Quantifying the Impacts of Daylighting & Biophilia

First described by noted biologist E.O. Wilson, biophilia describes the hypothesis that human beings have an instinctive bond and affinity for other living systems. This topic has been popular within the world of green building, with some researchers hypothesizing that workers, who often sit in windowless cubicles lit by fluorescent lights, would be healthier and more productive if they simply had a view of nature and access to natural daylight in their workspace. This hypothesis, however, has been rather difficult to prove with empirical evidence.

“The implications of the findings are huge when one considers productivity and health insurance costs sick leave hours can have on an organization.” – Ihab M.K. Elzeyadi

One study, Daylighting-Bias and Biophilia: Quantifying the Impact of Daylighting on Occupants Health, has attempted to quantify the “health and human impacts of daylighting strategies and views quality from windows on employees health in offices.” The author states that most studies of indoor environmental quality and health focus on the relationship between building environments and self-reported, non-specific “building related symptoms,” or rates of asthma and allergies, but few studies “go beyond self-reported symptoms to objective measures of the influence of building environments on health and productivity.”

This study, conducted in Oregon Hall at The University of Oregon looked at the physical conditions of work stations including, among other things, the presence of glare, access to views and lighting quality. These assessments were matched with university payroll records, and lo and behold, having a window with a view turns out to be good for workers: the study found that individuals working in offices with poor ratings of light quality views used “significantly more sick leave” than colleagues whose work stations received positive reviews.