UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

CIRS pre-occupancy evaluation : inhabitant feedback processes and possibilities for a regenerative place Reckermann, Julia Esther 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_february_reckermann_julia_esther.pdf [ 1.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0167655.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0167655-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0167655-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0167655-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0167655-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0167655-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0167655-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0167655-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0167655.ris

Full Text

     CIRS PRE-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION: INHABITANT FEEDBACK PROCESSES AND POSSIBILITIES FOR A REGENERATIVE PLACE  by   Julia Esther Reckermann    B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2008   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  DECEMBER 2014 © Julia Esther Reckermann, 2014    ii Abstract An untypical workplace, The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) is an aspiring regenerative place with the goals to realize net-positive inhabitant psychological and physiological well-being and environmental performance in which inhabitants actively shape their experiences. As part of these aspirations, this research set out to investigate how feedback processes, such as specifically a Pre-Occupancy Evaluation, can support the navigation towards manifesting these human performance goals. This research explores inhabitants’ relationships with their Pre-CIRS workplace experiences before their move into the new place, as well as to their future experience in CIRS. More specifically, it investigates inhabitant satisfaction and interactions with controls within their previous workplace contexts as well as their associations, expectations and desires for their experiences at CIRS. Past experiences of workplaces can influence inhabitant satisfaction with, behaviours, and the emergence of desired novelty and aspirations of regenerative places. Findings reveal that inhabitants were not satisfied with certain elements of their Pre-CIRS workplaces and not very engaged in creating their experience. Sources of discontent in many cases were associated with perceived lack of control over situations to alleviate discomfort and negative affect. Whilst mental associations with CIRS appeared to reflect a heavy focus on environmental sustainability aspirations, sources of positive feelings include the physical building, the social aspirations of place, the novelty and vision, and a desire for connectedness. Although inhabitant desires are aligned with CIRS aspirations at the conceptual level, they likely go beyond past experiences of their workplaces and call for new ways of thinking, feeling, and acting to realize net-positive aspirations. Thus, it is proposed that regenerative workplaces require a new set of tools that enable a place to shift into ‘becoming’ and embodying aspirations of place. Based on the learning from this research, the regenerative literature, as well as reflections on the process itself, actions steps have been recommended in this work to realize aspirations of place.     iii Preface  The research was designed, undertaken, and written up by Julia Esther Reckermann. The thesis was revised and edited based on feedback from the supervisor, Prof. John Robinson, Prof. Raymond Cole, and Prof. Christopher Barrington-Leigh.   Part of section 6.2.3. is taken from a report written for the Sauder School of Business. (Reckermann, 2014).  The Behavioural assigned granted the project ethics approval and assigned it case reference H10-01097    iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................. ii Preface ................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ...................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. x Glossary ............................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. xx Dedication .......................................................................................................... xxi 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Questions .................................................................................. 2 2. Context ........................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Buildings & Places ..................................................................................... 5 2.2 Purpose & Functions of Places .................................................................. 6 2.2.1 Conventional & Green Buildings .......................................................... 7 2.2.2 Regenerative Living Places ................................................................. 9 2.2.2.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) ............ 11 2.3 Inhabitant Experiences of Place .............................................................. 13 2.3.1 Inhabitant Comfort ............................................................................. 14 2.3.2 Unsupportive Places ......................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Supportive Places ............................................................................. 16 2.3.4 Indoor Experience of Places .............................................................. 17 2.3.4.1 Physical Place .............................................................................. 17 2.3.4.2 Thermal Experience ..................................................................... 17 2.3.4.3 Air Quality Experience .................................................................. 18 2.3.4.4 Acoustical Experience .................................................................. 19 2.3.4.5 Visual Experience ........................................................................ 19    v 2.3.1 Control over Experience .................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Privacy & Territoriality........................................................................ 22 2.3.3 Nature Experiences ........................................................................... 22 2.3.4 Social Experience .............................................................................. 24 2.3.5 Competence, Communication and Agency ....................................... 25 2.3.6 Expectations & Meanings .................................................................. 27 2.3.6.1 Meanings and Expectations from CIRS ....................................... 30 2.4 Feedback ................................................................................................. 33 2.4.1 Pre & Post Occupancy Evaluations ................................................... 34 2.4.2 Feedback in Living Systems .............................................................. 34 2.4.3 Post Occupancy Evaluation ............................................................... 35 2.4.4 Pre-Occupancy Evaluation (PREOE) ................................................ 37 2.4.4.1 Optimization of Place ................................................................... 38 2.4.4.2 Baseline & Story of Place ............................................................. 38 2.4.4.3 Identify Patterns ........................................................................... 39 2.4.4.4 Process Learning ......................................................................... 39 2.4.5 Feedback Instruments and Aspirations ............................................. 40 2.4.1 Context Summary .............................................................................. 38 3. Methods ........................................................................................................ 39 3.1 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................ 39 3.2 Process .................................................................................................... 39 3.3 Research Instrument ............................................................................... 40 3.4 Data analysis ........................................................................................... 42 4. Findings ........................................................................................................ 45 4.1 Present Place: Pre-CIRS Experiences .................................................... 45 4.1.1 Indoor Conditions & Workspace Experiences ................................... 46 4.1.2 Control Systems ................................................................................ 48 4.1.2.1 Control Satisfaction ...................................................................... 48 4.1.2.2 Access & Use ............................................................................... 50 4.1.2.3 Control Responsibility .................................................................. 56    vi 4.1.3 Well-Being & Social Experiences of Place ........................................ 58 4.1.3.1 Life Satisfaction ............................................................................ 59 4.1.3.2 Health ........................................................................................... 60 4.1.3.3 Productivity ................................................................................... 63 4.1.3.4 Social Space ................................................................................ 65 4.1.3.5 Connectedness: Co-Inhabitants ................................................... 66 4.1.3.6 Connectedness: Nature ............................................................... 68 4.2 Future Place: CIRS .................................................................................. 69 4.2.1 Knowledge about CIRS ..................................................................... 71 4.2.2 Physical Place ................................................................................... 74 4.2.3 Indoor Ambient & Workspace Expectations ...................................... 77 4.2.4 Control System Expectations ............................................................ 78 4.2.5 Well-Being & Social Expectations ..................................................... 79 4.2.5.1 Connectedness: Co-Inhabitants ................................................... 80 4.2.5.2 Connectedness: Nature ............................................................... 82 4.2.6 CIRS Aspirations & Feelings ............................................................. 83 4.2.7 Excitement to Be Part of CIRS .......................................................... 87 5. Key Findings & Discussion ........................................................................... 89 5.1 Pre-CIRS ................................................................................................. 89 5.1.1 Environmental Indoor Conditions & Control Interactions ................... 89 5.1.2 Pre-CIRS Well-Being Experience & Interactions ............................... 90 5.2 CIRS: Future Experience ......................................................................... 91 5.2.1 CIRS Knowledge ............................................................................... 91 5.2.2 Expectations & Feelings: CIRS ......................................................... 92 5.2.3 Past Experience, Knowledge & Expectations .................................... 94 6. Future Possibilities for Place ........................................................................ 95 6.1 Feeding Findings Forward ....................................................................... 95 6.1.1 Acoustics & Privacy ........................................................................... 95 6.1.2 Social Experience of Place ................................................................ 95 6.1.3 Control Experience of Place .............................................................. 96    vii 6.1.4 Nature Experience of Place ............................................................... 96 6.1.5 Occupant to Inhabitant ...................................................................... 97 6.2 Process Considerations ........................................................................... 97 6.2.1 Successes ......................................................................................... 97 6.2.2 Opportunities for Improvement .......................................................... 98 6.2.2.1 Process Organization ................................................................... 98 6.2.2.2 Time and Length .......................................................................... 98 6.2.2.3 Content......................................................................................... 99 6.2.2.4 Evaluating Individual Buildings ..................................................... 99 7. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 100 Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 102 Appendices ....................................................................................................... 113 Appendix A .................................................................................................... 113 A.1 Researcher’s Reflections..................................................................... 113 A.2 Researcher’s Lens .............................................................................. 113 A.3 Human Places ..................................................................................... 114 A.4 Levels of Work in Living Places ........................................................... 116 A.4.1 Operate (Existence) ...................................................................... 118 A.4.2 Maintain (Existence) ..................................................................... 119 A.4.3 Improve (Potentials) ...................................................................... 121 A.4.4 Regenerate (Potentials) ................................................................ 122 A.5 Supportive People Places ................................................................... 125 A.5.1 Intrinsic Motivation ........................................................................ 126 A.5.2 Alignment with Aspirations of Place .............................................. 128 A.5.3 Human Living Laboratory .............................................................. 129 Appendix B .................................................................................................... 132 B.1 CIRS Pre-Occupancy Evaluation Questionnaire ................................. 132 Appendix C .................................................................................................... 172 C.1 CIRS PREOE Data ............................................................................. 172     viii List of Tables Table 1: Regenerative Possibilities of Place  ...................................................... 10 Table 2: Aspirations of Place (CIRS) .................................................................. 12 Table 3: CIRS Presentation & Building Tour Content ......................................... 32 Table 4: Questionnaire Items in Most Commonly Used Post Occupancy Instruments ......................................................................................................... 37 Table 5: Scale Classification for Likert Scales (except expectations) ................. 43 Table 6: Scale Classification for Likert Scales Expectations ............................... 43 Table 7: Satisfaction with Indoor Conditions ....................................................... 46 Table 8: Building Control Access & Use Pre-CIRS ............................................. 51 Table 9: Perceived Primary Responsibility for Building System Controls ............ 56 Table 10: Perceived Stress in Life ...................................................................... 59 Table 11: Regularly Experienced Sick Building Symptoms ................................. 62 Table 12: Perceived Effect of Indoor Environmental Quality on Productivity ...... 63 Table 13: Frequency of Interaction with Co-Workers at Work and Socialize Outside of Work .................................................................................................. 66 Table 14: CIRS Ambient Conditions Expectations .............................................. 77 Table 15: Expected Effects of Building in Well-Being, Health, and Productivity .. 79 Table 16: Elements of Place ............................................................................. 115     ix List of Figures Figure 1: Workspace Satisfaction ....................................................................... 48 Figure 2: Satisfaction with Ability to Control Environmental Conditions (Pre-CIRS) ............................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 3: Heating Control System Use in Pre-CIRS context ............................... 52 Figure 4: Cooling Control System Use in Pre-CIRS Context .............................. 53 Figure 5: Lighting Control System Use in Pre-CIRS Context .............................. 54 Figure 6: Air Quality& Movement Control Use in Pre-CIRS Context ................... 55 Figure 7: Life Satisfaction ................................................................................... 59 Figure 8: Satisfaction with Health........................................................................ 61 Figure 9: Satisfaction with Productivity ............................................................... 63 Figure 10: Satisfaction with Space to Socialize .................................................. 65 Figure 11: Sources of Knowledge ....................................................................... 71 Figure 12: CIRS Indoor Control System Expectations ........................................ 79 Figure 13: Feelings of Excitement to Be Part of CIRS ........................................ 88 Figure 14: Levels of Work in a System ............................................................. 117 Figure 15: The Self-Determination Continuum .................................................. 127     x List of Abbreviations ASHRAE-American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers  LEED-Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design POE- Post Occupancy Evaluation PREOE- Pre-Occupancy Evaluation      xi Glossary Affect: Affect here is intended to  “[…] represent this spectrum of valenced feeling states and attitudes, with positive affect and positivity interchangeably representing the pleasant end (e.g., feeling grateful, upbeat; expressing appreciation, liking) and negative affect and negativity representing the unpleasant end (e.g., feeling contemptuous, irritable; expressing disdain, disliking)” (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005, p. 678).  Autonomy:  Autonomy here is defined as  “[…] having the strength to follow personal convictions, even if they go against conventional wisdom” (Ryff, Singer, & Dienberg Love, 2004, p. 1384).  In this context, autonomy relates more to the self-directed qualities of regeneration; it may include knowing, feeling, and living as if the locus of control over one’s experience resides to a large degree within the self. It is important to enable inhabitants to embody this so that they can become active inhabitants of systems rather than passive recipients. Autonomy includes giving inhabitants a voice and freedom to manifest their desires.  Competence & Environmental Mastery: Ryff et al. (2004) define environmental mastery as   “[…] being able to manage the demands of everyday life.” (Ryff et al., 2004, p. 1384)  In the regenerative workplace-building context, competence can relate to the ability to creatively perform and enhance one’s well-being or health, including creating novel patterns for oneself, in relationships, and within a group. Competence can include elements such as communication competence: awareness, understanding and the ability to address thoughts and emotions that adversely influence inhabitant experiences.      xii Comfort: Comfort is referred to here as a feeling of contentment arising from supportive conditions within places that contribute to physical and psychological well-being (Chappells & Shove, 2004). In places, comfort can be experienced through the senses physiologically- thermally, visually, acoustically, et cetera, or through psychological, behavioural, and social senses (Brown, 2009).   Creative Performance:  Creative performance  “[…] involves the behaviours through which one’s creative potential is manifest” (Sweetman, Luthans, Avey, & Luthans, 2011, p. 5).  This concept includes productivity, yet it goes beyond to include the creative element of bringing forth novel patterns - the quality and effectiveness through which inhabitants can bring forth newness into existence. Creative performance also includes awareness and mindfulness as qualities that contribute to the ability to recognize when thinking, feeling, being and doing are not in alignment with individual or collective aspirations.  Embodiment: Embodiment refers to the patterns we embody in our ‘place’. This consists of our physical structure, meanings, feelings, and powers. Shaped by individual and collective experiences, including our beliefs and conditioning, past emotional experiences, embodiment translates into how we think about, feel, and are in the world.   Eudaimonic Well-being: Eudaimonic well-being is a more broadly defined concept than the hedonic approach; we consider human adaptive personal capacities based on the idea that well-being entails more than just happiness (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012). Environmental mastery, personal growth, autonomy, positive relations with    xiii others, self-acceptance and life purpose are all examples of eudaimonic well-being (Ryff, 1989).  Extrinsic Goals: Extrinsic Goals include:  “[…] financial success, attractiveness, and popularity) [which] are focused on obtaining rewards and the positive evaluations of others” (Maslow, 1954; Schmuck, Kasser, & Ryan, 2000, p. 226).  Extrinsic Motivation: “The term extrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 71). For instance, performing a task or having an experience because one thinks they ‘should’, not because they choose so. Extrinsic motivation implies that the perceived location and motivational source is outside of one’s self and may or may not be aligned with one’s values and aspirations. This is related to expectations one might feel one has to fulfill and results in having an externalized locus of control over one’s desired actions. Naturally, some structures within our experience, such as serving to maintain order in society, are necessary (i.e. traffic lights, laws).   Feelings: Feelings and emotions to a large degree determine how we experience place.  Felt within our places, feelings are connected to our perception and sensual experience of the present moment.   Growth: Personal growth is referred to here as the  “[…] feeling that personal talents and potential are being realized over time” (Ryff et al., 2004, p. 1384).  Further, it refers to the process of regeneration within a living system, and to the realization of collective latent potentials and aspirations over time.    xiv  Health: Health in this context   “[…] is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization, 1946).   Further,  “Health […] is seen as being a sub-component of well-being and comprises the combination of such mental/psychological indicators as affect, frustration, and anxiety and such physical/physiological indicators as blood pressure, heart condition, and general physical health” (Danna & Griffin, 1999, p. 359).  Hedonic Well-being: Defined here as one’s average emotional experience (affect) and life satisfaction (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012).  Inhabitant: See occupant  Intrinsic Goals: “Intrinsic goals […] are those which are inherently satisfying to pursue because they are likely to satisfy innate psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, competence, and growth.”  These include  “self-Social acceptance, affiliation, community feeling, and physical fitness” (Schmuck et al., 2000, p. 226).  Intrinsic Motivation: “[…] refers to doing an activity for the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 71).  Intrinsically motivated action is in alignment with one’s values and desires and the locus of control, or power over one’s chosen experiences resides within the self.      xv Manifestation: The process of calling forth a certain novel quality of being into existence; letting go of what is limiting the emergence of ‘new’ and allowing these patterns to unfold without attachment or expectations for how they will unfold or what shape they will take.   Meanings: Beliefs and thoughts that we have in relationship to our experiences of place; these include personal and collective beliefs and values that frame our mental experience of place and influence our expectations for future experiences. Meanings can also affect our feelings; if something is not the way we think it ‘should’ be, or we interpret someone else’s actions though our frame, we may experience affective reactions.  Mindfulness: Defined here as  “[…] the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown, Ryan, Creswell, & Niemiec, 2008, p. 822).  Negative Feedback: Refers to the self-balancing capacity in systems, such as humans. Whereas positive feedback might bring forth growth and temporary instability, negative feedback has a balancing and stabilizing effect - assurance of something working well - or feedback mechanisms that facilitate a return to physical, mental or emotional harmony.   Net Positive (human dimension): Net positive can be described as a dynamic steady state in which inhabitants at the individual and/or collective levels have attained, and are continuously manifesting enhanced patterns of thinking, feeling, being, and living. These patterns improve inhabitants’ life quality and the level of work they create.     xvi  Novelty: Refers to new patterns of thinking, feeling, acting and being. Novelty is of particular importance for the regenerative workplace, where realizing potentials into existence to accelerate social and environmental sustainability is an aspiration.   Occupant & Inhabitant:  In this document, an occupant can be seen as one that is passive within his/her experience of place; occupants may display the following characteristics: • Limited perceived ability and responsibility to evoke change within experience of place • Limited sense of connectedness to place and its elements  • Sense of passiveness within experience  These qualities can relate to varying aspects of experience in relation to the physical experience of place (the building, or the body), thoughts and meanings, feelings, or powers and behaviours contributing to psychological and physiological well-being and creative performance.   An inhabitant can loosely be defined as someone who  • Displays competence, responsibility, and action in creating experience(s) of place (and working at all levels) • A sense of connectedness with place • A sense of empowerment   The boundaries of this classification can be said to be blurry, as a spectrum from being an occupant to inhabitant most likely exists.   