Armitage, A. Murugan, H. Kato, Green offices in Australia: a user perception
survey, J. Corp. Real Estate 13 (2011) 169e180.
[13] S. Khashe, A. Heydarian, D. Gerber, B. Becerik-Gerber, T. Hayes, W. Wood,
Influence of LEED branding on building occupants' pro-environmental
behavior, Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 477e488.
[14] Holmgren, M., & So € rqvist, P. (Unpublished results). Are mental biases
responsible for the perceived comfort advantage in “green” buildings?.
[15] Å. Whalstro € m, L. Jagemar, P. Filipsson, C. Heinecke, Marknadso € versikt Av
Uppfo € rda Lågenergibyggnader, 2011, pp. 1e64. Available at, http://www.
energy-management.se/attachments/documents/124/l_gan_rapport_2011_
01.pdf [accessed 22.03.16].
[16] A. Katz, Green building Facts, 2012. Available at, http://www.usgbc.org/
149 M. Holmgren
M. Holmgren
et al.
et /al.Building
/ Building
andand
Environment
Environment
articles/green-building-facts [accessed 22.03.16].
[17] A. Coelho, J. de Brito, Influence of construction and demolition waste man-
agement on the environmental impact of buildings, Waste Manag. 32 (2012) [44]
532e541.
[18] C. Thormark, The effect of material choice on the total energy need and
recycling potential of a building, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 1019e1026. [45]
[19] W. Wang, R. Zmeureanu, H. Rivard, Applying multi-objective genetic algo-
rithms in green building design optimization, Build. Environ. 40 (2005)
1512e1525. [46]
[20] F. Bianchini, K. Hewage, How green are the green roofs? Lifecycle analysis of
green roof materials, Build. Environ. 48 (2012) 57e65. [47]
[21] D. Langdon, Cost and benefit of achieving Green, 2007. Australia.
[22] B. Ross, M. Lo pez-Alcala, A.A. Small III, Modeling the private financial returns
from green building investments, J. Green Build. 2 (2007) 99e105. [48]
[23] L.C. Lau, K.T. Tan, K.T. Lee, A.R. Mohamed, A comparative study on the energy
policies in Japan and Malaysia in fulfilling their nations' obligations towards
the Kyoto Protocol, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4771e4778. [49]
[24] J.F. Karlsson, B. Moshfegh, Energy demand and indoor climate in a low energy
building e changed control strategies and boundary condition, Energy Build.
38 (2006) 315e326. [50]
[25] L. Liu, P. Rohdin, B. Moshfegh, Evaluating indoor environment of a retrofitted
multi-family building with improved energy performance in Sweden, Energy
Build. 102 (2015) 32e44. [51]
[26] W.L. Paul, P.A. Taylor, A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction
between a green building and a conventional building, Build. Environ. 43 [52]
(2008) 1858e1870.
[27] M.P. Deuble, R.J. de Dear, Green occupants for green buildings: the missing [53]
link? Build. Environ. 56 (2012) 21e27.
[28] S. Ravindu, R. Rameezdeen, J. Zuo, Z. Zhou, R. Chandratilake, Indoor envi- [54]
ronment quality of green buildings: case study of an LEED platinum certified
factory in a warm humid tropical climate, Build. Environ. 84 (2015) 105e113.
[29] Z. Gou, S.S. Lau, Post-occupancy evaluation of the thermal environment in a [55]
green building, Facilities 31 (2013) 357e371.
[30] Z. Gou, S.S. Lau, F. Chen, Subjective and objective evaluation of the thermal
environment in a three-star green office building in China, Indoor Built En- [56]
viron. 21 (2012) 412e422.
[31] J.A. Clark, C.M. Johnstone, N.J. Kelly, P.A. Strachan, P. Tuohy, The role of built
environment efficiency in a sustainable UK energy economy, Energy Policy 36 [57]
(2008) 4605e4609.
[32] M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influ-
ence human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) [58]
922e937.
[33] A. Kabanshi, H. Wigo € , M. Keaus van de Poll, R. Ljung, P. So
€ rqvist, The influence [59]
of heat, air jet cooling and noise on performance in classrooms, Int. J. Vent. 14
(2016) 321e332.
[34] H. Maula, V. Hongisto, L. O € stman, A. Haapakangas, H. Koskela, J. Hyo € n€
a, The [60]
effect of slightly warm temperature on work performance and comfort in
open-plan offices e a laboratory study, Int. J. Indoor Environ. Health 26 (2015) [61]
286e297.
[35] H. Kato, L. Too, A. Rask, Occupier perceptions of green workplace environ-
ment: the Australian experience, J. Corp. Real Estate 11 (2009) 183e195. [62]
[36] Z. Pei, B. Lin, Y. Liu, Y. Zhu, Comparative study on the indoor environment
quality of green office buildings in China with a long-term field measurement
and investigation, Build. Environ. 84 (2015) 80e88. [63]
[37] A. Hedge, L. Miller, J.A. Dorsey, Occupant comfort and health in green and
conventional university buildings, Work 49 (2014) 363e372.
[38] R. Holopainen, K. Salmi, E. Kahko € nen, P. Pasanen, K. Reijula, Primary energy [64]
performance and perceived indoor environment quality in Finnish low-
energy and conventional houses, Build. Environ. 87 (2015) 92e101. [65]
[39] H. Liang, C. Chen, R. Hwang, W. Shih, S. Lo, H. Liao, Satisfaction of occupants
toward indoor environment quality of certified green office buildings in [66]
Taiwan, Build. Environ. 72 (2014) 232e242.