Place: Place in this context is referred to as a     xvii  “A location of experience; the container of shapes, powers, feelings, and meanings” (Walter, 1988, p. 215);   Places become more than physical structures; they consist of more than the physical manifestation and entail processes and practices, meanings, affective states, ideas, etc. Hence, a place can be a building, yet also a human being, a community, or even a document, like this thesis. Places are in constant flux; they are living systems that are continuously co-evolving.   Positive Feedback: Positive feedback can mean flows of information (thoughts, feelings, and ways of doing) that self-reinforce and bring growth.   Powers: Refer to movement through actions including conscious and unconscious behaviours, processes and practices. Powers can relate to our ability, agency, and competence to create our individual and collective experiences of outer and inner places by becoming active creators.  Life Purpose: “[…] having goals and objectives that give life meaning and direction” (Ryff, Singer, & Dienberg Love, 2004, p. 1384).  Regeneration: Can be described as a process of growth and of manifesting higher potentials (novelty) into existence within living systems. Regeneration can relate to our individual and collective states of thinking, feeling, being, and living, and can be influenced by conversations about the world we desire to experience (Reckermann, 2014).      xviii Relatedness:  Is here defined as  “[…] having close, valued connections with significant others” (Ryff, Singer, & Dienberg Love, 2004, p. 1384). Beyond human connection, relatedness can also refer to other elements such as to a physical place, or to ourselves.  Resilience:  The  “[…] positive psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702).  Self-Acceptance:  “[…] the capacity to see and accept one’s strengths and weaknesses” (Ryff, Singer, & Dienberg Love, 2004, p. 1384).  Self-acceptance is a quality that is beneficial to cultivate in every moment. This includes not only acceptance of oneself and others, but also of the experiences one has created for oneself. Expectations of how one, or something should be, can cause us to feel that what ‘is’ is not enough and often results in discontent.   Shapes: Shapes in this context can refer to physically manifest structures, for instance a building, office furniture, or a human body.   Subjective Vitality:  Can be defined as “[…] a positive feeling of aliveness and energy […] Psychological as well as somatic factors that impact the energy available to the self” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997, p. 529)  Well-being:    xix Well-being in this thesis refers our physiological and psychological functioning and experience, including physical health, affective states, and happiness, as well as self-actualization of potential and meaning systems.      xx Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my family for their love and support through this journey. From the bottom of my heart, I wish to thank you.   Prof. John Robinson, my mentor- thank you for your patience and the growth we experienced together; I have learned many a thing from you about myself (many of which you might not be aware of)  - you have enabled me to learn how to build bridges. Thank you to Ray Cole and Christopher Barrington-Leigh- for strengthening my research and giving me the patience and freedom to roam and explore my passions and desires, and for enhancing the skeleton and substance of my creation.   To my human family: to all the souls who have enabled my growth along this incredible path by reflecting my strengths and weaknesses for my continuous growth and regeneration.  Special thank you to Lindsay Clark, Marina Hubbard, Marleen deRuijter, Liz Ferris, Sylvia Coleman. Magical Max- may our eternal love flourish beyond our wildest expectations. Thank you for your mental, emotional and unconditionally loving support. Thank you for your editorial, mental, and emotional support. You are always with me; through the ethers I feel our true love. You inspire me and enable me to step into higher potentials and to be of better service to the world. To the Universe and Beloved I AM- for my fulfilling and abundant life purpose, continuous guidance and love. The biggest thank you to myself. For sticking it out. It took every ounce of my strength, courage, and determination.  Thank you to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and National Research Council for your financial support.      xxi  Dedication        To the Indigo  "We need decent communities, good work to do, loving relationships, stable families, the knowledge necessary to restore what we have damaged, and ways to transcend our inherent self-centeredness. Our needs, in short, are those of the spirit; yet our imagination and creativity are overwhelmingly aimed at things that as often as not degrade spirit and nature” (Orr, 1994, p. 33).    1 1. Introduction  Feedback processes, such as Post Occupancy Evaluations (POE), are, although they have become more popular, still infrequently conducted with building inhabitants. As a result of limited feedback processes, the realization of learning, optimization, and reaching higher potentials can be lagging behind its capabilities. This is reflected in many green buildings not achieving their aspirations. In many cases, building inhabitants have expressed dissatisfaction with elements of their experiences in workplace buildings, which can influence their well-being and productivity (Birt & Newsham, 2009; Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Leaman, Thomas, & Vandenberg, 2007).  Pre-Occupancy Evaluations (PREOE) are feedback processes that are conducted before inhabitants move into a new building (which is referred to here as place), that can provide ample benefits for growth and learning. Growth and learning are especially important for a regenerative place that intends to realize net-positive inhabitant well-being and productivity, and thus requires ongoing reflection followed by action to navigate toward these aspirations.  Conducting PREOE can have numerous benefits. To begin with, data can be collected that can be used as a baseline to aid and trace the trajectory of growth of building inhabitants’ relationships with their experiences of place over time. Baseline data can be used to compare later data from POEs to measure the effect of a place, including the physical building, processes and practices, and the quality of inhabitant experiences.   PREOE can also reveal the quality of inhabitant experiences and relationships within a place. How they think, feel and act in places can characterize their current relationship with place, which can influence their relationship with future experiences of place. PREOEs can bring insights into what enhances and what diminishes inhabitant experiences of previous workplaces, as well as exploring how active inhabitants report to be in regulating comfort within buildings, and    2 revealing what they associate with and expect from future experiences. This is essential for regenerative workplaces, where aspirations go beyond those of previous ones. Based on the revealed patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting, strategies can be developed that support a place and its inhabitants to function well on all levels and thus contribute to realizing regenerative net-positive productivity, as well as psychological and physiological well-being.  This research, as part of a larger ongoing feedback process at CIRS, explores how PREOE can support a regenerative workplace in realizing its net-positive aspirations for and with its inhabitants.   1.1 Research Questions The research intended to explore the following three dimensions:  Experiences of Pre-CIRS Workplace: 1) What were inhabitant experiences in the Pre-CIRS Context?  2) How did they interact with building control systems?  These questions attempt to capture how content inhabitants were with their experiences Pre-CIRS. This includes ambient indoor environmental quality, social experiences and well-being, to assess how supportive places are of meeting inhabitant needs. Further, these questions explore how inhabitants reported to interact with building control systems in their previous places. This includes questions in regards to how active or passive they indicated themselves to be in meeting their own needs through regulating control systems or interacting with people. These questions can shed insight into how well a place meets inhabitants’ basic needs, which is an important foundation for a system that seeks to become regenerative.  Associations & expectations with and from future experience of place  3) What did they know about CIRS before moving in?    3 4) What were the future inhabitants’ expectations and feelings about their experience at CIRS?  Although it was the intention to answer the following question, the research findings were not sufficient in providing conclusive evidence; hence, it was not included in this thesis.  5) Was their PRE-CIRS experience and knowledge reflected in their expectations?  Expectations can be said to set a frame of reference against which satisfaction is evaluated (Oliver, 1980). Inhabitant meanings, expectations and feelings, which are based on past experiences and knowledge about the future, can influence how inhabitants experience CIRS and the emergence of novelty (e.g. aspirations that are different from previous buildings). Thus, these questions investigate what respondents associate with and how they feel about their future experience at CIRS. This can aid in addressing concerns as well as identify sources of anticipation that can be helpful in the realizing these. These questions are important to support CIRS towards becoming a net-positive workplace for its inhabitants.  Hence, the last research question was interested in reflecting on the research findings to generate action steps towards aspirations of place.   6) How can this learning and information be fed back into the system to navigate the system towards its aspirations?  The data and the process offer great opportunities to learn about the feedback process and to feed the information back into the system so that it can learn and grow.   Exploring these questions is the focus of this research and the findings springing from this data; however, some other ideas relevant to the human dimension within the regenerative context are shared.   Hence, the thesis will     4 • Review literature relevant to inhabitant indoor experiences in workplaces and discuss the importance and current practice of feedback, especially for the regenerative context • Outline research methods for the CIRS Pre-Occupancy Evaluation  • Share and discuss findings  • Based on these findings, learning and recommend action steps that can help to co-create supportive places and navigate CIRS towards its aspirations are shared.    5 2. Context This chapter provides the background to the research. Although not all of these elements are reflected in the questionnaire and the conducted research, this background is meant to serve as an overview of the elements that can contribute to shaping inhabitant experiences of place and that are often used in feedback questionnaires. Beyond conventionally considered elements, this context also introduces ideas and a regenerative lens for inhabitant experiences of place. This section includes: • Buildings, Places, Functions and Purpose  • An introduction to the case study: CIRS • Elements shaping inhabitant experience of place • The importance and practice of feedback processes  2.1 Buildings & Places  Regenerative places intend to transcend the functions and purposes that we may have attributed to places in the past (Mang & Reed, 2012). Previously, buildings may have intended to support inhabitants’ basic needs to fulfill their jobs; however, regenerative places aspire to manifest net-positive well-being, health and productivity. This requires a reframing of the purpose and functions we typically attribute to places. To understand these ideas better, I have created a brief section that introduces the idea that the function and purpose of places to a large degree shapes our meanings and experiences within them. It is helpful to call into our awareness what meanings, feelings and functions we attribute to workplaces so that we can shift these into alignment with regenerative aspirations. Hence, this research is interested in finding out what the current meanings and expectations of inhabitants are, as they will likely be used as the default judgment for satisfaction.      6 2.2 Purpose & Functions of Places Buildings are generally crafted with a purpose in mind: a set of functions that it is intended to serve. Typically, the intended purpose and functions are reflected in the design of the building, which supports these functions.   Buildings can be classified according to their purposes; naturally, sometimes a place carries more than one purpose. A building can be a home, a place of work (i.e. an office), learning (a lecture hall), travel (an airport), worship (a church), or public communion (a theatre). Alternately, a building can have intentions in terms of its effects on the systems that it is embedded in or that exist within it. Similarly, a building can have aspirations to reduce its harmful effects on natural systems, or on the people that experience the physical building.   Based on our past experiences in and knowledge about places and their aspirations, we attribute meaning to them and assume certain functions, which can then influence how we act within places. Along these lines, Evans and Mitchel McCoy (1998) state that   “We utilize interior spaces according to our understanding of the functions that they provide us” (Evans & Mitchell McCoy, 1998, p. 87).  Our understanding of the functions of places is based on past experiences within similar contexts. These experiences manifest as embodied patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. Such patterns can influence functions we associate with places, as well as what we think and feel experiences in buildings are supposed to be like. Thus, the embodied patterns may limit the emergence of aspirations, latent potentials, or novel functions within places. For instance, our associated meanings or beliefs might prevent the emergence of non-typical or novel functions as they either may not be perceived at all, or not considered to be appropriate.     7  2.2.1 Conventional & Green Buildings To understand how a regenerative workplace could differ from previous ones, some characteristics that could be associated with certain types of buildings will be introduced; however, no certainties can be assumed about buildings we label as conventional, green, or regenerative. Although similarities may exist between them, they all consist of many different elements that shape inhabitant experiences of place.  The focus of conventional buildings typically revolves more around meeting inhabitants’ basic comfort needs and to provide a well-functioning workplace that is supportive of work tasks.  Often, for conventional buildings it is assumed that occupants are a relatively homogenous group and that their needs are as well. This is reflected in comfort standards, such as thermal guidelines established by ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) based on Fanger’s (1970) research, which assumes that the majority (80%) of inhabitants will be comfortable within a very narrowly prescribed temperature range, and finds it acceptable that the remainder is not (Cole, Robinson, Brown, & O’Shea, 2008; Fanger, 1970; Healy, 2008).   The degree of control that inhabitants can have to change indoor environmental conditions in buildings can vary. Some conventional buildings have indoor environments in which inhabitants have very limited responsibility and access to controls over indoor conditions; this can lead to a diminished relationship with place and experience. This lack of connection can produce a feeling of passiveness and a sense of separation from place and experience. Cole et al. (2010) suggest that the mechanization of buildings   “[…] has led to a disconnection between the occupants and the building” (Cole, Brown, & McKay, 2010, p. 342).      8 Green buildings, which have been a response to more unsustainable conventional buildings, generally intend to reduce harmful social and ecological systems. Making more mindful choices for materials, resources, and aesthetics, they often harness passive design strategies that intend to reduce emissions. Overall, reducing the effect of the physical building structure and the actions on the health of eco-social systems appears to be an important intention; the implied goal of this harm-reduction approach seems to be a state of neutrality, or zero impact (Reed, 2007).  Often in green buildings, inhabitants are provided with more control over the indoor conditions. This is meant to enhance the inhabitant experiences, as well as to encourage them to respond to the natural flows in temperature, thought to be beneficial for inhabitant well-being (Heerwagen, 1998; Leaman & Bordass, 2001).   While many conventional buildings do not aspire to minimize their effect on living systems, and green buildings often intend to reduce harm, regenerative places aspire to cultivate positive transformation of its systems and the ones that they are embedded in as well as to realize net-positive aspirations (Cole et al., 2012; du Plessis & Cole, 2011; Haggard, Reed, & Mang, 2006; Hoxie, Berkebile, & Todd, 2012; Mang & Reed, 2012; Plaut, Dunbar, Wackerman, & Hodgin, 2012; Reed, 2007; Svec, Berkebile, & Todd, 2012).   These are just some examples of how we have attributed function and meaning to buildings with certain purposes. Many of these beliefs and associations we hold about certain types of buildings and their functions may have contributed to the shaping of unconscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Possibly, these may influence our relationship with places, our experiences within them and the formation of expectations from the future.      9 These typical mental associations and expectations are important to keep in mind because the intentions behind regenerative workplaces may bring forth new ideas and possibilities of conceptualizing and experiencing places. If unconscious patterns are not revealed and released, they can influence the unfolding of new possibilities (Ojasalo, 2001).   2.2.2 Regenerative Living Places Presently, it appears as if we are shifting more towards intending a place, such as a building, to be seen and treated like a process and a web of life rather than an end product that is separate from its surroundings. This is in alignment with living systems thinking and Reed’s (2007) ideas of seeing buildings as continuously co-evolving systems consisting of intricate networks of relationships amongst their elements. Place, in this thesis, is defined as going beyond the physical building and its components. Walter (1988) captures the meaning of place in his work by referring to it as   “A location of experience”;   and “[…] the container of shapes, powers, feelings, and meanings” (Walter, 1988, p. 215).   A building might have physical boundaries, similar to a human body, but ‘place’ typically exists within a living system (i.e. social, ecological, cultural) that extends beyond the physical ‘shape’ of the structure. The shapes, meanings, feelings and powers of place are interrelated and make up a unique and continuously co-evolving living system.   More specifically the elements of place are here defined as:  Shapes: The physically manifest structures of a place.  Meanings: Mental associations, beliefs, and expectations.     10  Feelings: Affective states.  Powers: Movements of energy, including processes, behaviours and actions.   Mang and Reed (2012) speak to the nestedness of place within a living network, but also to its interconnectedness.  “Place is defined here as the unique, multilayered network of living systems within a geographic region that results from the complex interactions, through time, of the natural ecology (climate, mineral and other deposits, soil, vegetation, water and wildlife, etc.) and culture (distinctive customs, expressions of values, economic activities, forms of association, ideas for education, traditions, etc.)” (p. 28).  Combined, these two definitions provide the meaning of place in this thesis for the regenerative context. Both of them apply at varying scales. We can see a building as a location of shapes, meanings, powers, and feelings.   Possibilities of Regenerative Places Cole et al. (2012) introduce a collection of regenerative capabilities (Table 1), which I expanded for the context of this thesis. These latent possibilities for regenerative places can be realized as a system that works on all levels beyond basic functioning. Table 1: Regenerative Possibilities of Place 1 Key Regenerative possibilities 1. Restores and enhances local ecosystem function capacity (human and natural) 2. Creates positive synergistic connections between resource cycles and local ecological systems 3. Improves the effectiveness of life cycle resource use 4. Builds resiliency to undesirable stresses 5. Integrates inhabitants into ecological systems and processes 6. Enhances the psychological & physical well-being of place 7. Improves the health and well-being of local community inhabitants 8. Strengthens feelings of connectedness within system                                             1 (Cole et al., 2010)    11 Key Regenerative possibilities 9. Generates opportunities for social engagement and transformative learning 10. Generates opportunities for cultural and spiritual development 11. Enables processes for system learning, growth and regeneration of self 12. Generates the opportunity for self-reflection and self-renewal 13. Supports the emergence of latent potentials 14. Generates the opportunities for improvement and regeneration of relationships 15. Generates economic wealth within the local community 16. Acts as a catalyst to generate positive change beyond the site boundary  While functions supporting the basic needs of inhabitants are essential to regenerative places, these associated patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting we hold in regards to certain places become essential to consider when places with regenerative aspirations are created. Considering that the primary function of a workplace building typically has been to meet its users’ basic and functional work needs by reducing discomfort and to create environments that are supportive of productivity, beliefs about workplaces may be shaped by past experiences around these aspirations.  Overall, inhabitant experiences in pre-regenerative workplace contexts might not well aligned with seeing a place as a living system. Since it is possible for us to carry our ‘old’ patterns (e.g. habits) from past experiences of place into a new one (Ouellette & Wood, 1998), even though they might be misaligned with the purpose of the new place, it becomes vital to explore the patterns inhabitants embody and the expectations they have from future places so that they can be aligned with the new place. This is important to realize aspirations of place.   2.2.2.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) As an aspiring regenerative place with net-positive intentions, the Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) was designed and constructed to harness, restore and regenerate the natural energy flows found at its site. Simultaneously, the intentions for building inhabitants, as listed in table 2, are to co-create regenerative net-positive inhabitant experiences. The aspirations of place have inspired a building design that is meant to be supportive of inhabitant    12 psychological and physiological well-being and productivity, and are listed in more detail in table 2.  Located on the University of British Columbia’s Point Grey campus in Vancouver, this four-story wood-frame building became the workplace for employees from more than sixteen organizations in August 2011. A patchwork of University organizations, such as the University Sustainability Initiative (USI), Campus Sustainability Office, research labs from the Psychology and Architecture Departments, graduate student workstations, and other offices, share the building’s space.   Designed to be a Living Laboratory of Sustainability, the physical structure, including its material features, processes and practices, are part of a learning process that includes its inhabitants perceived and co-created experiences of place. Further, the place’s intention is to explore how to co-create systems and experiences that build and enhance social and natural capital rather than diminish it, and to become a flourishing sustainable system. (Robinson, et al., 2014).   Table 2: Aspirations of Place (CIRS)  Net-positive inhabitant psychological & physiological well-being and productivity  Place Supportive of Physical and Psychological Well-being (and health) • Socially and biophysically healthy environment for human habitation • Fully day-lit and wood intensive,  • Views of nature • Space for informal gatherings • Air that meets or exceeds outdoor air quality • Light Levels and Quality appropriate for task performance • Acoustic separation/privacy Place for Connectedness (people and nature)  • Opportunities for building occupants to transform themselves into inhabitants with a sense of place • Connectedness to nature, others, the campus Place for Engagement • Occupant to Inhabitant  • Access to controls (ventilation, lighting, and temperature controls) • Offers engagement opportunities    13 Place for Learning & Regenerative Change • Intended to go beyond standard operating procedures • Positive Environmental and social impacts at the district or community scale • Living Laboratory of Sustainability • Ongoing assessment of inhabitant comfort • Accelerating Sustainability (Robinson et al., 2014)   To varying degrees, this research touches on many aspirations of CIRS; feedback and learning being a particular focus as it is an essential element to realizing all aspirations.   2.3 Inhabitant Experiences of Place As previously mentioned, the shapes, meanings, feelings and powers of place influence how we perceive, relate to, and co-create our experiences of place and thus contribute to the manifestations and functions of places. They contribute to the operation and maintenance of place and its functions over time, as well as to the potentials that we can birth into existence.   At CIRS, we are seeking to function regeneratively to and manifest net-positive aspirations. For inhabitants to become regenerative, it is important that their basic operation is supported and their needs are met. By exploring inhabitant satisfaction of previous experiences, this research investigates if and how inhabitant needs were met and what their needs, expectations and desires are for their experience at CIRS. Ensuring that inhabitants’ basic needs are met will support places to work at levels that go beyond those of conventional and green buildings and contribute to its regenerative functioning. Hence, it becomes essential to have an understanding of the inhabitants’ needs in workplaces, and what contributes to their feelings of comfort.   Thus, the following section   • Discusses the notion of comfort     14 • Introduces effects of supportive and unsupportive places on inhabitant experiences   • Outlines key elements influencing inhabitant experiences of place (meanings, feelings, shapes and powers):    Experience of Physical Place  Thermal Experience of Place  Air Quality Experience of Place  Acoustical Experience of Place  Visual Experience of Place  Control over Experience   Privacy & Territoriality in Place   Nature Experience of Place   Social Experience of Place  Competence, Communication, and Agency  • Discusses the role of meanings and expectations (meanings, feelings and relationship to powers in regenerative context)    2.3.1 Inhabitant Comfort Comfort is a complex concept that refers to a multidimensional personal experience and is influenced by physiological, psychological, behavioural, cultural, social and contextual factors (Cole et al., 2008). The word comfort has been derived from the Latin ‘confortare’, which mean to strengthen greatly. In the original English context it means to ‘encourage’ and ‘support’ (Weiss-Lambrou, 2002). For a building to be comfortable, it should be supportive of inhabitants and their needs. It can strengthen inhabitants by reducing reactions in response to discomfort which can cause stress and divert attention from performing work related tasks.   In the building context, depending on the aspirations of place, comfort can refer to the elements of an experience that can strengthen us, make us feel stronger and support us in the performance of our tasks. It can also contribute to our psychological and physiological well-being, and frequency of harmonious experiences. Similarly, two key objectives for building designers are inhabitant well-being and comfort (Chappells, 2010).     15  In places, feelings of comfort can be experienced through our senses and cognition; thermal, visual, air, acoustical elements, or through psychological, behavioural, and social senses (Brown, 2009). Loftness, Lam, & Hartkopf (2005) propose that the elements of our experiences in places contribute to meeting human needs and supporting well-being. The aforementioned physical elements, as well as building integrity, can meet physiological, psychological, and sociological needs to varying degrees. The elements supporting physiological needs are intended to cultivate feelings of physical comfort, health, safety, functionality and appropriateness.   Meeting psychological needs aspires to bring forth feelings of psychological comfort, mental health, psychological safety, and delight. Sociological needs are those that relate to feelings of privacy, security, community, image and status (Loftness et al., 2005). Cole et al. (2008) speak to a desired shift in the conceptualization of comfort; from perceiving it as mostly focused on automatic thermal comfort, to inhabitants understanding it as a co-creative effort in an interactively adaptive process that requires communication and dialogue. Because what makes us feel ‘comforted’ in our experience varies amongst a group of building inhabitants, their needs do as well. This calls for a fluid concept of comfort; unlike standardized ideas about comfort, in which one temperature setting is meant to serve all, and comfort is mostly tied to thermal elements, it becomes a more complex interactive co-creationary achievement in which inhabitants take responsibility for achieving desired conditions (Cole et al., 2008).    2.3.2 Unsupportive Places Unsupportive physical as well as psychological conditions can elicit negative states of affect in inhabitants, diminishing their experience of place and adversely affecting the creation of novelty (Laszlo, 2012). Thus far, a physical environment with noise, poor lighting, air quality, or ergonomics, as well as one that is lacking in privacy, has been found to be unsupportive and to have a strong negative    16 effect on psychological and physiological well-being (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Levin, 2003). Hence,   “[…] a well-designed workplace can be supportive, removing potential stressors and freeing individuals to focus on productive work” (Veitch, 2011, p. 39).  Vischer (2008) similarly proposes that   "The difference between a supportive and an unsupportive workspace is the degree to which occupants can conserve their attention and energy for their tasks, as opposed to expending it to cope with adverse environmental conditions” (Vischer, 2008, p. 100).   2.3.3 Supportive Places Supportive physical conditions, on the other hand, have been found to enhance inhabitant experiences and performance. Perceived comfort in the workplace is essential to productivity and well-being (Leaman & Bordass, 2001). Similarly, Newsham et al. (2009) discovered that satisfaction with the indoor environment is related to higher job satisfaction, as well as the importance of access to windows, satisfactory lighting conditions and outdoor views. Job satisfaction has been found to affect well-being, health, and organizational productivity (Newsham et al., 2009). How people relate to their experiences in places is important for many reasons. Authentic positivity and positive affect have been demonstrated to enhance • Human well-being • Mood  • Productivity  • Comfort  • Staff retention • Health • Problem solving abilities  • Commitment to their employer • Human relationships  (Clark & Watson, 1988; Heerwagen, 1998; Vischer, 2008).     17   2.3.4 Indoor Experience of Places Whilst possibly a majority of inhabitants may feel more content with certain conditions or experiences, there are no general rules as to what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. The following discussion outlines what has been found in the research of inhabitant preference as it relates to human well-being.   2.3.4.1 Physical Place Many elements of the physical place can influence inhabitant experiences; these can have effects on physical, psychological and social well-being and can support the functioning of place. The architectural configuration of the building, and the shape of the place both contribute to how inhabitants think and feel about space.   Leaman & Bordass (1999) found that shallow floor plans, which decreased distance to windows, were liked by inhabitants. Building accessibility is important (Loftness et. al. 2005); supportive office furniture and ergonomics (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Loftness et al., 2005) and functional servicing are needs that contribute to supportive physical places (Loftness et al., 2005). Overall, the shape of the physical structure, its habitability, beauty, calm, excitement, and view from office space influence inhabitant well-being positively on a psychological level; views of nature have been found to have very beneficial effects on experiences (Heerwagen & Hase, 2001; Loftness et al., 2005; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). Wayfinding, including signage for inhabitants to navigate space, as well as functional adjacencies are important for physical, psychological and sociological inhabitant needs (Evans & Mitchell McCoy, 1998; Harris, McBride, Ross, & Curtis, 2002; Loftness et al., 2005).  2.3.4.2 Thermal Experience The thermal environment is thought to have a considerable impact on inhabitant comfort, behaviour, and productivity (Cole et al., 2008; Fountain, Brager, &    18 DeDear, 1996; Kibert, 2008). Thermal comfort has been defined by ASHRAE as   "[…] that condition of the mind that expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment" (2004)  Thermal comfort standards within buildings, such as the standardized comfort guidelines established by ASHRAE based on Fanger’s (1970) research, assume that the majority of inhabitants will be comfortable within a very narrowly prescribed temperature range (Fanger, 1970; Healy, 2008). Some conventional automated buildings, which follow these standards, have been shown to be dissatisfactory (ambient conditions and environmental control) in certain aspects for inhabitants (Mahdavi, Mohammadi, Kabir, & Lambeva, 2008; Moezzi, 2009). Similarly, Levin (2003) proposes that  “Research has shown repeatedly that buildings designed to conform to current standards and guidelines fail to provide occupant satisfaction with one or more of the general indoor environmental parameters – air quality, thermal conditions, illumination, and acoustics”(p. 4).  Research indicates that inhabitants generally prefer thermal environments that are relatively stable, comfortable, do not expose them to extremes, and provide a sense of ‘warmth’ (Leaman & Bordass, 1999; Loftness et al., 2005). Heerwagen, however, (1998) proposes that humans do well with moderately variable environments with balanced complex stimuli. She suggests that feeling the outside temperature shifts is important, as it establishes a connection to the outside and nature as long as inhabitants have access to controls. This is confirmed by research in which inhabitants that had adaptive opportunities were comfortable over a much wider temperature range (Nicol & Humphreys, 2001).    2.3.4.3 Air Quality Experience Air quality can influence our physical as well as psychological states of being;    19 stuffy and closed environments can affect our psychological well-being and poor air purity and quality, as exposure to toxic substances and volatile organic compounds can influence our physical health (Kibert, 2008; Loftness et al., 2005). For instance, many buildings with little or no access to windows (often modern tightly sealed mechanically ventilated buildings), can cause sick building syndrome (Kibert, 2008). Also, scents within the building, or from people close by, can influence perceived experiences (Loftness et al., 2005). A key to supportive inhabitant experiences appears to be operable windows so that inhabitants have access to and can influence their own air quality (Leaman & Bordass, 1999).   2.3.4.4 Acoustical Experience The acoustical environment can influence inhabitant well-being, productivity, and health (Newsham et al., 2009); it can become a source of stress for inhabitants that can diminish their moods. Similarly, Bordass and Leaman (1999) have found that noise, besides thermal comfort, is the largest source of complaints. A satisfactory acoustical environment, free from noise triggers, is thought to be one that, depending on the function of space, has acceptable acoustical range (Kibert, 2008; Leaman & Bordass, 1999). Privacy and communication definitely shape the experienced acoustical environment; quiet and soothing places intermixed with a sense of excitement and aliveness add to psychological comfort (Loftness et al., 2005).   2.3.4.5 Visual Experience  Visual environments that reduce fatigue, promote a cheerful, calm, intimate and lively experience have been connected with supporting inhabitant needs (Loftness et al., 2005).  Naturally lit spaces that minimize glare have been found to be best liked by building inhabitants (Heerwagen, 2000; Kibert, 2008; Loftness et al., 2005). Again, views to nature have been found to have positive effects; stress reduction, enhanced healing, attentiveness, and cognitive functioning have    20 been attributed to them (Heerwagen & Hase, 2001; Leaman & Bordass, 1999; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995).    2.3.1 Control over Experience In buildings, control can relate to either environmental control systems, or a more general sense of inhabitant control over their experience (e.g. workspace design, decision-making, internal comfort). Evans & Mitchell McCoy (1998) describe control as   “[…] mastery or the ability to either alter the physical environment or regulate exposure to one’s surroundings” (p.88).  Since needs vary amongst individuals, control is essential to shape one’s preferred conditions; even for an individual these can change over time (Heerwagen, 1998). Thus, Chappells (2010) requests    “[…] indoor environments that are adaptive, multi-purpose and evolutionary” (p. 286).  Places were designed to cater for this diversity of needs and offered more adaptable indoor environments until they were replaced with buildings with automated indoor environments following standardized comfort norms; these buildings featured static homogeneous environments and minimal to no control over conditions for inhabitants (Heerwagen, 1998).   Feelings of control and empowerment appear to be an essential ingredient to a successful place that supports inhabitant psychological and physiological well-being, as well as productivity. Similarly, Steemers and Manchanda (2010) found that buildings that are more mechanized, offering less control to inhabitants, scored lower in satisfaction while requiring more energy to function.     21   The Effects of Perceived Lack of Control & Disempowerment Lack of control may have health impacts as it may contribute to increased stress levels and affect psychological and physiological well-being (Dubos, 1965; Vischer, 2008). Similarly, limited abilities to mitigate uncontrollable stressors over prolonged periods of time can trigger affective and cognitive deficits and can lead to compromised immune responses (Evans & Stecker, 2004). Absence of control over conditions can also lead to learned helplessness and lack of perceived empowerment; for instance, it has been found to contribute to feeling a lack of control over one’s destiny (King, 1995).   The Effects of Control & Empowerment The ability to intuitively respond to changing stimuli is thought to be important to human well-being. Research shows that control over indoor ambient conditions, including usable controls and interfaces, is a very important aspect in inhabitants’ reported satisfaction (Brown & Cole, 2009; Leaman & Bordass, 2001). Vischer (2008) proposes that feelings of environmental empowerment directly influence perceived psychological comfort. Workplace related decision-making, which is also a form of empowerment, is a very important element in perceived inhabitant satisfaction (Vischer, 2008). Building inhabitants with high degrees of personal control over indoor environment reported higher perceived productivity as well as satisfaction compared to those with lower perceived control (Zagreus, Huizenga, Arens, & Lehrer, 2004). Similarly, Clements-Croome (2000) explains that studies of subjective well-being have shown that people who are happy or live well, typically feel a satisfactory degree of personal control over their lives, whether in the workplace or home. On the basis of such findings, he suggests that it is probably fair to assume that the work output or productivity of a person will be high if their well-being is high (2000). Vice-versa, that well-being may be high if people feel they are in control of their environment.      22 This critical linkage between feelings of empowerment and control and well-being and productivity has been extensively demonstrated in surveys of building performance (Leaman and Bordass, 1995, 1999; Heerwagen, 1998; Clements-Croome, 2000).   2.3.2 Privacy & Territoriality  Privacy is connected to a desire for personal space and a freedom from interference; interference can come in the form of intrusion of this space (i.e. noise, or physical proximity); it is believed to be related to feelings of social comfort in relationships (Cole et al., 2008). It is an element that has been demonstrated as very essential to the inhabitant experience and is often a source of dissatisfaction, especially in open space offices (Brager & Baker, 2009; Brown & Cole, 2009). Territoriality does not merely refer to the configuration of the physical space; it also includes perceived sense of privacy, control, and social status, as well as individual and group territoriality. It can also relate to a physical space, or one’s position within an organization (Vischer, 2008).   Territoriality can be said to be related to the control over the use, or occupancy, of a space (Evans & Mitchell McCoy, 1998). Similarly, research with workers that moved from closed to open offices, revealed a sense of frustration with the changing physical make-up of their workspace; their need for privacy seemed to not solely be related to the physical space, but was tied to the psychological elements- to feelings of concern in regards to control and status (Vischer, 2008).    2.3.3 Nature Experiences  Our connection to nature is very deep and affects our physical as well as psychological well-being. When we create indoor environments that do not express this connectedness, we create conditions that stand in contrast to our basic human needs (Heerwagen, 1998).      23 “There is growing evidence that the presence of particular, positive, `spirit lifting’ features in the interior environment may promote positive emotional functioning and serve as a buffer to discomforts or stresses” (Heerwagen, 2000, p. 361).  Thus, for us to flourish in systems (e.g. buildings, universities, the planet), we need to honor and cultivate this deep connection. Nature is vital to human functioning, health and well-being; biophilia, which refers to the   “[…] inherent human inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes, especially life and life-like features of the non-human environment” (Kellert, 2008, p. 3),   is a theory that captures this human affinity for nature very well. Much research demonstrates the benefits of nature and biophilic elements on human health, productivity and well-being, as well as connections to ecologically responsible behaviour (Heerwagen, 2009; Howell & Passmore, 2013; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012). Some key benefits of biophilic elements and natural elements that have the potential to enhance the human experience within a Living Building System are:  • Accelerated recovery from illness, increased job satisfaction (Kaplan, 1993; Kellert, 2005) • Less social and health problems (Kellert, 2005) • Increased cognitive functioning (Kellert, 2005) • Reduced feelings of stress, anger, aggression, attentional fatigue, anxiety (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; A. J Howell & Passmore, 2013; A. J. Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011; R. Kaplan, 1993; S. Kaplan, 1995; Kellert, 2005; Maller, Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & St. Leger, 2005)  • Increased motivation and enhanced worker performance (Kellert, 2005)  Connectedness with nature is tied to many elements of the human experience of place; Heerwagen (1998) proposes that successful buildings need to include    24 moderate sensory variability in ambient conditions, access to greenery and views to the outside, absence of toxins and pathogens, and daylighting.   2.3.4 Social Experience  There is much research on the effect of space on physical health as well as on mental health in the workplace (Veitch, 2011). Research on what creates a healthy workplace exists; yet, Veitch suggests that not much effort has been placed into connecting these two spheres of inhabitant experiences.   In their quest to explore what workers perceive to be a healthy workplace, Lowe, Schellenberg, & Shannon (2003) found that autonomy, job demands, resources, extrinsic rewards, and relatedness have been found to contribute to the perceived healthiness of a workplace. Autonomy and relatedness, which have been described as basic psychological needs according to Self-determination Theory, are thought to enhance well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  Supportive social relations as well as good communication were perceived as contributing to healthy workplaces that enhanced job effectiveness (Lowe et al., 2003). De Quincey (2005) notes that as humans, we exist in relationships; even if we live in complete solitude, we relate to others through our thought systems in the form of memories or imaginary interactions.  An abundance of literature on well-being and human flourishing reflects the value of human relationships and their effects on human well-being; social trust and trusted community members (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Keyes, 2002; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), a sense of belonging (Vischer, 2008), relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012), positive relations (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), psychological support network (Boyden & Millar, 1978), and interpersonal flourishing (Ryff & Singer, 2000), have all been found to be supportive of human well-being. Yet, this literature has, to my knowledge, thus far not been transferred into the regenerative building    25 context. Interestingly, although a wealth of literature supports the value of social relations on human well-being, it is not typically included in Pre-or Post Occupancy Evaluations of inhabitant experiences.  Shared Identity & Goals Shared identity and common aspirations can contribute to well-functioning work groups (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003); along these lines, Mang & Reed suggest that (2012) a   “[…] sense of shared identity transcends artificial boundaries and is an important force in creating the caring and connection necessary to make the changes required for a sustainable future for both project and place” (p.35).  Social Spaces To foster community and a sense of belonging, social spaces, ‘group territory’, or “places supportive for social cohesion” (Veitch, 2011), have been found to be an important contributing element for a healthy workplace. Similarly, Leaman and Bordass (1999, 2001) have found that places inside or outside of the building to go at break time, contribute to inhabitant satisfaction with place.   To enhance the quality of experience of place, it appears to be a good idea to create ‘external’ places that are supportive of inhabitants’ work and that reduce the amount of ‘negative’ triggers that people experience. At the same time, it is important to provide knowledge, competence and access to ways to engage in actions to alleviate personal discomfort in relation to an externally perceived context. This applies not only to responses to the physical building and its comfort provisioning, but also to other elements, such as affective triggers from colleagues (e.g. noise).   2.3.5 Competence, Communication and Agency Providing inhabitants with controls may not be enough to guarantee satisfactory conditions. To be able to maintain and enhance physiological, functional, and    26 psychological comfort, it is not only important that building design provides opportunities to control comfort conditions, but also that building inhabitant knowledge, for instance about the building and its environmental control systems, is aligned. This will give them the competence to shape their external and internal experiences.   Brown et al.’s (2009) research proposes that although inhabitants had greater access to personal controls in green buildings, inhabitant understanding of systems, slow responding systems and the lack of immediate and relevant feedback on how actions impacted performance, contributed to non-ideal indoor conditions for inhabitants (Brown et al., 2009). As well, Mlecnik et al. (2012) refers to (Treberspurg et al., 2009), who have found in their extensive review of user satisfaction and comfort in low energy and ‘passive’ houses that leaving inhabitants uninformed may result in less positive evaluation of user comfort and satisfaction.  Subsequently, they recommend frequent quality assurance as well as communication and exchange of information with end users to maintain high satisfaction (Mlecnik et al., 2012).  Thus, frequent communication with building inhabitants is necessary for a supportive place. Not all inhabitants are equally informed about and invested in sustainable design, passive design, environmental control systems, or aspirations of place. A desire for learning was reflected in Mahdavi et al. (2008), who found in their research that inhabitants were substantially dissatisfied with aspects of the indoor ambient conditions, environmental control systems, as well as their knowledge on environmental control systems available to them and were interested to learn more. Ongoing dialogue with inhabitants can  • Provide them with sufficient knowledge on how to use and operate a building • Aid their understanding of design intent • Introduce potentials and vision of place • Collect feedback from them    27  These are necessary in a place so that inhabitants can co-create satisfying experiences in and with the building and is thus vital to satisfaction (Meir, Garb, Jiao, & Cicelsky, 2009). Further, it also requires passing responsibility and trust into the hands of building inhabitants to make intelligent choices (Brown, 2009). Feedback, which is another key element to inhabitant experiences, will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section.    2.3.6 Expectations & Meanings The indoor environmental qualities and their role in shaping our physiological and psychological well-being have been researched and discussed above. However, especially in a regenerative context such as CIRS, where the aspirations of place differ from previous experiences, and we are seeking to shift the meanings we attribute to our experience of workplace, it becomes an important step to consider the content of these meanings.   Hence, the following two sections elaborate on the idea that past experiences, including our knowledge, can contribute to shaping our meanings associated with places, our feelings, and behaviours. Further, it explores how this relates to the CIRS context and more specifically what could have contributed to shaping inhabitant meanings and expectations from the new place and their experience of it.    Our beliefs about places and experiences within them are of importance because they create the frame through which we perceive and experience; they can affect our thinking, feeling, and acting within them. Considering their importance in contributing to the experience of place, meanings and feelings have thus far received scant attention in research on the built environment.   Meanings can be seen as thought systems that can inform how we think about the world, and create an overarching system that informs subsidiary beliefs    28 (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). These can influence beliefs about and expectations of future experiences.   Just like the structure of an ecological system determines its behaviour, the structure of our thought systems and our awareness of them can determine ours (Capra, 1997). Past patterns of experience can contribute to shaping our expectations of, as well as our feeling states in relation to future experiences and beliefs of how we think they likely will be (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993). These thought patterns are related to the concept of worldview, which in its simplest definition can be described as   “[…] a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behaviour” (Koltko-Rivera, 2004, p. 3).    Perceived satisfaction of service, a product or an experience, is based on these pre-experience thought patterns (Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993). The literature refers to the process of evaluating our satisfaction as the ‘disconfirmation’ process. In the disconfirmation process, our perceptions (thoughts/beliefs) held prior to experience become the basis for judgment against what is actually experienced (Cadotte, Woodruff, & Jenkins, 1987). If our experience of a product or a service, such as a place, is not aligned with expectations, (for instance if it is perceived ‘lower’ than desired), negative disconfirmation (dissatisfaction) occurs; whereas if it is higher than expected, positive disconfirmation (satisfaction) takes place (Oliver, 1980).  