[40] G.R. Newsham, B.J. Birt, C. Arsenault, A.J.L. Thompson, J.A. Veitch, S. Mancini,
A.D. Galasiu, B.N. Gover, I.A. Macdonald, G.J. Burns, Do ‘green’ buildings have [67]
better indoor environments? New evidence, Build. Res. Inf. 41 (2013)
415e434.
[41] S. Leder, G.R. Newsham, J.A. Veitch, S. Mancini, K.E. Charles, Effects of office [68]
environment on employee satisfaction: a new analysis, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (1)
(2016) 34e50.
[42] S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus, D. Lehrer, C. Huizenga, Occupant satisfaction with [69]
indoor environmental quality in green buildings, Proc. Healthy Build. 3 (2006)
365e370.
[43] M. Bonde, J. Ramirez, A post-occupancy evaluation of a green rated and
114 114
(2017)
(2017)
140e147
140e147 149
conventional on-campus residence hall, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4 (2015)
400e408.
W.J. Fisk, Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and
their relationship with building energy efficiency, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ.
25 (2000) 537e566.
L. Ekelund, F. Fernqvist, H. Tj€ arnebo, Consumer preferences for domestic and
organically labelled vegetables in Sweden, Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. C e Food
Econ. 4 (2007).
W.J. Lee, M. Shimizu, K.M. Kniffin, B. Wansink, You taste what you see: do
organic labels bias taste perception? Food Qual. Prefer. 29 (2013) 33e39.
P. So€ rqvist, D. Hedblom, M. Holmgren, A. Haga, L. Langeborg, J. Kågstro € m, Who
needs cream and sugar when there is eco-labeling? Taste and willingness to
pay for “eco-friendly” coffee, PLoS One 8 (2013) e80719.
P. So€ rqvist, A. Haga, L. Langeborg, M. Holmgren, M. Wallinder, J.E. Marsh, The
green halo: mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect, Food Qual. Prefer.
43 (2015b) 1e9.
K.P. Wiedmann, N. Hennigs, S.H. Behrens, C. Klarmann, Tasting green: an
experimental design for investigating consumer perception of organic wine,
Br. Food J. 116 (2014) 197e211.
P. So€ rqvist, A. Haga, M. Holmgren, A. Hansla, An eco-label effect in the built
environment: performance and comfort effects of labeling a light source
environmentally friendly, J. Environ. Psychol. 42 (2015a) 123e127.
Z. Gou, D. Prasad, S.S. Lau, Are green buildings more satisfactory and
comfortable? Habitat Int. 39 (2013) 156e161.
A. Leaman, B. Bordass, Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Build. Res.
Inf. 35 (2007) 662e673.
P.C. Stern, T. Dietz, The value basis of environmental concern, J. Soc. Issues 50
(1994) 65e84.
L. Magnier, J. Schoormans, Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: the
interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern,
J. Environ. Psychol. 44 (2015) 53e62.
C. Lin, D. Syrgabayeva, Mechanism of environmental concern on intention to
pay more for renewable energy: application to a developing country, Asia Pac.
Manag. Rev. 21 (3) (2016) 125e134.
A. Hansla, A. Gamble, A. Juliusson, T. Ga €rling, The relationship between
awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations,
J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2008) 1e9.
C. Dienes, Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation:
environmental concern and the role of economic factors, Ecol. Econ. 109
(2015) 122e129.
N. Halin, J.E. Marsh, A. Hellman, I. Hellstro € m, P. So € rqvist, A shield against
distraction, J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cognition 3 (2014) 31e36.
S. Schiavon, D. Rim, W. Pasut, W.W. Nazaroff, Sensation of draft at uncovered
ankles for women exposed to displacement ventilation and underfloor air
distribution systems, Build. Environ. 96 (2016) 228e236.
P.W. Schultz, The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other
people, and the biosphere, J. Environ. Psychol. 24 (2001) 31e42.
L.D. Haugh, Checking the independence of two covariance-stationary time-
series: a univariate residual cross-correlation approach, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71
(1976) 378e385.
ASHRAE, Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, in: ASH-
RAE Standard 55, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 2010.
ISO, Ergonomics of the thermal environment: analytic determination and
interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD
indices and local thermal comfort criteria, in: ISO 7730, ISO, 2005.
C.M. Zimring, J.E. Reizenstein, Post-occupancy evaluation: an overview, En-
viron. Behav. 12 (1980) 429e450.
P. So€ rqvist, L. Langeborg, J.E. Marsh, Social desirability does not underpin the
eco-label effect on product judgements, Food Qual. Prefer. 50 (2016) 82e87.
F. Grabenhorst, E.T. Rolls, A. Bilderbeck, How cognition modulates affective
responses to taste and flavor: top-down influences on the orbitofrontal and
pregenual cingulate cortices, Cereb. Cortex 18 (2008) 1549e1559.
N.S. Linder, G. Uhl, K. Fliessbach, P. Trautner, C.E. Elger, B. Weber, Organic
labeling influences food valuation and choice, NeuroImage 53 (2010)
215e220.
S.M. McClure, J. Li, D. Tomlin, K.S. Cypert, L.M. Montague, P.R. Montague,
Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks,
Neuron 44 (2004) 379e387.
H. Plassmann, J. O'Doherty, B. Shiv, A. Rangel, Marketing actions can modulate
neural representations of experienced pleasantness, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105
(2008) 1050e1054.