Feelings Dissatisfaction can be seen as state of discontentment and negative affect; alongside mental associations we hold in regards to future experiences, we consciously or unconsciously hold thoughts about how we will feel at this future time (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003). People have been shown to make erroneous assumptions about how important and trivial events will make them feel in the    29 future (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003). When we experience something as ‘lower’, or lesser than what we expected, the experienced feeling is likely not as satisfying, or as positive, as we expected it to be; this can trigger negative affective states.   Expectations can be problematic because we use them to evaluate future experiences - if our beliefs about how we think we will feel are too high or too low, fuzzy, unrealistic, or implicit, this might affect the quality of our experience and compromise contentment (Ojasalo, 2001). The larger the gap between the expectations and actual perceived feelings associated with performance, the larger the disconfirmation and the lower perceived contentment (Tse & Wilton, 1988).  Brown and Cole (2009) found in their research that inhabitants’ building performance expectations might affect perceived satisfaction, as well as behaviours contributing to creating comfort. In the building context, this means that in order to achieve high levels of satisfaction and bring forth regenerative possibilities of place, it is vital to align expectations and cultivate behaviours that support the navigation towards aspirations of place.    Powers: Actions & Behaviours When shifting inhabitants into a new place, such as CIRS, it is important to consider that the shift in physical place may not necessarily shift our ways of thinking, feeling, and acting.   CIRS aspires for inhabitants to have net-positive experiences; this requires them to be active creators of their experiences. These aspirations are novel; however, our expectations and habits springing from previous experiences in workplaces may not be supportive for these to emerge naturally. For instance, just because the aspiration of place might be for occupants to become inhabitants, they may carry past experiences, such as passiveness, into the new one, which may limit the unfolding of potentials and aspirations.      30 Just like expectations can be unconsciously stored, actions can be unconsciously engaged in; thus, to co-create better experiences for and with building inhabitants, it is likely necessary to not only explore what beliefs we carry and how they can be regenerated, but also our behaviours. Amongst other factors, past behaviours, which constitute an element of past experience, are thought to influence the formation of habits; habits are well-practiced ways of acting that can become automatic (unconscious) (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). The frequency at which a past behaviour was performed can influence the strength of a habit, which has been demonstrated to have a direct effect on future behaviour (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Workplace related habits or associations from previous places could thus be translated into a new context even if the aspirations of a new place are different.   Expectations and their influence on inhabitant experiences of place are very important to consider, especially in the regenerative context, and have not received much, if any, attention thus far.   2.3.6.1 Meanings and Expectations from CIRS This section introduces possible influencers on CIRS inhabitants and their meanings, expectations, and feelings about workplaces (in CIRS and in general). This section addresses the influence of  • Previous experiences • Explicit service promises • Implicit service promises • Word of mouth on inhabitant meanings and expectations.   I. Previous Experiences: Pre-CIRS Workplaces Normative expectations, to a large degree, are based on previous experiences; thus, it is important to investigate norms in inhabitants’ Pre-CIRS places as they may affect perception, evaluation of, and behaviour in CIRS (Carmen, 1990;    31 Heather Chappells & Shove, 2005). If users have no previous experience and no information about a product or service, the expectations may be diffuse (Boulding et al., 1993). O’Neill and Palmer (2003) note that a person cannot form expectations about a service if they have no experience with it; however, they may have expectations based on word-of-mouth, media, or other channels, or if they have personal experience with green or regenerative buildings. These experiences may subsequently influence their expectations of all green buildings (Higgs, 2005). This is important because green and regenerative buildings are relatively novel constructs that are different from conventional buildings. Aspirations may be different, and expectations may be shaped based on past experiences and hearsay.    II. Explicit Service Promises About Place What inhabitants may have heard about a place can contribute to them creating meanings and expectations that characterize their relationship with place. Subsequently, for CIRS, how the building, its aspirations, and the concept were framed in interactions with the public may have influenced inhabitants’ perceptions and their expectations of what the building and their experience in it may be like. Explicit service promises,   “[…] personal and nonpersonal statements about the service made to customers by the organization (Zeithaml et al., 1993, p. 9)”,   include advertising, presentations, newspaper articles, experts, websites, or marketing communications. Inhabitants may have picked up explicit service promises about the building through many channels. These include CIRS internal promotions by the management team, media articles published, as well as the numerous presentations given over the ten-year development period of CIRS. Further sources of knowledge include web sites and brochures, building tours, as well as ample presentations given at various events. Communication about building plans, furniture and/or workspace information may have been passed on    32 to employees to varying degrees. The pursuit of a LEED Platinum certification as well as the Living Building Challenge has also been communicated through various channels, which may influence expectations. Table 3 summarizes the general messaging that was transmitted to the public through various channels and thus was potentially accessible to the future inhabitants.   Table 3: CIRS Presentation & Building Tour Content Content of CIRS Presentations  • Research at CIRS • The building as a Living Laboratory of Sustainability  • Community Engagement in and beyond building • Market transformation • Sustainability Features • CIRS as a regenerative building • Energy and Water systems • Net positive design goals • Wood structure • Office Situation • Design Goals • Cost • Life Cycle Assessment • Green: Improving the Local and Global Environment • Humane: Improving the human environment • Smart: Cost effective and adaptive • Collaboration between inhabitant groups • New connections (transacademic)  • Striving to become North America’s highest performance building • Floor plans CIRS Building Tour Content (depending on stage in construction) • Wood-frame structure and carbon sequestration • Net positive carbon emissions features • Daylighting features • Experience the energy of the space • Operable windows • Under-floor air distribution • Rainwater harvesting system • Water harvesting and treatment systems • Energy scavenging from adjacent building • Energy systems in CIRS (solar, geoexchange) • Energy efficiency features • Occupant to inhabitant goals • Inhabitant benefits • Sustainable IT features  III. Implicit Service Promises    33 Implicit service promises relate to tangible aspects related to the product/service and that are typically included in a similar service (i.e. cost, desks in an office building) (Zeithaml et al., 1993). In a building for instance, this means elements, or ‘shapes’ that are typically included in workplace buildings to support the inhabitant work function and well-being. For instance, furniture or washrooms are elements that are not explicitly promised to building inhabitants but their existence is naturally assumed. At CIRS, for example, this could be desks, photocopiers, etc. Because most elements in CIRS are innovative and high quality, many elements have explicitly been referred to in the marketing communication.   IV. Word of Mouth Word of mouth includes information derived from personal communication, experts, consumer reports, publicity, or surrogates about the service and what it may provide by others than the organization itself (in this case the CIRS Management team). This type of communication is thought to have a strong impact as it is considered as ‘unbiased’ (Zeithaml et al., 1993). CIRS received quite a bit of attention in the local and global media; many channels besides the official CIRS marketing messaging may have reached inhabitants through employers, colleagues, or friends. The building was often labeled in the media as “North America’s greenest/most sustainable building” (Hyslop, 2011). Combined, these channels of information shape inhabitants meanings, feelings and powers of present and future experiences of place.   2.4 Feedback This thesis emphasizes the importance of feedback in a regenerative Living Place to co-create a place that is supportive of the emergence of net-positive experiences and to identify what is required to navigate towards these. Thus, the following section discusses  • The Importance of Feedback     34 • Feedback in living systems • Post Occupancy Evaluation and its benefits • The benefits of Pre-Occupancy Evaluation  • Commonly used POE instruments •  Applicability of existing instruments for regenerative places & aspirations of CIRS   2.4.1 Pre & Post Occupancy Evaluations Continuous feedback, reflection and dialogue, including Pre-Occupancy Evaluations (PREOE) and Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE), offer great opportunities for growth and learning. They encourage the co-evolution and self-organization of a system at all stages of its lifecycle. To co-create satisfactory experiences for and with inhabitants, and to enable a living system to evolve to higher potentials, continuous flows of information can promote learning and growth for us as humans and for the larger systems we are embedded in. Yet, typically, feedback processes that support the evolution of systems are often missing. Hjorth and Bagheri (2006) mirror this sentiment by proposing that   “Information structure is an important feedback mechanism with high-leverage for change […] If you make information go to places it did not go before, it may well cause people to behave differently. Missing feedback is one of the most common causes of system malfunction” (p. 86).  Thus, feedback is essential for a place to come alive and grow.   2.4.2 Feedback in Living Systems Living systems have the incredible capability to continuously re-make themselves through feedback; Meadows (2008) refers to self-organization as the   “[…] ability of a system to structure itself, to create new structure, to learn or diversify” (p.188).     35 It is through feedback that learning and self-organization within a living system occurs and thus it is a key regenerative process. A living system is a learning system; it learns from mistakes, regulates itself, and finds new ways to organize (Camazine et al., 2003; Capra, 1997). Meadows (2008) refers to feedback loops as the basic operating unit of a system. Feedback loops are essential to autopoietic systems, which are ‘self-making’ systems, and enable their self-organization, self-reproduction, evolution, and can balance growth effects. Self-organization is the driving force of heterogeneity and unpredictability (Meadows, 2008). Feedback can be either self-reinforcing (positive) and amplify an effect or a behaviour bringing growth and change, or it can be self-balancing (negative) and can bring stability to a system that would otherwise grow uncontrollably by causing diminution of an effect (Capra, 1997).   As the structure of systems changes/evolves, so does the behaviour of the system as a whole (Capra, 1997). This is of importance to this thesis because the feedback gathered from this research can enable us to better understand what patterns or structures of thinking, feeling and acting currently are embodied by the future inhabitants of and processes within place. Assessing what is and what is not in alignment with aspirations of place can allow us to determine possible changes to the embodied patterns so that the system as a whole can behave differently. Feedback is not only important at the building level, but also for the individual and collective inhabitant level.    2.4.3 Post Occupancy Evaluation Post occupancy evaluation (POE) can be defined as an activity that seeks to evaluate building energy and resource consumption, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), as well as how well a building fulfills the needs of the inhabitants after it has been occupied. In this thesis, the focus will reside on the qualitative aspects of POE; namely, the evaluation of inhabitant comfort and satisfaction. Typically, qualitative POEs are concerned with assessing how inhabitants experience the space, how satisfied they are with it, and with their perceived    36 health and productivity (Preiser & Vischer, 2005). Post Occupancy Evaluations (POE) are instruments that allow the collection of feedback from building inhabitants and can take many shapes: focus groups, interviews, or a survey questionnaire, which are the most commonly used (Jauzens, Cohen, Watson, & Picton, 2002).   Newsham et al. 2009 suggest that POEs are rarely conducted and if they are, results are generally not shared (Newsham, Mancini, & Birt, 2009). However, in recent years, POE appears to be taken more seriously and becoming more frequently practiced (Riley, Kokkarinen, & Pitt, 2010). The increasing frequency of conduction is reflected in a growing set of POE reports and research (Abbaszadeh, Zagreus, Lehrer, & Huizenga, 2006; Baird & Lechat, 2009; Bordass & Leaman, 2005; Brager & Baker, 2009; Z. Brown & Cole, 2009; Z. Brown et al., 2009; Deuble & de Dear, 2012; Huizenga, Abbaszadeh, Zagreus, & Arens, 2006; Leaman et al., 2007; Monfared & Sharples, 2011; Zagreus et al., 2004).   Benefits of POE POE can provide a host of benefits, however, as Zimmerman and Martin (2001) suggest,   “The overarching benefit from conducting POE is the provision of valuable information to support the goal of continuous improvement” (p.169)  POE is performed for various purposes, including:  • Assessment of building performance:  POE can be used to explore whether a system performs well, identify what is not working properly so that it can be improved; it can also be a useful instrument to measure changes within a system (i.e. the relationship between people and the building)     37  • Exploration of relationships between inhabitant experience and building resource performance:  It can be a useful tool for correlating inhabitant satisfaction with comfort satisfaction and resource efficiency.  • Optimization of performance for inhabitants:  POE can be a great tool for learning about the relationship between inhabitants and the building, including how to reduce discomfort and what can be done to improve the inhabitant experience.   • Information of future building design:  Feedback can be extremely valuable for informing future building design, for instance what can be improved (i.e. what did inhabitants like, what did not work for them)  (Cohen, Standeven, Bordass, & Leaman, 2001; Jauzens et al., 2002; Riley et al., 2010; Zimmerman & Martin, 2001)  The benefits and barriers of POE have been extensively discussed; for a more in depth review of Post Occupancy Evaluation, please refer to (Jauzens et al., 2002; Riley et al., 2010; Turpin-Brooks & Viccars, 2006; Zimmerman & Martin, 2001).   2.4.4 Pre-Occupancy Evaluation (PREOE) PREOEs, which are infrequently conducted, take place before the building is occupied. They can be conducted for various reasons and at various stages before building occupancy depending on their function. Goals include:      38 2.4.4.1 Optimization of Place  Getting feedback from inhabitants before design can enhance building design and reduce potential sources of discontent.   2.4.4.2 Baseline & Story of Place  The data collected can provide markers for transformation on the journey of places (as well as the evolution of process). The data can be used to explore whether it is in alignment with aspirations, what inhabitants’ desires are, or whether or how an intervention in the system has affected inhabitants and their experience. Also, it can shed insight into how the experience of place has affected the patterns of thinking, feeling and acting that inhabitants held within previous workplace experiences. Monitoring the trajectory of growth is important, especially to see whether experiences in a regenerative place actually enhance inhabitants’ thinking, feeling, being and doing, and to investigate whether interventions or processes and practices are effective in bringing forth desired aspirations.   Having baseline data available allows the measurement of any behavioural differences between the old and the new place. For instance, it can be determined whether a change in context has shifted how people think about the place, how they relate to each other, or the environmental control systems. The effectiveness of strategies, systems, or educational campaigns may be assessed. Efforts to disseminate information, such as inhabitant workshops, operational training, or building manuals, seek to improve inhabitants’ understanding and/or knowledge of the new building, or the relationships between new technologies and satisfaction ratings.  Example: Tracking Changes in Behaviours in Place  Zagreus et al. (2004) conducted a PREOE with building inhabitants before they moved into a new building to collect baseline data, as well as a POE after the move. The research team used the core Center for the Built Environment (CBE)    39 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) survey, to which a module on floor diffusers, which was specifically developed for the study, was added. Findings indicate a substantially higher satisfaction with air quality in the new building; the research team hypothesized that this stark improvement in satisfaction could likely be attributed to the floor diffusers (Zagreus et al., 2004). However, they also concluded from their added floor diffuser module that education could potentially have a large positive impact on satisfaction with the new system and training inhabitants how to operate floor diffusers properly could improve comfort (Zagreus et al., 2004). This case study illustrates how collecting baseline data can assist in identifying how a new building technology was received and how education of inhabitants holds the potential to increase comfort even further.  2.4.4.3 Identify Patterns  It can become important for the operation and the alignment of patterns and processes with aspirations, to know and understand how inhabitants relate to current experiences and what they associate with and desire from future ones. It can also enable facilitators, such as members from the building management team, to ease the shift into a new place and generate processes and practices to support inhabitants.  2.4.4.4 Process Learning The structure and content of processes can shed insight into the patterns that the researcher/team carries; the mental associations and understandings of aspirations are reflected in the created processes and research instruments. Much can be learned from the process itself about how we relate to experiences in places; reflection on processes can bring learning that will allow us to create instruments that are in better alignment and more supportive for a place to operate at all levels of work.      40  2.4.5 Feedback Instruments and Aspirations The indicators (table 4) typically used in feedback instruments are helpful in creating places that are supportive for inhabitant comfort and contentment; however, for the regenerative context, and CIRS, where aspirations go beyond those of conventional and green buildings, it becomes of increasing importance to tailor instruments to the uniqueness of place so that the process can facilitate the navigation towards manifesting regenerative aspirations.   37  Table 4: Questionnaire Items in Most Commonly Used Post Occupancy Instruments   BUILDING USE STUDIES (BUS) CENTER FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT (CBE) BUILDING IN USE (BIU) CORE VARIABLES Background Office Layout Spatial Comfort The building overall Office Furnishings Temperature (Summer/Winter) Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort Air Movement Air Quality (Summer/Winter) Air Quality Air Quality Lighting Lighting Lighting Quality Noise Acoustic Quality Office Noise Control Building Noise Control (Cleanliness included in the building overall) Cleanliness and Maintenance   General Comments Overall Comfort  Health Personal Control (over heating, cooling, lighting, etc., together with the speed of response) Productivity Travel to Work  Privacy   Space functionality OPTIONAL MODULES  Accessibility   Building and Grounds Maintenance Service Commute Conference and Training Rooms Court Work Daylighting Laboratories Office Support Equipment Operable Windows Raised Floor and Floor Diffusers Restrooms Safety and Security Way-finding    38   2.4.1 Context Summary The previous section sheds insight into research on inhabitant experiences of place; it summarizes key elements that contribute to the quality of inhabitant experiences. Some of these elements are covered in conventional feedback instruments, many of which are not sufficient to meet regenerative aspirations. The section serves for us to better understand how to co-create places that are supportive for inhabitant well-being, productivity, and health.  As the literature review above demonstrates, many elements contribute to shaping inhabitant experiences of place. A major component that has thus far not received attention in PREOE and POE are the role of expectations and beliefs and their relationship to shaping meanings, feelings, and behaviours in places. These are essential to consider in regenerative places. Because our past experiences of places, as well as what we have heard about future places, can affect how we shape and perceive present and future experiences, they can affect not only our level of contentment with an experience, but also our behaviours and the creation of novel patterns. It is thus important to explore the possible influences of past experiences, including inhabitant satisfaction with, as well as interactions within, their previous places. This can help to identify steps to navigate towards the manifestation of desired net-positive inhabitant experiences.      39 3. Methods In this section, the methodological considerations regarding this research are discussed. The sampling procedure, research process, the research instrument, and how the data was analyzed, are all presented.   3.1 Sampling Procedure All organizations moving into the building were informed in the early stages of building design that the intent of the building was to become a Living Laboratory of Sustainability, in which all aspects of the building’s design, materials, technology, and inhabitants, would be part of research to learn how to create better places. In this context, they were informed about the conduction of the Pre-Occupancy Evaluation to collect baseline data for later research. All 16 organizations, as well as individuals from other organizations moving into CIRS were invited to participate in the research, and asked to identify the employees that would be moving. However, at the time of the survey conduction, a few organizations had not yet decided which employees would be moving to CIRS and thus were not able to participate in the research. Organizations forwarded the invitation to participate in the research, with a link to the survey. To the best of the research team’s knowledge, invitations for participation were sent to 55 individuals; 52 respondents filled in the survey, a response rate of 95%.  The data from seven respondents was not included in the analysis due to partial answering, leaving a total of 45 (82%) respondents. Initially, 65 people moved into CIRS when it first opened; this means that 69% of the initial building inhabitants completed the survey and were included in this research. 52% of respondents were female and 48% male.   3.2 Process The online survey was conducted in July 2011; participants had a total time of three weeks to complete the survey, which took 25-30 minutes to fill out. Since all inhabitants that could be identified before the transition into the new building were invited, it is a representative sample.     40  3.3 Research Instrument To begin with, existing occupant satisfaction survey instruments, such as the Building Use Studies Occupant Questionnaire and the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) for Post Occupancy Evaluations (Center for the Built Environment, 2012; Usable Buildings Trust, 2013) were carefully reviewed. In addition, the literature on customer satisfaction and service quality literature was consulted. Subsequently, a survey instrument that met the purposes of this study, as well as the larger research context at CIRS, was crafted. The survey included most of the variables found in the two aforementioned instruments; however, it was tailored to meet the specific context and needs of this research and the CIRS larger research agenda. Hence, it included variables such as life-satisfaction, health, productivity, knowledge of, perceived responsibility of, and use of environmental control systems, as well as knowledge of and expectations from CIRS. Some variables that were used in the BUS and CBE surveys were not included. A preliminary version of the survey was piloted and modified based on the results and feedback before sending it to the future inhabitants of CIRS. The survey consisted of 75 questions and included various formats: Likert scales, multiple choice, and opportunities for more detailed feedback in open-ended questions. Almost every thematic section included a comment box to allow for more narrative to emerge. The Likert scales for all indicators ranged from 0 (Very Dissatisfied) to 10 (Very Satisfied), with exception of the expectations indicators, which ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree).   Table 4 outlines the survey variables and indicators. As the Pre-Occupancy Evaluation served multiple functions, such as to collect baseline data for future research, many of the variables and indicators shown in table 4 are not further discussed in this thesis. The life-satisfaction and health questions are based on questions from The Greater Victoria Well-Being Survey (personal communication Barrington-Leigh and Pennock, 2009).     41     Table 4: CIRS Pre-Occupancy Evaluation Survey Instrument Indicators Variable Indicators discussed in this Thesis Indicators not discussed in this Thesis Background • Office Situation • Building Type  • Gender  • Workspace proximity to window  • Organizational Affiliation • Organizational Base Building • Position in organization • Workspace situation •  Moving to CIRS  • Expected level of inhabitancy Well-being • Life satisfaction  • Life stress level  • Relationship with co-workers satisfaction  • Frequency of interactions with co-workers at work  • Frequency of social interactions with co-workers outside of work  • Satisfaction with social space  • Job/Degree satisfaction   Health  • Satisfaction with health • Building sick syndrome symptoms   • Ability to perform daily tasks satisfaction • Overall health rating  Productivity • Satisfaction with productivity  • Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on productivity • Overall productivity rating  Pre-CIRS Context Indoor Environment Satisfaction  • Electrical Light  • Natural Light  • Temperature (Winter)  • Temperature (Summer)  • Acoustics  • Air Quality and Movement  • Workspace Satisfaction  • (Overall Conditions)  Environmental Control System Use • Heating • Cooling • Lighting • Air Quality and Movement  • Environmental Control system Responsibility  • Control ability satisfaction Response to discomfort (behaviours) • Heating  • Cooling • Lighting • Air Quality & Movement • Acoustics       • Frequency of actions influencing indoor environment • Environmental Control system satisfaction CIRS • CIRS Knowledge  • Future Workspace    42 Variable Indicators discussed in this Thesis Indicators not discussed in this Thesis Knowledge • Source of knowledge  • Building tour attendance  • Future workspace satisfaction     Knowledge   Indoor Environmental Control systems/building design features knowledge  • Heating  • Cooling  • Air Quality and Movement  • Lighting   • Environmental Control system Responsibility & Knowledge  Inhabitant control access use  • Heating  • Cooling  • Air  • Quality and Movement  • Lighting  Expectations • Excitement to be part of CIRS  • Concerns in regards to move   • Anticipation in regards to move   Indoor Environment Conditions Expectations • Air Quality  • Temperatures (W)  • Temperatures (S)  • Lighting  • Workspace  • Impact of indoor conditions on health, productivity, and well-being • Environmental Control system Expectations   3.4 Data analysis The data collected from the survey can be classified into quantitative and qualitative categories; frequencies, percentages, means, and variances or standard deviations were calculated with the survey instrument (Fluidsurveys) for the quantitative data from Likert scales and multiple-choice questions2. From                                             2 Variance relates to the squared dispersal of data from a mean; a variance of zero would indicate that all data points are the same, a small variance that values are close to the mean and a high variance a large dispersal from the mean.     43 these, histograms and tables were created to summarize the data. Qualitative data came from two different types of questions: the comment boxes at the end of each section, as well as the open answer questions. The open answer questions used for this research were what respondents had heard about CIRS, what they were looking forward to, and what they were concerned about their experiences at CIRS. The answers that respondents gave in the comment boxes reflected associations (meanings) they held in regards to the respective theme of the section (i.e. well-being). Data from comment boxes was used to supplement the quantitative data from the Likert scales, which were not able to give insights into the meanings and feelings inhabitants had in relationship to the element alone (i.e. control) of their experience. The qualitative data was carefully read and a content analysis was performed using an inductive approach (Cope, 2005; Thomas, 2003). The data was read carefully numerous times, and emerging themes determined. Due to the large amount of data collected, only a selection of the data, as appropriate, is presented in this paper.   Classification of Likert Scales for Analysis: For analysis purposes, the Likert scales, which range from 0-10 were classified into categories to better communicate results (Table 5 & 6).   Table 5: Scale Classification for Likert Scales (except expectations) Scale points Classification 0 Very Dissatisfied 1-2 Moderately Dissatisfied 3-4 Mildly Dissatisfied 5 Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied 6-7 Mildly Satisfied 8-9 Moderately Satisfied 10 Very Satisfied  Table 6: Scale Classification for Likert Scales Expectations Scale points Classification: Level of Agreement with statement 1-2 Strongly Disagree 3-4 Disagree    44 5 Mildly disagree 6-7 Mildly agree 8-9 Agree 10 Strongly Agree       45 4. Findings This section explores the first two research questions; namely,  • What inhabitant experiences in the Pre-CIRS context were, and  • How they interacted with building control systems  It is incredibly important to note the limitations associated with the findings of this research. Since the population was small (N=45) and respondents were located in so many different buildings, interpreting the results needs to be done with care and cannot be generalized.   4.1 Present Place: Pre-CIRS Experiences  As this research indicates, 40% of CIRS inhabitants were working in a green building before moving into CIRS; this is a substantial percentage. It is possible that past experiences in and associations with workplace buildings can influence future ones. This is illustrated in the following comment:  “Having occupied a few green buildings in the past, I have very low expectations for my freedom to affect the indoor environment, and for the accessibility provided to controls by building designers”.  Implications for CIRS Having experienced green buildings previously could be important to inhabitant experiences at CIRS because they can shape meanings, feelings, and actions withing places, which could affect future experiences. For future Pre-Occupancy Evaluations, it could be useful to include the level of greenness (e.g. level of LEED accreditation) as this can shed insight into whether the level of accreditation influences inhabitant contentment with their experiences of places. This could help to advance our understanding of the relationship between level of greenness and inhabitant contentment.      46  4.1.1 Indoor Conditions & Workspace Experiences Table 7 illustrates comfort satisfaction means for different ambient indicators contributing to indoor environmental comfort.  Table 7: Satisfaction with Indoor Conditions  Mean Class Standard Deviation Confidence Interval (α=0.05) N Electrical Lighting 6.48 Mildly Satisfied 2.09 0.63 44 Natural Lighting 6.51 Mildly Satisfied 3.22 0.99 43 Temperature  (Winter) 5.82 Neither 2.44 0.79 39 Temperature  (Summer) 6.05 Mildly Satisfied 2.35 0.72 44 Acoustics 5.1 Neither 2.65 0.83 41 Air 5.32 Neither 2.76 0.84 44  Overall, respondents reported to be mildly satisfied with electrical light (6.5), temperature (summer) (6.1), and natural light (6.5). The means reflected that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with acoustics (5.1), winter temperature was (5.8), and air quality and movement (5.3). Large standard deviations, especially for natural light (3.22), winter temperatures (2.44), air quality and movement (2.76), and acoustics (2.65) indicate a wide dispersal of data from the mean. This could be due to the number of workplaces respondents were located at the time of research. Responses regarding indoor conditions, as well as later comments in regards to their workspaces, could suggest that some inhabitants appear to have experienced feelings of discontentment based on places not meeting their needs and expectations, especially with acoustics, air quality and movement (lack of access to windows) and their work-desk satisfactions.      47   Implications for CIRS   Some interesting points of discussion arise from these patterns. First of all, if inhabitants will make use of controls, and do so wisely, they can mitigate their discontentment in regards to air quality and movement through their access to windows. Acoustical discontentment, however, might require some more detailed attention as a large portion of CIRS features open office spaces. A combination of modifications to the physical space as well as communicating and balancing individual and collective needs might be necessary. Interestingly, despite the findings of previous research that open office configurations can cause noise and privacy concerns, the CIRS design did include open offices.   Workspace Satisfaction Figure 1 depicts workspace satisfaction in the Pre-CIRS context. Despite a relatively high variance (4.8), the satisfaction overall is relatively mild. Feedback from current workspace satisfaction highlights some elements that respondents perceived as enhancing or diminishing their experiences of place.   051015200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%) Workspace Satisfaction (N=44)  Satisfaction                     Variance= 4.8              Mean= Very Dissatisfied Very  Satisfied    48 Figure 1: Workspace Satisfaction  One aspect that was mentioned a few times in comments was ergonomics and the quality of furniture, such as   “Desk chair quality”.   This finding is interesting because it points to the importance of office furniture for inhabitant comfort; further, it is interesting that it emerged as a theme in the comment section because although it is typically included in conventional feedback instruments, it was not included in this Pre-Occupancy Evaluation due to the length of the questionnaire. This research points to the importance of including ergonomics in feedback instruments.   Implications for CIRS: A fruitful consideration for CIRS would be to test what inhabitant workspace needs are and whether they are met in the new place or not. It appears to be a good idea to include a section on workspace and furniture comfort in future Pre or Post Occupancy Evaluations for inhabitant needs to be met.   4.1.2 Control Systems  The following section discusses a selection of elements relating to inhabitant control satisfaction, self-reported access, use and perceived responsibility to create indoor conditions.  4.1.2.1 Control Satisfaction As Figure 2 shows, building inhabitant’s satisfaction with the ability to alter indoor environmental conditions is dispersed and bimodal, which could be due to the 11-point scale; yet, the mean is below neutral, indicating that overall dissatisfaction exists amongst respondents.     49  Figure 2: Satisfaction with Ability to Control Environmental Conditions (Pre-CIRS)  Some of the respondents referred to their lack of access to windows  “My main complaint is the AC and that windows cannot be opened to get some fresh air”   “The only real action that I would like to take is to open the windows, and I can’t”.  Feelings of frustration with his/her lack of control were mentioned to influence this one particular inhabitant’s sense of happiness.   “Cannot open windows, which is terrible- for air quality, temperature, and general happiness”  Another source of frustration appeared to be open office spaces in relation to privacy and noise.  0510152025300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%) Satisfaction with Ability to Control Indoor Environmental Conditons (N=44) Very  Dissatisfied Very  Satisfied Satisfaction  Variance=6.5                        Mean=4.5    50 “I have an assigned desk but in an open space. This makes it very challenging to have meetings, phone calls etc. without disturbing (and being disturbed) by others”  “Do not like open concept work area, very distracting to overhear other people”   It is possible that the comments on privacy and noise, as well as the frustrations with not being able to open windows, may have influenced indoor condition satisfaction scores. Noise and privacy concerns, as illustrated earlier in the literature, can contribute to creating unsupportive conditions that can generate stress within people that might adversely influence their well-being (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989).   Implications for CIRS: Control can relate to interactions with the building to evoke change, with other people, or to workplace decision-making (Vischer, 2008). Access to control systems is only one path to create a more supportive place and to meet one’s needs. Alternately, to meet them might require engaging with co-inhabitants (i.e. voicing one’s needs), or satisfying them oneself. Acoustical or privacy concerns, for instance, can are related to feelings of control. At CIRS, many building controls may be shared and inhabitants are responsible for actively creating their own satisfying conditions. This may become contentious if inhabitant needs differ or if the physical environment shifts and the fulfillment of the needs have to adjust accordingly. A more detailed discussion in regards to control follows in the key findings and discussion section.   4.1.2.2 Access & Use Table 8 illustrates participants’ interactions with building control systems to influence indoor conditions. Two summary categories were created: Use, which summarizes the regular and occasional use of controls, and don’t use, which resembles the ‘never use’ and ‘not available’ columns.     51    Table 8: Building Control Access & Use Pre-CIRS Building Control Systems Regular Use Occasional Use Use Never Use Not Available Don’t Use N Heating Thermostat 7% 5% 12% 16% 72% 88% 44 Adjustable wall heater 2% 11% 13% 2% 84% 86% 45 Adjustable diffusors in floor/wall 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 43 Cooling Thermostat 2% 9% 11% 9% 80% 89% 44 Operable windows 34% 18% 52% 5% 43% 48% 44 Adjustable diffusers 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 43 Ceiling Fan 2% 2% 4% 0 96% 96% 44 Window shades/blinds 16% 18% 34% 18% 48% 66% 44 Lighting  Electrical 40% 33% 73% 11% 16% 27% 45 Personal Desk light 17% 10% 27% 17% 57% 74% 42 Adjustable blinds/ Shades 14% 20% 34% 23% 43% 66% 44 Air Quality & Movement  Operable Windows 33% 20% 53% 9% 38% 47% 45 Mechanical Ventilation 5% 0% 5% 10% 86% 96% 42 Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall 0% 2% 2% 2% 95% 97% 42 Ceiling Fan 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 41  The data revealed that the most commonly used control systems are electrical lighting (73%), and windows (52% for cooling, 53% for air quality). A smaller portion of respondents used window shades (34%) and personal desk lights (27%) on a regular basis. Overall, this table reflects that inhabitants do not interact with control systems on a very frequent basis and display passive behaviours in regards to creating their own comfort experiences and meeting    52 their own needs. This could be either because they have no access to controls, have other strategies to mitigate discomfort, or possibly because they already are comfortable. The data in table 8 will be more closely explored below, where individual control systems are explored more thoroughly.   1. Heating Control use is very low for heating control systems (Figure 3); a high proportion claimed that systems were not available to them (Table 8).   Figure 3: Heating Control System Use in Pre-CIRS context  Implications for CIRS:  The large number of respondents that have not been using thermostats to influence their temperature indicates a norm that may prevail in the new context even though more control may be accessible.        0102030405060708090100Thermostat(N=44)Adjustable wallheater (N=45)Adjustablediffusors inwall/floor (N=43)System Use (%) Control Systems Heating Control System Use UseDon't Use   53     2. Cooling Control System Use The main systems used are operable windows and window shades and blinds; almost half of the respondents, however, did not have access to windows (Table 8 & Figure 4).   Figure 4: Cooling Control System Use in Pre-CIRS Context  Implications for CIRS: Because CIRS is naturally ventilated, air temperature is strongly related to the use of windows. In all seasons, timing and manner of window operation play an important role in the creation of a satisfactory environment as well as in the energy performance of the building. Familiarizing inhabitants with strategies that are conducive to meeting their needs while reducing energy wastage (especially in the winter time) offers the opportunity to increase satisfaction with indoor comfort.  0102030405060708090100Thermostat (N=44) Adjustable diffusers(N=43)Window Shades/Blinds(N=44)Cooling Control System Use UseDon't Use   54       3. Lighting Control System Use Electrical lighting is the most commonly used control system of all; window shades to reduce glare are not used to adjust the lighting conditions (Figure 5).   Figure 5: Lighting Control System Use in Pre-CIRS Context  Implications for CIRS: Currently, inhabitants do not have access to lighting control at CIRS; the light sensors switch off automatically. The intention is for this to change and for lights to be operable from the desktop. This delay in access to controls could possibly shape habits (passiveness) for inhabitants that might prevail after access to lighting control will be made available. Because of large glazed surfaces at CIRS, 0102030405060708090100Electical Lighting(N=45)Personal Desk Light(N=42)Adjustableblinds/Shades (N=44)System Use (%) Control Systems Lighting Control System Use UseDon't Use   55 the use of blinds may be beneficial to reduce glare and it is likely a good idea to remind people of their existence and evaluate their effectiveness.      4. Air Quality & Movement Control Use Again, operable windows were essentially the only mode of influencing air quality and movement for those that have access to them (Figure 6).    Figure 6: Air Quality& Movement Control Use in Pre-CIRS Context  Implications for CIRS: As a naturally ventilated building, air quality and movement depend on inhabitant interaction with the system. The building design intends for effective cross-ventilation; thus, communicating cross-ventilation techniques and reminders could increase air quality.   0102030405060708090100OperableWindows (N=45)MechanicalVentilation (N=42)Adjustablediffusers infloor/wall (N=42)Ceiling Fan(N=41)System Use (%) Control Systems Air Quality& Movement Control System Use  UseDon't Use   56 4.1.2.3 Control Responsibility Table 9 reveals respondents’ perceptions of control responsibility; respondents were able to give multiple answers. This table, combined with previously detected patterns, shows that there appeared to be uncertainty about who was responsible for air circulation and noise in their pre-CIRS workplace. 53% of respondents indicated that they used windows; however, only 11% perceived controlling air circulation to be a shared responsibility, and only 16% saw it to be theirs.   Table 9: Perceived Primary Responsibility for Building System Controls  Building Manager Designated Person Automated System Shared responsibility of inhabitants You Don’t know  Heating 34 % 0% 14% 23% 7% 34% 49 Cooling 33% 2% 16% 19% 7% 37% 49 Lighting 18% 2% 5% 36% 32% 25% 52 Air Circulation 18% 0% 14% 11% 16% 50% 52 Noise 2% 0% 0% 44% 12% 49% 46  At CIRS, inhabitants will have shared access to windows. Cross-ventilation is the major air circulation control, which relies on inhabitants to take responsibility to actively create airflow with windows so they need to know that they are responsible, how to effectively operate the systems, and to actually do it.  For heating and cooling, the perceived responsibility in their current place is relatively low and as previously indicated (Table 9), inhabitants have very limited access to control systems.   Noise, which was continuously mentioned as a source of frustration and discomfort, is perceived as a shared responsibility to 44%; 49% don’t know whose responsibility it is, and only 12% saw it as their responsibility to shape the acoustical experience. Shaping one’s own acoustical experience, for instance, could entail wearing headphones or asking co-inhabitants to reduce noise levels.    57 This is fascinating because the results indicate a sense of passiveness around creating a desirable acoustic environment for some of the respondents. Overall, there seems to be uncertainty as well as low perceived responsibility of the Self in creating desired indoor conditions (except for lighting, which has been one of the elements that inhabitants have been satisfied with and have control over in their contexts).     Examples of Inhabitant Co-Creation of Experiences  Some interesting findings were revealed in the comment box for those inhabitants indicating shared responsibilities for the building systems; sharing responsibility of co-creating a pleasant indoor environment was, in many cases, a source of interaction and connection with co-inhabitants. 13 out of 22 respondents pointed to the shared responsibilities resulting in interactions between inhabitants  “We ask each other whether it’s ok to open or close a window”, or  “We ask for consent and change the temperature”, or  “Ask permission to change conditions”, or “Noise is controlled by common courtesy”  This is an interesting finding because shared controls could become a point through which building inhabitants can connect; potentially, this could lead to enhanced connectedness, or could become a source of discontent if divergent interests or preferences exist, as in this case with noise:  “Noise is discussed at the monthly student society meetings” or  “I guess for noise it’s a shared experience in that in general we try to respect each other by not being too loud for too long”    58  Interestingly, although several inhabitants complained about noise, it was also perceived as an element of experience they perceived to have low responsibility to control at the personal level. More research on the sources, causes, and effects of acoustical disturbances and behaviours could be useful.   Implications for CIRS: Data on control system access and interactions indicate that apart from operating lighting and windows if accessible, inhabitants were relatively passive in their previous contexts as reflected in a low personal perceived responsibility for creating indoor conditions.   In addition, perceived satisfaction with ability to control indoor conditions was relatively low. Limited access and control over indoor conditions and the low satisfaction with certain aspects (i.e. acoustics, availability to social space) of their experience appear to be causing dissatisfaction with their experiences of places which is reflected in some inhabitant comments. This finding is supported by the literature mentioned earlier, which highlights the importance of control access for inhabitant satisfaction (Brown & Cole, 2009; Leaman & Bordass, 2001).   Based on these findings, merely providing access to control systems might not suffice for inhabitants to create comfortable conditions. For inhabitants to have their desired experiences they need to know how they can create them and take personal responsibility and actions towards desired states of feeling. Rather than being occupants of their experiences, they need to become inhabitants that actively shape them.    4.1.3 Well-Being & Social Experiences of Place  The following section shares results in regards to respondents’ well-being and social experiences of pre-CIRS places.     59  4.1.3.1 Life Satisfaction Future inhabitants were asked how satisfied they were with their life. Respondents’ life satisfaction scores (Figure 7) reveal that they are overall relatively satisfied with life before their move into the new place (mean: 8.1). This is interesting considering their feelings of discontentment with previous workplaces.    Figure 7: Life Satisfaction  As the below table (10) reveals, 86% of respondents found their life stressful. Stress is defined as   “a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse or very demanding circumstances” (Apple Dictionary).  Table 10: Perceived Stress in Life Response Percentage Count Very Stressful 4 2 05101520253035400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%)  Satisfaction Life Satisfaction (N=45)           Variance=1.4                    Mean=8.1 Very  Dissatisfied Very  Satisfied    60 Somewhat Stressful 82 37 Not very stressful 13 6 Not at all stressful 0 0  Total Responses 45  Whereas stress is a part of most of our lives, it can have negative impacts on our health and diminish our ability to be productive and creative. Further enquiry into the causes of stress could be fruitful in determining steps for greater inhabitant health; for instance, it would be helpful to know whether the causes of stress spring from experiences within place or from life outside of the workplace. One respondent mentioned that   “having young children makes for an on-going struggle to balance work and life expectations”.  Respectively, action steps could be taken once the sources of stress have been more clearly identified.   Implications for CIRS: These findings underline that although stress can come from the physical workplace, other sources of negative affect that require attention could stem from human relationships or life situations that extend beyond the physical place.   4.1.3.2 Health  Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with their health; as figure 8 shows, respondents were quite satisfied.     61  Figure 8: Satisfaction with Health In the comments, the desire for a more active lifestyle to support one’s health was expressed:  “I’m relatively healthy but I wish I had more time to exercise (again I blame my kids, why not, they’ll be blaming me for everything pretty soon).  or   “I would like to do more sports”.  The role of ergonomics and the physical space in the support of health was mentioned   “Good furniture is most important for the health of me and most of my colleagues in order to prevent back pain”  as well the importance of air quality on perceived states of vitality and well-being one respondent referred to.   01020304050607080VeryDissatisfiedDissatisfied NeitherSatisfied norDissatisfiedSatisfied Very Satisfied Don't knowPerentage (%) Satisfaction  Satisfaction with Health (N=44)    62 “The air quality does seem to affect energy levels and in the winter I feel sick after working too long in the building”.  It is important to remember that inhabitants were located in many different buildings and that these comments are just individual’s experiences of their respective workplace.   Perceived Effect of Place on Health  Table 11 illustrates symptoms that respondents experienced in their previous places which characterize sick building syndrome; only 31% did not report to experience, or were not aware of any of the above-mentioned symptoms. This means that a significant number of inhabitants felt physical symptoms resulting from elements of their experience of place. The causes of these symptoms could be due to elements of the physical building structure (i.e. building materials, windows), or a physical response to psychological discomfort. Either way, it hints at our sensitivity to the physical environment and our relationship to our perceived experiences.   Table 11: Regularly Experienced Sick Building Symptoms Symptoms Percentage Count Eyes: itching, irritated, dry, watering 33% 14 Nose: irritated, itching, runny, dry, blocked 31% 13 Throat: sore, constricted, dry mouth 14% 6 Head: headache, lethargy, irritability, difficulty concentrating 38% 16 Skin: dryness, itching, irritation, rashes 12% 5 I have none of these symptoms 31% 13 Don’t know 0% 0  Total Responses 42  Implications for CIRS Although most respondents indicated that they are satisfied with their health, it appears that a substantial amount did report experiencing symptoms that may be related to sick building syndrome. Considering that inhabitants were located in    63 many different workplaces at the time of response, it is difficult to say whether these answers are tied to a few specific buildings or a more widely experienced phenomenon. It would be interesting to investigate if the findings are associated with specific workplace buildings. If these symptoms persist at CIRS, which has been built to reduce and even enhance physical health, research into the causes of the symptoms are necessary.   4.1.3.3 Productivity  According to the data in Figure 9, respondents indicate a mild to moderate satisfaction with their productivity at their desks (mean=7.1).   Figure 9: Satisfaction with Productivity The effect of the indoor environmental quality on productivity (table 12) shows that the majority of people found that conditions either did not affect their productivity, or that it adversely influenced them.   Table 12: Perceived Effect of Indoor Environmental Quality on Productivity Response Percentage Count Strongly Interferes 0 0 Interferes 16 7 Somewhat interferes 40 18 Neutral 27 12 Somewhat enhances 11 5 05101520253035400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%)  Satisfaction with Productivity (N=45) Very  Dissatisfied Very  Satisfied Satisfaction  Variance=2.2                 Mean=7.1    64 Enhances 4 2 Strongly Enhances 2 1 Don’t know 0 0 Total responses  45  While the physical building can be supportive or interfere with inhabitant productivity, psychological factors can play into this. Respondents’ comments, for instance, revealed the influence of noise on their perceived sense of productivity. In this comment section, as well as in others, the effect of noise on work performance or satisfaction with their experiences was referred to:  “The noise distraction of open-concept office interferes”  “I’d say I am noise sensitive. but for the most part i can control that by listening to music, etc.”  These results are interesting because noise has been shown to have a strong effect on psychological well-being and can cause affective reactions to the external environment that can affect productivity (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989).   An interesting research opportunity would be to explore to what degree the physical elements of place actually influence feelings of productivity as opposed to our beliefs as to how much we need to achieve to feel satisfied with our achievements. It is a possibility that our own expectations, of how much we will or should accomplish, might keep us in continuous discontentment with our achievements.  Implications for CIRS The physical building can be a place that is supportive of productivity and our creations; however, our meanings and feelings about productivity provide a framework of expectation that shapes our evaluation of productivity. It would be interesting to research what contributes to inhabitant feelings of productivity.     65 4.1.3.4 Social Space  As Figure 10 reveals, although the distribution was bimodal and the variance was quite large (7.4), the availability of space available to socialize with co-workers was overall rated as not being very high (mean=4.6). Possibly, this distribution could have resulted from respondents being located in many different buildings.  Figure 10: Satisfaction with Space to Socialize Discontentment was also reflected in a few comments of respondents.   “[…] we moved from a building where there was a nice shared kitchen that our department and other units used to eat lunch and have a coffee break. Since moving to the [name of building], I haven’t used the downstairs kitchen space (it isn’t very appealing) and so I find I will either eat lunch at my desk”  This comment points to the effect of good social space on inhabitant behaviour and connectedness; in this case, the inhabitant chose to eat lunch at the desk. Further, social space can also be present, but not very inviting for interaction:  “the informal social space in [name of building] is limited to a thoroughfare sink. the designers should have programmed for a proper lounge space that doesn’t feel like a random table in a hallway ;)”.  And  05100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%) Satisfaction Satisfaction with Space to Socialize (N=45) Very  Dissatisfied  Very Satisfied       66  “it is great to have access to a community kitchen but having a common table for people to eat and connect would be a wonderful addition”  Implications for CIRS: These findings could point to the opportunity for workplace buildings to feature better social spaces than have been thus far. Consequently, especially at CIRS, where the emergence of community and feeling connected are an aspiration, it is essential to ensure that the space available for socializing is actually supportive of the function and inviting for inhabitants so that they have places to connect with each other.   4.1.3.5 Connectedness: Co-Inhabitants  Flowing from the above findings on inhabitant satisfaction are inhabitants’ interactions with their co-inhabitants. In the PREOE, respondents were asked how frequently they interact with co-inhabitants at work, and socialize outside of work; as well, comments from some respondents throughout the questionnaire touched on the topic of human relationships and interactions.  Table 13: Frequency of Interaction with Co-Workers at Work and Socialize Outside of Work Frequency of Occurrence Interact at work (%) Socialize outside of work (%) More than once a day 73 4 Once a day 11 0 Several times per week 9 20 Once a week 7 11 Once a month 0 27 Less than once a month 0 31 Never 0 7  Results for social aspects (Table 13) in the pre-CIRS context reveal that respondents interact with their co-workers quite frequently at work; 73% of the respondents indicated that they do so more than once a day. However, interactions with co-workers outside of the work context were less frequent, with    67 the majority (65%) of respondents interacting with others less than once a week. This indicates that co-workers mostly interact at work, where the relationships and interactions could be more focused on work, and that the relationships appear to be tied to the workplace. One inhabitant mentioned how changes in personal interactions and at work throughout the last few years:   “I am over 60 and I work mostly with those under 40, many just turned 30 […] I have found that there is much less personal interaction at work in the last 5 years or so. I’m rather shocked to get an email about something from less than 5 metres away…it seems to be the way though but it is much less personal, satisfying and fun for me”.  This comment provides some insight into how we communicate with each other and the potential influence that technology and emerging practices can have on feelings of connectedness, the lack thereof, and the effect it has on the respondent’s feelings of ‘fun’. Another feedback refers to interpersonal communication and office culture:  “Sometimes we arrive at work and not say hello, which I think it is a shame. This probably comes from working in close quarters with each other and not wanting to disrupt people’s concentration/work flow”.  As the previous comment reflects, some inhabitants desire more personal interactions and connectedness. This finding is well-supported by the literature, where quality trusting relationships have been demonstrated to be important to feelings of well-being The desire for connectedness, collaboration, and human relationships that some of the inhabitants voiced was reflected in a few well-being comments, but also in the some comments about what respondents were looking forward to for their experience at CIRS. Connecting with colleagues on a deeper level, beyond the work identity, is the theme of one comment, in which a group of colleagues actively chose to connect on a more personal level:     68 “We are starting up a once a month full staff coffee break session […] At these sessions we have vowed not to talk about work but to use the time to share updates from our personal lives or find out more about each others’ interests”.   An interesting observation in regards to the well-being comments was that there was no comment about the indoor environmental conditions and their relationship to the inhabitant experience. This could be a good indicator for what respondents associate with well-being and what enhances their experience of workplaces. Further, this could reveal what is meaningful to some inhabitants and points to the possible importance of human relationships and social elements within the regenerative workplace.  Implications for CIRS: At CIRS we are interested in cultivating community, a sense of connectedness, collaboration, and net-positive well-being. This aspiration is shared by some of the respondents. It would be of value to explore whether other inhabitants share the desire for more connectedness with inhabitants and what kind of relationships with co-workers would be meaningful to them.  4.1.3.6 Connectedness: Nature  Several inhabitants reported in comment boxes how natural elements influenced their well-being. In particular, some inhabitants mentioned views of nature.   “We have trees right outside our big windows which are a delight and are frequented by squirrels, birds and raccoons. I really like having a sense of being so close to a more natural environment (we did not have this in our last building)”  “Love the huge wall of north-facing windows with greenery right outside”.   ”I love the trees outside my window”     69 Feelings of delight are explicitly mentioned in the responses, which is an important indicator as to what these specific inhabitants desire as part of their experiences. The following comment is interesting because it could hint at the mitigating effects of nature in regards to frustration:  “right now constant construction is making it very noisy and super irritating because the windows need to be open…I love the trees outside my window”  Even though there is noise frustration, there was a mental leap from this feeling to the love for nature. The positive effect of nature elements on psychological well-being has been demonstrated in the past (Berman et al., 2008; A. J Howell & Passmore, 2013; A. J. Howell et al., 2011; R. Kaplan, 1993; S. Kaplan, 1995; Kellert, 2005; Maller et al., 2005).  Implications for CIRS CIRS is a wood structure building and thus has nature built into it. Some natural features, such as the green roof and wall, large windows and daylighting, will likely contribute to inhabitant well-being. Beyond this, it would be interesting to explore whether this affinity for nature is shared amongst other inhabitants and how more natural elements (i.e. indoor plants, water features) could influence inhabitant psychological and physiological well-being.   4.2 Future Place: CIRS The following section explores the research questions related to inhabitants’ meanings, feelings, and expectations from their future experience at CIRS before moving in. Further it explored whether their knowledge (meanings) are reflected in their expectations. More specifically:  • What do they know about CIRS before moving in?     70 To find out what inhabitants have heard about CIRS through various sources of knowledge, they were asked in an open answer question:  • What were the future inhabitants’ expectations and feelings about their experience at CIRS?  Inhabitants’ ambient and control expectations were collected by indicating their agreement with statements about CIRS. To get at inhabitants’ feelings about their future and anticipated experience at CIRS, open answer questions posed the question if and what concerns they had about the building and what they were looking forward to (anticipation). Concerns (N=23) were classified into two categories:   Physical Place & Basic Needs (i.e. privacy, functionality, support of work tasks)  CIRS Aspirations (i.e. concerns about energy performance, behavioural alignment of inhabitants with aspirations, embodiment of social sustainability in daily practices)  and included in the respective findings section below. As well, they were asked what they were anticipating for their experience at CIRS (N=38). The comments were coded and classified into three different categories:   Physical Place & Basic Needs (i.e. indoor environment, environmental control access, access to windows, sustainability features).  Connectedness (i.e. to the building, human/social, natural, social space, connectedness, being part -of a system-, nature: windows)  CIRS Aspirations (i.e. Sustainability Aspirations/Mandates, Pride, Innovation & Inspiration)   and also placed into the respective sections.     71   4.2.1 Knowledge about CIRS Knowledge refers to inhabitant understandings of, and associations with, CIRS; this knowledge was available to the future inhabitants through various channels.   Figure 11: Sources of Knowledge As figure 11 illustrates, 38% of respondents had been on a tour of the construction site previous to completing the survey; in addition, respondents had received information about CIRS through multiple sources. 75% had heard about the building from their employer, 68% from a colleague, 16% had read about it in the newspaper, 36% on the Internet, and 45% had seen presentations about the building. This data shows that respondents had learned about the building from multiple sources; further, because on the building tours a lot of information on the buildings’ sustainability features was given, many inhabitants would have learned about it and experienced the physical building.  Implications for CIRS The source of knowledge can shape the content of information received as well as the level of faith that is placed in the content. According to Zeithaml et al. (1993), word of mouth is considered as a more unbiased source of information, and is thought to have more of an impact on service expectations than others. For CIRS, this could mean that information received from the employer or 01020304050607080Building Tour Employer Colleague Newspaper PresentationPercentage (%) Sources of Knowledge about CIRS Sources of Knowledge (N=44)    72 colleague may carry more weight and shape knowledge and expectations more than official marketing or presentations.    Associations with CIRS Out of the total 45 respondents, 40 filled in the question of what they have heard about CIRS. The answers indicate that a substantial number of respondents, namely 36, were familiar with CIRS’ high level of environmental sustainability and expressed their knowledge in various ways, including that the building is ‘regenerative’, ‘green’, the ‘greenest’ or the most ‘sustainable’ building of North America, a ‘living building’, that it was supposed to be a net-positive building, or sustainability features were listed. The environmental aspirations and sustainability features appeared to be quite familiar to the respondents:  “reduces UBC’s overall carbon”  “It will be the ‘greenest’ building in North America (at least until the next greenest building is built)  “It will be net-positive energy, water and GHG’s”  “The world will be a better place because of it”  “CIRS will be the greenest building in Canada”  “ I believe that the goals associated with this include: • A net positive energy balance (supplying energy back into the grid for buildings around it). • On site water treatment • Harnessing solar and steam energy from the surrounding environment”  The comments reflected associations to the physical building structure and how    73 that might relate to human inhabitants, such as control access to shape indoor conditions.  “windows that open, natural lighting”  Only five respondents explicitly mentioned aspects related to the social sustainability of the building, by referring to the  “[…] potential for building space to interact more closely with the needs of the inhabitants”,    [the building as] “an interactive place for social learning”, or   “[…] beyond its goals in environmental sustainability, it seeks to enhance the social life of the environment within the building; i.e. better working environment, improved work satisfaction, and productivity”.  Interestingly, what future inhabitants had heard about CIRS before their move into the place was mostly related to the physical building structure, environmental sustainability features, and the high building performance aspirations. Only two comments touched on the social aspirations of place, and none of them mentioned net-positive aspirations in regards to inhabitant experiences. An important question to ask is why people did not refer more to the social aspirations. One likely possibility could be the meanings and expectations that shape our relationship to sustainable workplaces are based on past experiences and knowledge about elements of the future experience (conventional or green). Almost half of the respondents were located in green buildings at the time of the survey; green buildings are generally more associated with environmental sustainability features and harm reduction- reducing energy and resource consumption.      74 However, enhanced inhabitant experiences might not be highlighted within the conventional or green context, so when future inhabitants heard about aspirations, it is possible that they remembered or associated with CIRS what is familiar, what they have experienced in the past, or what they can relate to. This would be in alignment with the aforementioned expectations literature. Another possibility is that the human aspirations were either not shared with inhabitants effectively, or that they had not been a priority in the communication efforts on behalf of the building. Workplace buildings are typically not places where net-positive aspirations are pursued for the human dimension; respondents may not have been able to connect with these because they did not find personal meaning in them as they have never experienced it and do not understand it at a deeper level.   Implications for CIRS Social sustainability goals and net positive human aspirations are an important part of CIRS. Because inhabitants are likely less familiar with these kinds of aspirations as they possibly have not experienced these previously, it would be important to create dialogue with inhabitants about what these could mean to them, what they desire, and if and how we can realize inhabitant expectations.    4.2.2 Physical Place  In this section, what inhabitants are concerned about and anticipate from their experience in regards to the physical place are shared.   Concerns: Physical Place & Basic Needs  These were related to concerns regarding privacy, functionality of the physical place, and its supportiveness for work tasks. Privacy was the second most common concern; depending on their knowledge about CIRS, or potential past experience, this could be tied to the open workspace concept (common in green buildings). Interestingly, past experience or some form of knowledge about green buildings may be reflected in this comment:    75  “Inhabitants of green buildings are not very satisfied with their environment”;  or the general question how the building’s greenness will affect the inhabitant comfort experience  “Not really sure how it is going to work. Will green features impact on comfort?”  “office noise levels because of glass partitions”  “South-facing office will result in visual and thermal discomfort”;  Functional concerns: how the building will be in terms of supporting their work?  “Amount of support staff for technical needs”  “How ergonomic is the furniture”  or concerns about the safety, health and well-being for inhabitants of novel technologies:  “What safeguards are in place to ensure that recycled water is working? What if recycled water is contaminating the fresh water source?”.  “What contingency plans are in place of system failures?”  These findings are interesting as they some inhabitants’ reveal doubts about the building being able to provide comfortable conditions and meet the safety needs of inhabitants. Further, concerns and fear of novelty, unanswered questions, and a desire for more knowledge that future inhabitants had about the building and    76 their move into it. Similarly, Brown and Cole (2008) found in their research that a knowledge gap existed, where inhabitants desired to know more about building environmental control systems than was available, hinting at the shortcomings of current communication with and education of building inhabitants.   Implications for CIRS These findings suggest that some of the knowledge that inhabitants received in regards to CIRS triggered feelings of doubt, fear of uncertainty, and safety concerns in some. It is likely important to mitigate these feelings. Action steps could include creating feedback channels that allow for an ongoing conversation of concerns, where building management can address them and ensure that inhabitant needs are met.    Anticipation: Physical Place & Basic needs This category refers to what inhabitants were looking forward to at CIRS regarding the indoor environment, environmental control access (e.g. access to windows), and sustainability features.  Several respondents (10) were looking forward to an enhanced indoor environment with better ambient conditions; a substantial amount (16) mentioned aspects related to biophilic design elements, with windows and their positive effects on lighting and air being a large source of anticipation. Control over conditions at their work environment was something (3) respondents were also anticipating, as illustrated in this comment:  “Windows!” This indicates that the physical building structure and its basic operation are meaningful and important to some of the respondents.   Implications for CIRS    77 Considering that inhabitants are excited about an enhanced indoor environment with more control (and control has been demonstrated in the literature to be very important for satisfaction), it is recommended to give inhabitants the promised access to control. Windows are readily available to them and this seems to be very meaningful to inhabitants. Giving inhabitants more access to controls could likely be helpful to promote the occupant to inhabitant aspiration. If people are comfortable all the time, they have to invest no effort in taking responsibility and effecting change and they would potentially remain more passive.    4.2.3 Indoor Ambient & Workspace Expectations To explore what future CIRS inhabitants’ comfort expectations were, they were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about individual aspects of the indoor environment in CIRS on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree), for instance “At CIRS, I expect that…[indicator, i.e. air quality] will be excellent at all times”.   Table 14: CIRS Ambient Conditions Expectations As table 14 shows, respondents strongly agreed with the statement that the air quality (mean=8.2), winter temperatures (mean=7.8), and lighting (mean=8.3) will be excellent at all times. For summer temperatures (mean=7.3), the level of agreement was slightly lower than for the winter. Acoustics (mean=7.1) were expected to be the least favorable of all variables and had the largest variance, which shows a wider dispersal of expectations.  Air, lighting, and winter temperatures also display lower standard deviations than acoustics, summer temperatures and workspace expectations, indicating a greater consensus than for acoustics, workspace, and summer CIRS Ambient Conditions Expectations Mean (1=Strongly Disagree-10=Strongly Agree) Standard Deviation Confidence Interval (α=0.05)  Air 8.2 (N=44) 1.55 0.48 Temperatures (Summer) 7.3 (N=41) 1.86 0.59 Temperatures (Winter) 7.8 (N=41) 1.57 0.48 Lighting 8.3 (N=44) 1.57 0.48 Acoustics 7.1 (N=42) 2.31 0.72    78 temperatures. The large standard deviations for the latter expectations could indicate that they are somewhat diffuse or that past experiences in ‘green’ buildings may have influenced expectations. The higher expectations for air quality and lighting are also reflected in the comments regarding access to daylighting and windows at CIRS, which appear to be features that respondents were highly anticipating. Comparing the levels of satisfaction scores for previous context and CIRS expectations, inhabitants appear to have higher hopes for indoor air quality and experiences at CIRS than they experienced in their current workplaces.   Implications for CIRS Once they have access to control, inhabitants will carry the primary responsibility to co-create satisfactory conditions. Beyond the building control systems, they can take other actions to affect their comfort. It could be a good idea to inform them about other means to shape their experience of place. Modifying clothing, drinking a beverage, or wearing headphones to cancel out noise are alternatives.    4.2.4 Control System Expectations Figure 12 shows inhabitants’ control expectations. It seems that although there is a general tendency to expect more control than their previous places, there appears to be uncertainty in regards to how much control inhabitants will have access to. Many respondents reflected knowledge about windows in other questions, for instance, but it is possible that they do not know about other control systems that they will have access to.     79  Figure 12: CIRS Indoor Control System Expectations   Implications for CIRS: These findings reflect the need to educate inhabitants about the systems they have control over and how they can actually shape the indoor environmental conditions.    4.2.5 Well-Being & Social Expectations The expectations in table 15 refer to the degree to which the respondents thought the building indoor environment would enhance the respective aspects of their experience; respondents indicated that for well-being, productivity, and health, their expectations are moderately high. However, the variances are also relatively high, indicating a wide dispersal of data, which means that there was little consensus about the effect of the building on these variables.  Table 15: Expected Effects of Building in Well-Being, Health, and Productivity 051015200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%) N=45 CIRS Indoor Control System Expectations  Expectation to have full control (Mean= No  Control Full Control Building Effect (1=Strongly Disagree-10=Strongly Agree) Variance Well-being 7.8 4.7 Productivity 8.0 4.9    80      Along these lines, one respondent mentioned:  “my expectations of the building enhancing health/well-being/productivity are not overwhelmingly high, because i take more responsibility for these things (ie, based in internal, emotional health etc. factors) than they are based on external conditions. also, if i’m in a beautiful and optimally functional space, will this make me want to work more—or less? That said, looking forward to seeing if how these factors might actually be enhanced…”  This is an interesting comment that hints at the idea that although the building can influence well-being, health and productivity, internal states (i.e. affective states) are not solely tied to the physical building structure and indoor conditions. Emotional health can stem from experiences outside of the physical place and it requires us to take personal responsibility to manage them to actually feel good in a physical place.    Considering that noise and privacy concerns were prevalent in responses, it will be interesting to see whether the expectations for productivity are realized.   4.2.5.1 Connectedness: Co-Inhabitants The following section outlines some findings in regards to concerns and anticipations inhabitants mentioned associated with relationships, firstly, with co-inhabitants, secondly, with nature.  Anticipation: Relationships  All answers classified in this category are related to aspects of their experience in the CIRS living system. This includes connections between the co-workers, as well as connectedness to nature. Being connected and part of the system and Health 7.8 5.3    81 the experience are also indicators of relationships. Although windows were already included in the previous category, they can be seen as enhancers of the physical space, as well as connecting inhabitants to the elements and thus as a connection to nature as well.   50% of respondents (N=38) signaled in their comments that they were looking forward to aspects related to human relationships, including social aspects, or connectedness. A few respondents mentioned social space, where they can connect with co-inhabitants   “I’m hoping for shared spaces to meet with colleagues from my department and others. I’m looking forward to an improved social work environment”   “more spaces for social interaction”  The individual respondents characterized what is meaningful to them, or what they are looking forward to in regards to social interactions at CIRS in different ways. For instance, a desire for collaboration   “collaborating with other inhabitants”  as well as shared values   “Being surrounded by like-minded people”  and being close to colleagues  “Being in close proximity to a variety of colleagues who were once scattered across campus”.  Implications for CIRS:    82 Although only about half of the respondents referred to social connectedness with co-inhabitants, it would be interesting to explore this topic in more depth. It was not a major focus of this research and yet emerged as meaningful to several inhabitants. It would be helpful to investigate how other inhabitants feel about connectedness with co-inhabitants. Considering community, connectedness, and collaborations are aspirations for CIRS, it would make sense to see how they can be realized for those who desire this as part of their experience. Hence, quality social spaces and opportunities for inhabitants to connect are likely important.   4.2.5.2 Connectedness: Nature As well, a desire for connectedness to nature was also reflected in some of the answers, in particular relating to windows, daylighting, or   “[a] bright open workspace”  “living wall/garden”   “access to roof garden”   or the curiosity of whether there will be trees:  “Are there trees planned for the landscaping?”   Implications for CIRS CIRS has numerous biophilic elements (i.e. windows, green roof, wood); adding greenery or other biophilic elements into the indoor spaces could enhance feelings of connectedness with nature and positively influence well-being.      83  4.2.6 CIRS Aspirations & Feelings The following findings relate to comments that inhabitants mentioned in relationship to the CIRS, aspirations, and feelings in regards to the novelty.  Concerns: Aspirations  The comments regarding concerns about the CIRS vision and aspirations ranged from energy and sustainability, human behavioural alignment with building aspirations, and embodiment of social sustainability in daily practice. The first comment reflects concerns about how modeling estimates will translate into complexity:  “With complexity of design and ambitious energy reduction targets, I am concerned that systems will not perform in real life as they do in models”;   or that building inhabitants may not embody environmental aspirations and will not contribute towards efforts;  “I've heard a lot about building control systems and our interaction with them but I want to make sure that as inhabitants, we are also really on top of waste reduction and water conservation efforts (eg: composting program, deskside recycling, battery recycling, plastics/container recycling). I hope that everyone in the building will get involved with these programs and others […]  or  “My other concern is regarding building a strong collaborative community of inhabitants. Ie: taking time to say hello, to talk to one another, build a workplace of respect and enable health workplace practices like ergonomics, wellness days, exercise and movement”   In a way, these comments possibly mirror a fear that CIRS and their experience in the building will not meet its promises, that it could be yet like any other building, and that their expectations could not be met.   Anticipation: Aspirations  The answers in this category are related to the CIRS vision, regenerative goals    84 and aspirations and what the building seeks to embody and contribute to the world. This category is related to the meanings and feelings respondents associate with their future experience of place. Being part of a building that is innovative in itself as well as a hub for sustainability research was something that several anticipated. There was some sentiment of pride and excitement to move into the building because of the newness of the building and its aspirations.   For instance,   “being part of a cutting edge building”  “I’m looking forward to being located in a building that I can be proud of and show my colleagues/visitors”  “Being in an innovative, green building”   One respondent touched on the vision of bringing forth novelty, being an engaged inhabitant and appeared inspired by  “the change. the part of being some unique and progressive. i’m interested in seeing how the bldg. will influence me and my colleagues. i’m excited to act on the research questions that such a unique initiative will provide. i’m looking forward to meeting a number of people i would not normally meet, and look forward to being a positive contributor to cirs and the community”.  Related to that was a comment on being part of a place in which a collaborative vision can bring forth new opportunities:  “It’s a very good idea and I look forward to being a part; much better proximity, concentration and connectivity to facilities, people and activities supportive of my interests and work; this will likely stimulate new opportunities; I’ll learn something about what works (and what doesn’t)”  as well as the excitement of    85  “Being part of an experiment”.  It appears that while there is hesitation and fear of uncertainty reflected in the answers, there is simultaneously a sense of excitement for novelty for innovation and possibly a sense of longing for change for some respondents.   Concerns: Feelings about CIRS Experience  These comments reflected respondents concerns in regards to how they feel about this new experience in CIRS. Many answers reflected a general sense of uncertainty in regards to what will happen at CIRS and how it will affect their feelings.  “will the building be ready?”  “How close will I be to a window? What will my workspace be like because I actually quite like my existing workspace set up in terms of efficacy. Will the light desk top afford me the flexibility I have become used to? Will require me to spend some of my own money to get a set up that works with my laptop? Will I have the storage space for books etc. that I currently have? How close to a window will I be? Do I still get free printing or will this come out of my pocket now? Will I feel like I am too close to my workmates and not enough private space? To be honest, I feel like the easiest thing to do is to just stay where I am but I am really excited to see what CIRS holds (and a little anxious about the change to the new environments and habits as well).”  Along these lines, the feelings of not knowing and a   “[…] overall feeling of uncertainty due to not having any mechanism in place for this information to be communicated to future inhabitants”  caused another respondent concern.      86 Generally, there were feelings of doubt amongst some respondents that the building would not perform as intended, based on past experiences or hearsay about green buildings,   “Inhabitants of green buildings are not very satisfied with their environment”  or in regards to the high performance expectations   “With complexity of design and ambitious energy reduction targets, I am concerned that systems will not perform in real life as they do in models”.  Another interesting finding were feelings of chaos and unsettledness in the beginning stages of inhabitation and the effects this could have on one respondent’s work performance.  “I get the feeling that many work areas will be quite busy because people will not have designated workspaces and at first many people will be touring the building. I expect that my productivity will sharply decrease because of these distractions”  Possibly, this unsettledness could cause stress to arise in inhabitants in the initial stages of occupation. Feelings, such as the sensitivity to other people’s tension or stress is expressed in this comment:  “I’m hoping my desk can be away from one of my colleagues who is rather tense and I seem to absorb it from being close by”.  The concerns that people had for their experiences in CIRS were related to various aspects. There were feelings of concern for some whether the place would be a supportive work environment, whether the indoor environmental quality would be sufficient, or the technical systems or support staff would be up to par. Other concerns mentioned by some were in regards to the building not meeting its aspirations, concerns about building a connected and collaborative    87 community, and a general sense of uneasiness related to uncertainty of the future and newness.   Implications for CIRS The findings speak to the importance of our feeling states on our experiences of place. It is not just the place itself, but how we internally relate and react to it. This presents another opportunity for future research. Especially for a place that seeks to realize net-positive psychological and physiological well-being, affective states are important as they can either enhance or diminish our experience of place.    4.2.7 Excitement to Be Part of CIRS As figure 13 shows, the mean is quite high, combined with a low variance; there seems to be a general sense of excitement for CIRS amongst its future inhabitants. Interestingly, satisfaction with their future workspace (mean 7.8, variance 5.5) was lower with a higher dispersal of answers; this could possibly support the idea that the excitement captured in this question goes beyond the physical building itself, but for an experience that is more encompassing than in conventional buildings. What being part of CIRS means to the individual inhabitants likely varies, as reflected in some of the comments, it could relate to being part of a vision, a community, a system. This is mirrored in some of the comments regarding what inhabitants anticipated; the theme of ‘being part of this experience’, of ‘something innovative’, being surrounded by people with shared values, being connected to co-inhabitants, being part of a community and a sense of inspiration, being part of a community and a building that aspires to enhance the larger systems it is embedded in.       88  Figure 13: Feelings of Excitement to Be Part of CIRS  05101520253035400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percentage (%) Excitement to be part of CIRS (N=45)    Not  excited at all Very  Excited Excitement  Variance=1.9                              Mean=8.8    89 5. Key Findings & Discussion  Returning to the research questions, this section ties together key findings of this PREOE. Firstly, this research set out to explore inhabitant experiences in their previous places and how they created indoor conditions within those experiences. This is important, as it relates to inhabitants meeting their needs and co-creating supportive environments.  5.1 Pre-CIRS Returning to the research questions: 1) What were inhabitant experiences in the Pre-CIRS Context?  2) How did they report to interact with building control systems before the move?  Inhabitant experiences within the Pre-CIRS places consisted of various elements, as demonstrated above. For some of these, inhabitants were directly asked through the questions, while others emerged from comments. Again, it is important to note that due to the small number of respondents of the PREOE, that while the findings do reveal some interesting patterns, no large claims can be made.    5.1.1 Environmental Indoor Conditions & Control Interactions  Pre-CIRS experiences reflected that inhabitants had very different individual experiences of place; however, there appear to be some themes emerging that might reveal some interesting implications for CIRS. Overall, indoor conditions were rated as only mildly to satisfying. Acoustics, winter temperatures, and air quality and movement received the lowest scores.   Alongside these findings, respondents were overall mildly dissatisfied with their access to control over indoor environmental conditions. The data revealed that the most frequently used control system was lighting and that window access was very important for many. Simultaneously, responses reflected that inhabitants did not use many indoor control systems, had low perceived personal    90 responsibility, and displayed a sense of passiveness in shaping conditions. The scores for air quality and movement and summer temperatures could spring from approximately half of the respondents, who had no access to controlling conditions through windows. This is important to mention because while they will have access to windows at CIRS, they will also carry personal responsibility to co-create desirable conditions through direct interaction with the building systems. Subsequently, it is essential that they will have to know that they are responsible, learn how to use the systems they have access to, and interact with control systems in ways that support the emergence of desired conditions.   Acoustics were another interesting and frequently mentioned problem in Pre-CIRS buildings (especially in open spaces that are often found in green buildings). Other research confirms that building inhabitants who move from enclosed office spaces into more open concept ones often perceive their environment more negatively, and experience acoustic discomfort and privacy challenges (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002). Considering that at CIRS there are many open concept offices, this is of importance and requires attention. Acoustics can be mitigated through the shape of the physical space; beyond that, it is a matter of communication, collaboration, and respect between inhabitants. This forges new territory and introduces the importance of human relationships in co-creating supportive indoor environments.    5.1.2 Pre-CIRS Well-Being Experience & Interactions In terms of well-being, inhabitants were generally moderately satisfied with life despite the discontentment with many elements of their experiences in their workplaces; most of them indicated a somewhat stressful life. A question to explore would be whether respondents actually perceived their workplace experiences as being connected to their life satisfaction or whether their ‘life’ is outside of the workplace. Places appear to affect some respondents’ health physiologically or psychologically as reflected in sick building syndrome responses. In addition, it is also interesting to see that a large fraction of    91 respondents perceived places as either not affecting or interfering with their productivity. An investigation into what affected their productivity would be fruitful; based on other results, it could likely be due to noise, privacy, discontentment with thermal or air quality conditions, or possibly expectations on how much they need to achieve.   Emerging from some inhabitants’ past experiences is the theme of connectedness to co-inhabitants and to nature. Although they were not a central theme in the questionnaire, they were reflected in the comments. Both of these can influence the inhabitant experience by either enhancing or adversely affecting it. Noise and privacy concerns can cause negative affect, whereas social connectedness during breaks or collaboration could elicit positive affect. Overall, future CIRS inhabitants were mildly dissatisfied with their access to social spaces in their workplaces. It is impossible to make a blanket statement about social space satisfaction, as respondents were located in many different buildings; yet, social spaces were not rated very highly which suggests that there is room for improvement. Possibly, the creation of (quality) social spaces has not been a priority in workplaces thus far, as the social dimension may have not been part of the intended function. Some inhabitants voiced a desire for more connectedness to co-inhabitants and were excited about the social dimension of the CIRS experience.   5.2 CIRS: Future Experience  The following section will share what inhabitants associated with their future experience at CIRS.    5.2.1 CIRS Knowledge Interestingly, what inhabitants mostly associated with CIRS based on what they have heard, were the environmental sustainability goals and features of the physical building. Some inhabitants referred to specific elements (i.e. windows, control systems) of the physical building. This focus on environmental    92 sustainability is fascinating because the responses reflect what they associated more readily with sustainable and green buildings.. Possibly, these associations could also reflect the meanings that inhabitants attribute to CIRS as a building, or what the marketing focus has resided on. Thus, past experiences in conventional and green buildings could have played into shaping inhabitant knowledge. The few respondents that referred to the social aspirations of place can be said to mirror this as well; not many people associated social sustainability aspirations with CIRS.    5.2.2 Expectations & Feelings: CIRS Respondents’ expectations for the physical place were mixed; many knew about certain elements of the building structure that caused them concerns on some level. Expectations for ambient conditions were higher than levels of satisfaction within the previous experience; this could indicate that they expect their experiences at CIRS to be better than in the previous workplace. In particular, the category for air quality and movement was one of the largest sources of discontentment in Pre-CIRS places, receiving higher scores. Possibly, this can be attributed to inhabitants knowing about access to windows at CIRS. Acoustic expectations still received the lowest score, which could be linked to open offices at CIRS and a perceived lack of control over noise, which was reflected in the Pre-CIRS experience as well. Inhabitant expectations around access to control over environmental conditions at CIRS show that although they expect to have more control over systems, many still do not expect to have a high level of control. Considering how important control was to inhabitants in the Pre-CIRS context, it is important to inform inhabitants of ways to effect change. This includes mitigating the acoustic environment and co-creating acceptable levels of privacy.   There was an interesting mix of feelings about experiences at CIRS. A sense of excitement pervaded many answers while a fear of novelty and uncertainty also emerged. Some respondents were concerned that the building, its environmental    93 conditions, and other elements would not be supportive of their basic needs to work effectively. Some worries were related to the safety of environmental sustainability building features on human health.   At the same time, many respondents were excited. Reflected in the overall enthusiasm to be ‘part’ of CIRS, they were excited about the physical building, the novelty of experience and aspirations, and feeling connected to co-inhabitants and nature. It seems that human relatedness is a desire that several inhabitants wish for within their experience of CIRS. The idea of collaboration and being surrounded by like-minded people inspired some future inhabitants. This is aligned with aspirations of place, which seek to create community, a sense of connectedness to co-inhabitants, and collaboration. Interestingly, although social sustainability was hardly mentioned in their mental associations with CIRS, when it came to their feelings, and what felt meaningful to them, was for many respondents the social aspirations (e.g. community, collaboration). While the building can have positive effects on well-being, the findings from this research point to the importance of human relationships, which is supported by the well-being literature (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2001). To feel more connected to inhabitants, might mean for some inhabitants who desire to do so, to go beyond workplace relationships that solely support the work function, and to connect at a more personal level.   One way in which inhabitants can connect at CIRS is through the co-creation of desired conditions within place. For instance, shared responsibility of building control systems appears to provide opportunities for human connection, if needs can be communicated with care and respect. Alternately, it could become a source of discomfort that could cause tension if not handled mindfully. A recommendation emerging from these findings is the importance of respectful communication and compromise in the active co-creation of satisfactory environments. These recommendations go beyond the typical responsibilities of    94 building managers and designers and point to new opportunities and tasks that require attention.  In terms of human well-being, productivity, and health, inhabitants overall are expecting experiences in the building to have a moderately high effect on them. While the building might positively influence the inhabitants, other factors, such as noise or privacy concerns, might counteract the positive effects of the building.    5.2.3 Past Experience, Knowledge & Expectations Although this research set out to explore whether inhabitants’ past experiences and knowledge were reflected in their expectations, the research design was not supportive enough to gain conclusive insights that can answer this question. It can be speculated that past experiences and what people have heard about CIRS does influence their expectations and feelings. This is reflected in the responses associating mostly environmental sustainability aspirations with CIRS and in some of the comments respondents left in regards to what they were looking forward to (e.g. windows) and what they were concerned about. However, since individual respondents’ comments do not provide any conclusive evidence, this research question cannot be answered and more research into this topic is needed.     95 6. Future Possibilities for Place  In this section, based on the findings, recommendations are made as to what action steps can be taken to enhance inhabitant experiences at CIRS and future feedback processes.   6.1 Feeding Findings Forward Creating supportive physical places is important for inhabitants to experience comfortable conditions. The physical building and indoor conditions are important basic needs that have to be met; however, an abundance of literature has addressed these elements of inhabitant experiences.    6.1.1 Acoustics & Privacy As this research has shown, many inhabitants were dissatisfied with the acoustical experiences in the Pre-CIRS workplace buildings and concerned about the acoustical and privacy experiences at CIRS. It is important to follow up on inhabitant satisfaction with these elements of their experiences as they can, as demonstrated in the aforementioned literature, influence the quality of inhabitant experiences and affect well-being, productivity and health.     6.1.2 Social Experience of Place Some inhabitants, for instance, voiced the need, or the desire, to feel more connected to co-inhabitants; whilst these inhabitants only represent a portion of the inhabitant body, this topic has thus far received less attention in the building literature. The well-being literature has demonstrated the positive effects of human relatedness and quality relationships on well-being:   • Social Trust/Trusted Community members (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Keyes, 2002; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) • Relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012) • Positive Relations (Ryff & Keyes, 1995)    96 • Psychological Support Network (Boyden & Millar, 1978) • Interpersonal Flourishing (Ryff & Singer, 2000)  Considering that most of the respondents’ associations with CIRS were related to environmental sustainability aspirations, it could be a good idea to promote the social aspirations of place and to explore with inhabitants what they desire as part of their experience at CIRS. It appears that more research is required into how we can build community and co-create connectedness amongst inhabitants who desire to do so at CIRS.    6.1.3 Control Experience of Place  Control is essential in order to improve conditions and move beyond the basic operation of a system and for the inhabitants to feel connected to and empowered to improve their experiences. Giving inhabitants access to control over indoor conditions and workplace decision-making has been found to empower them (Vischer, 2008). Hence, it is important to give inhabitants control over their experiences. Control can take different shapes; it can go from access to building control systems, but can also entail involving inhabitants in a dialogue about what they desire for other elements of their experience of workplace at CIRS (e.g. social elements). Control is also likely a key ingredient in giving the inhabitants the opportunity to transform themselves from occupants to inhabitants of place.   6.1.4 Nature Experience of Place Nature connectedness can be enhanced in CIRS by non-automated indoor environments in which inhabitants feel natural fluctuations as well as natural features (i.e. indoor plants, natural sounds). Being in an environment in which they are exposed to fluctuations in temperatures or lighting can create a connection between the inhabitants and the outdoor natural conditions, which has also found to benefit well-being (Heerwagen, 1998).     97  6.1.5 Occupant to Inhabitant  Inhabitants need to know that they are responsible for shaping their experiences at CIRS. Although basic needs are provided to them, many aspects of their experience require them to take action towards their desires. For instance, acoustical and privacy demand that inhabitants put in effort to co-create conditions that are supportive of their work. Similarly, creating deep and meaningful relationships that were desired by many require conscious action. While inhabitants are supported, and their experiences are co-creations, it is up to them to do the work. Thus, they need to know which opportunities exist, and how they can effect change.   6.2 Process Considerations To begin with, what worked well in regards to this research is discussed before proposing action steps to enhance future ones.    6.2.1 Successes The questionnaire covered many elements that contributed to the inhabitant experience of place that are typically not included, and that may have stimulated new meanings for inhabitants. The comment boxes and resulting qualitative data provided a valuable addition to the more frequently used quantitative instruments. It allowed the emergence of individual inhabitant feelings and desires to shine through while giving a picture of the collective patterns. In addition, they allowed themes to emerge that were of importance that are not normally included in feedback instruments. In this case, the importance of the social dimension and human connectedness would have not been revealed through a conventional instrument. The comment boxes also contribute to the growth of instruments in themselves, as this feedback can be incorporated into future research. The PREOE marked a first step in direct inhabitant engagement, empowerment (occupant to inhabitant), and of CIRS and its inhabitants becoming Living Laboratories for Sustainability.    98  6.2.2 Opportunities for Improvement Various elements of this research are now discussed and how they could be altered in a future PREOE of generally in a feedback process.   6.2.2.1 Process Organization  A major challenge in this research was identifying the inhabitants that would be moving into CIRS. Because of the many organizations, and the newness of the building, many of the organizations were not clear about who would move into the new space. Due to ethical considerations, I was not allowed to have access to individual employees’ contact information and had to access research participants through a contact person within each organization. This slowed down the research process and a lack of transparency in regards to communication between the organizations and the research participants stifled the direct flow of information. It was unclear whether all possible research participants were included and whether communications were distributed effectively. Reflecting on the research process, the framing of the instrument, as well as the informational material distributed to inhabitants, the lens still mirrored patterns of perceiving the building as a product that was providing a service and that their experience will be created for them. For future processes, it can be beneficial to find novel ways of connecting with the future inhabitants of place and possibly offer opportunities for inhabitants that are identified at later points, such as new employees joining after the building has been occupied.  6.2.2.2 Time and Length Creating a research instrument that captures all elements of an experience of place and intends to cater to more than one function was challenging; time for research participants is limited as they have to complete this during work hours. The questionnaire took around 30 minutes out of the respondents’ workdays; with already busy schedules and stress being a part of the work-life, this was a succinct and effective instrument.     99 6.2.2.3 Content My understanding of the purpose and function of places was reflected in the content of the questionnaire. Typically, POE processes do not include questions about the social dimension of inhabitant experiences of workplaces. Instruments reflect the areas we are focusing our attention on and what we prioritize. To align the instrument more with aspirations of CIRS, I included questions on well-being and interactions with co-workers. However, one finding of this research was the importance of the social dimension to several building inhabitants. It seems that while a supportive physical place is important, the social sustainability elements, human relationships, etc. appear to be important to many inhabitants. Connectedness seems to be a need amongst several building inhabitants that has not received much attention and could be paid more attention to in future research instruments.  6.2.2.4 Evaluating Individual Buildings Because they were located in so many different buildings at the time of the research, one of the challenges of this research was interpreting inhabitant experiences at the collective level using aggregated data. For future research with a larger population (N), it would be recommended to explore contentment at the individual workplace level for the respective indicators to learn more about how specific elements can affect inhabitant experiences of place. For this research, because the population was so small per building, this path was not pursued. It would be helpful, however, to explore reported satisfaction respective to each building and for the researcher to visit each building to characterize it better. Doing this could give more specific insights into how contentment is tied to certain elements of the physical place, which could aid building designers and management teams in their learning how to enhance inhabitant experiences.        100 7. Conclusion  This research revealed individual and collective inhabitant patterns of meanings, feelings and interactions in regards with their previous workplaces and associations and feelings in relation to CIRS that provided useful baseline data and insights for future steps to navigate towards aspirations of regenerative places.   Due to the small sample size, and the many buildings inhabitants were located in at the time of research, it is difficult to draw conclusive findings out of this research; however, some interesting pattern worth mentioning that require more attention did emerge. These need to be explored in more depth as they can aid in co-creating conditions at CIRS that are supportive of inhabitant well-being, health, and productivity.   Generally speaking, inhabitants were not very satisfied with indoor conditions in their previous workplaces possibly due to a lack of control to mitigate unsupportive conditions. Acoustical and privacy dissatisfaction in previous places as well as concerns about CIRS were mentioned and need to be addressed to create supportive conditions. The existence of windows seems to be very important for building inhabitants’ satisfaction with place. Not having access to windows was a large source of satisfaction for several respondents important for their experience at CIRS. Similarly, while access to controls was important to them, respondents did not use many control systems in many cases due to a reported lack of access and can be said to be somewhat passive in their creation of supportive conditions. This was also reflected in a low personal responsibility in their Pre-CIRS experiences. A large number of respondents associated environmental sustainability aspirations with CIRS; at the same time, comments of several reflected excitement about the social dimension (e.g. collaboration, community). There was a general sense of excitement about ‘being part of CIRS’ and what it embodies to respondents.      101 Although the physical building can support inhabitant well-being, health and productivity, supportive processes (i.e. office culture), individual and collective responsibility and action to work towards co-creating desired conditions is necessary. CIRS has aspirations that go beyond previous workplaces and to realize these, it is likely that new processes are required to support their emergence. Thus, it appears that regenerative workplaces, such as CIRS, could benefit from a person, or even better a team, that is familiar with (embodies) aspirations of place, to oversee, coordinate and facilitate the alignment of the human dimension with regenerative aspirations so that they can be consciously realized.   Likely, the more effectively the physical place, processes and inhabitants within it operate on all levels, the more novelty can be created, rippling into the living systems places are embedded in. An interesting journey lies ahead for CIRS and its inhabitants in finding meaning within, learning about, and realizing the aspirations of place within the building as well as their lives. This thesis is a place and a process. It is a living document that attempts to bring forth novelty and stimulate dialogue around how we wish to co-create our experiences at CIRS and beyond. It invites you to be open to the possibilities that lie within you.       102 Bibliography  Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., & Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. In Proceedings of the Healthy Buildings 2006 Conference (pp. 365–370). Lisbon, Portugal. ASHRAE. (2004). ASHRAE Standard 55-2004: Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. Atlanta. Baird, G., & Lechat, S. (2009). Users’ Perceptions of Personal Control of Environmental Conditions in Sustainable Buildings. Architectural Science Review, 52(2), 108–116. doi:10.3763/asre.2009.0013 Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–12. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x Birt, B., & Newsham, G. R. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation of energy and indoor environment quality in green buildings: a review (pp. 1–7). Bordass, W., & Leaman, A. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 3: Case studies of the use of techniques in the feedback portfolio. Building Research & Information, 33(4), 361–375. doi:10.1080/09613210500162032 Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioural Intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–27. Boyden, S., & Millar, S. (1978). Human Ecology and the Quality of Life. Urban Ecology, 3, 263–287. Brager, G., & Baker, L. (2009). Occupant satisfaction in mixed-mode buildings. Building Research & Information, 37(4), 369–380. doi:10.1080/09613210902899785 Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal study. 34(3), 279-299. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279–299.    103 Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., Creswell, J. D., & Niemiec, C. P. (2008). Beyond Me: Mindful Responses to Social Threat. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 75–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brown, Z. B. (2009). Occupant comfort and engagement in green buildings: Examining the effects of knowledge , feedback and workplace culture. University of British Columbia. Brown, Z., & Cole, R. (2008). Engaging occupants in green building performance: addressing the knowledge gap. In Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings,. Asilomar, CA, US. Brown, Z., & Cole, R. (2009). Influence of occupants’ knowledge on comfort expectations and behaviour. Building Research & Information, 37(3), 227–245. doi:10.1080/09613210902794135 Brown, Z., Dowlatabadi, H., & Cole, R. J. J. (2009). Feedback and adaptive behaviour in green buildings. Intelligent Buildings International, 1(4), 296–315. doi:10.3763/inbi.2009.0034 Cadotte, E. ., Woodruff, R. ., & Jenkins, R. . (1987). Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 305–314. Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J. L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraula, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Self-organization in biological systems (p. 560pp.). Princeton: Princeton Univercity Press. Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Carmen, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33–55. Chappells, H. (2010). Comfort, well-being and the socio-technical dynamics of everyday life. Intelligent Buildings International, 2(4), 286–298. doi:10.3763/inbi.2010.0003 Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2004). Comfort: A review of philosophies and paradigms. Report prepared for the project “Future Comforts: re-conditioning urban environments.” Retrieved December 22, 2014, from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/futcom/.    104 Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Building Research & Information, 33(1), 32–40. doi:10.1080/0961321042000322762 Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the Mundane: Relationships Between Daily Events and Self-Reported Mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 296–308. Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, W., & Leaman, A. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 1 : the Probe process. Building Research & Information, 29(2). doi:10.1080/09613210010008018 Cole, R. J., Brown, Z., & McKay, S. (2010). Building human agency: a timely manifesto. Building Research & Information, 38(3), 339–350. doi:10.1080/09613211003747071 Cole, R. J., Busby, P., Guenther, R., Briney, L., Blaviesciunaite, A., & Alencar, T. (2012). A regenerative design framework: setting new aspirations and initiating new discussions. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 95–111. Cole, R. J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z., & O’Shea, M. (2008). Re-contextualizing the notion of comfort. Building Research & Information, 36(4), 323–336. doi:10.1080/09613210802076328 Cope, M. (2005). Coding Qualitative Data. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (2nd ed., pp. 223–233). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and Well-Being in the Workplace: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384. doi:10.1177/014920639902500305 De Quincey, C. (2005). Radical Knowing: Understanding Consciousness through Relationships. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press. Deuble, M. P., & de Dear, R. J. (2012). Green occupants for green buildings: The missing link? Building and Environment, 56, 21–27. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.029 Du Plessis, C., & Cole, R. J. (2011). Motivating change: shifting the paradigm. Building Research & Information, 39(5), 436–449.  Dubos, R. (1965). Man Adapting. New Haven: Yale University Press.    105 Evans, G. W., & Mitchell McCoy, J. (1998). When Buildings don’t work: the role of Architecture in Human Health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 85–94. Evans, G. W., & Stecker, R. (2004). Motivational Consequences of Environmental Stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 143–65. Fanger, O. (1970). Thermal Comfort, Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering. New York: McGraw Hill. Fountain, M., Brager, G., & DeDear, R. (1996). Expectations of indoor climate control. Energy and Buildings, 24, 179–182. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271 –299. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678 Haggard, B., Reed, B., & Mang, P. (2006). Regenerative Development. Revitalization, (March/April), 24–26. Harris, P. B., McBride, G., Ross, C., & Curtis, L. (2002). A place to heal: environmental sources of satisfaction among hospital patients. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 1276–1299. Healy, S. (2008). Air-conditioning and the “homogenization” of people and built environments. Building Research & Information, 36(4), 312–322. doi:10.1080/09613210802076351 Heerwagen, J. (2000). Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity. Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), 353–367. doi:10.1080/096132100418500 Heerwagen, J. H. (1998). Design, productivity and well being: What are the links? In The American Institute of Architects: Conference on Highly Effective Facilities (pp. 1–23). Cincinnatti, Ohio. Heerwagen, J. H. (2009). Biophilia, Health, and Well-being. Restorative Commons, 37–57. Heerwagen, J., & Hase, B. (2001). Building Biophilia: Connecting People to Nature in Building Design. Environmental Design and Construction, 30–36.    106 Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–46. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1522 Higgs, B. (2005). Measuring expectations: forecast vs. ideal expectations. Does it really matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(1), 49–64. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2004.02.002 Hjorth, P., & Bagheri, A. (2006). Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 38(1), 74–92. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.005 Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 166–171. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037 Howell, A. J., & Passmore, H.-A. (2013). The Nature of Happiness: Nature Affiliation and Mental Well-Being. In C. L. M. Keyes (Ed.), International Contributions to the Study of Positive Mental Health: Mental Well-Being (pp. 231–257). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5195-8 Hoxie, C., Berkebile, R., & Todd, J. A. (2012). Stimulating regenerative development through community dialogue. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 65–80. Huizenga, C., Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., & Arens, E. (2006). Air quality and thermal comfort in office buildings: results of a large indoor environmental quality survey vol. III. In Healthy Buildings (pp. pp. 393–397.). Lisbon, Portugal. Hyslop, K. (2011, March 28). How to Design a Building that Restores the Earth. The Tyee Solutions Society. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved December 22, 2014, from http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/03/28/EarthBuilding/ Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 295–323. Jauzens, D., Cohen, R., Watson, M., & Picton, E. (2002). Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Simple Method for the Early Stages of Occupancy. London. Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 193–201. Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(1995), 169–182.    107 Kellert, S. A. (2005). Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kellert, S. A. (2008). Dimensions, Elements, and Attributes of Biophilic Design. In S. . Kellert, J. H. Heerwagen, & M. L. Mador (Eds.), Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life (pp. 3–19). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Hopkings University Press. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–22.  Kibert, C. J. (2008). Sustainable Contruction: Green Building Design and Delievery (Second Edi., p. 411). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. King, P. M. (1995). The psychosocial work environment: implications for workplace safety and health. Professional Safety, 40, 36–39. Klitzman, S., & Stellman, J. M. (1989). The Impact of the Physical Environment on Well-being of Office Workers. Social Science and Medicine, 29(6), 733–742. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The Psychology of Worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3–58. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3 Laszlo, K. C. (2012). From systems thinking to systems being: the embodiment of evolutionary leadership. Journal of Organizational Transformation & Social Change, 9(2), 95–108. doi:10.1386/jots.9.2.95 Leaman, A., & Bordass, W. (1999). The Probe Occupant Surveys and their Implications. In CISBE National Conference. Leaman, A., & Bordass, W. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 4: The Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 129–143. doi:10.1080/09613210010008045 Leaman, A., Thomas, L., & Vandenberg, M. (2007). “Green” Buildings : What Australian Building users are saying. EcoLibrium, (November), 22–31. Levin, H. (2003). Designing for people: What do building occupants really want? In Healthy Buildings (pp. 1–18)..  Loftness, V., Lam, K. P., & Hartkopf, V. (2005). Education and environmental performance-based design: a Carnegie Mellon perspective. Building Research & Information, 33(2), 196–203. doi:10.1080/0961321042000325336    108 Lowe, G. S., Schellenberg, G., & Shannon, H. S. (2003). Correlates of Employees’ Perceptions of a Healthy Work Environment. American Journal of Health Promotion, 17(6), 390–400. Mahdavi, A., Mohammadi, A., Kabir, E., & Lambeva, L. (2008). Occupants’ operation of lighting and shading systems in office buildings. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 1(1), 57–65. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St. Leger, L. (2005). Healthy nature, healthy people: “Contact with nature” as an upstream promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 45–54. Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012). Designing from place: a regenerative framework and methodology. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 23–38. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper& Row. Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. (D. Wright, Ed.) (p. pp. 218). White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Meir, I. a., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable Step Toward Sustainability. Advances in Building Energy Research, 3(1), 189–219. doi:10.3763/aber.2009.0307 Mlecnik, E., Schuetze, T., Jansen, S. J. T., de Vries, G., Visscher, H. J., & van Haal, A. (2012). End-user experiences in nearly zero energy houses. Energy and Buildings, in press. Moezzi, M. (2009). Are comfort expectations of building occupants too high? Building Research & Information, 37(1), 79–83. doi:10.1080/09613210802611009 Monfared, I. G., & Sharples, S. (2011). Occupants’ perceptions and expectations of a green office building: a longitudinal case study. Architectural Science Review, 54(4), 37–41. Newsham, G., Brand, J., Donnelly, C., Veitch, J., Aries, M., & Charles, K. (2009). Linking indoor environment conditions to job satisfaction: a field study. Building Research & Information, 37(2), 129–147. doi:10.1080/09613210802710298 Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S., & Birt, B. J. (2009). Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but…. Energy and Buildings, 41(8), 897–905. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.03.014    109 Nicol, J. F., & Humphreys, M. (2001). Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. In Proceedings of Conference on Moving Thermal Comfort Standards into the 21st Century. Windsor, UK. Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2008). The Role of Awareness and Autonomy in Quieting the Ego: Theory Perspective. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 107–115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ojasalo, J. (2001). Managing customer expectations in professional services. Managing Service Quality, 11(3), 200–212. doi:10.1108/09604520110391379 Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. Ouellette, J., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.124.1.54 Plaut, J. M., Dunbar, B., Wackerman, A., & Hodgin, S. (2012). Regenerative design: the LENSES Framework for buildings and communities. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 112–122. Preiser, W. F. E., & Vischer, J. (2005). The evolution of building performance evaluation: an introduction. In W. F. E. Preiser & J. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing Building Performance (pp. 3–14). Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Reckermann, J. (2014). Towards a Regenerative Framework: Defining End Goals and Metrics (p. 59). Vancouver, BC. Reckermann, J. E. (2014). The human dimension: CIRS Pre-Occupancy Evaluation and Regenerative Possibilities. In Presentation at the IRES Student Symposium. Vancouver, BC. Reed, B. (2006). Shifting our Mental Model – “ Sustainability ” to Regeneration. In Rethinking Sustainable Construction 2006: Next Generation Green Buildings (pp. 1–18). Reed, B. (2007). Shifting from “sustainability” to regeneration. Building Research & Information, 35(6), 674–680. doi:10.1080/09613210701475753    110 Riley, M., Kokkarinen, N., & Pitt, M. (2010). Assessing post occupancy evaluation in higher education facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 8(3), 202–213. doi:10.1108/14725961011058839 Robinson, J., Cole, R. J., & Kingstone, A. (2014). The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability, UBC: Creating Net Positive Benefits at Multiple Scales. In CaGBC National Conference and Expo: Stream 5- Pushing the Boundaries: Net Positive Buildings (pp. 1–11). Vancouver, BC. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.  Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Reviews Psychology, 52, 141–166. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–65.  Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069 Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–27.  Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal Flourishing: A Positive Health Agenda for the New Millenium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(30), 30–44. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401 Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Dienberg Love, G. (2004). Positive health: connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1383–94. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1521 Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: their structure and relationship to well-being in German and U.S. college students. Social Indicators Research, 50, 225–241. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5    111 Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–97.  Sherwood, L. (2010). From Cells to Systems. In Human Physiology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Svec, P., Berkebile, R., & Todd, J. A. (2012). REGEN : toward a tool for regenerative thinking. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 81–94. Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011). Relationship between Positive Psychological Capital and Creative Performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 4–13. Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to Nature: Effects on Attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77–85. Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis (pp. 1–11). Auckland, New Zealand. Treberspurg, M., Smutny, R., Ertl-Balga, U., Grünner, R., Neureurer, C., & Keul, A. (2009). Nachhaltighkeits-monitoring Ausgewählter Passivhaus-Wohnanlagen in Wien. Vienna, Austria. Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2).  Turpin-Brooks, S., & Viccars, G. (2006). The development of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation. Facilities, 24(5/6), 177–196. doi:10.1108/02632770610665775 Veitch, J. (2011). Workplace Design Contributions to Mental Health and Well-Being. Healthcare Papers, 11, 38–46. doi:10.12927/hcpap.2011.22409 Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People are Affected by Environments for Work. Architectural Science Review, 51(2), 97–108. doi:10.3763/asre.2008.5114 Walter, E. V. (1988). Placeways: A Theory of the Human Environment. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Weiss-Lambrou, R. (2002). Satisfaction and Comfort. In M. J. Scherer (Ed.), Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (pp. 77–94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.    112 Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective Forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345–410. World Health Organization. (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization. In International Health Conference. New York, USA: World Health Organization. Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C., Arens, E., & Lehrer, D. (2004). Listening to the occupants: a Web-based indoor environmental quality survey. Indoor Air, 14(Suppl 8), 65–74. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00301.x Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/0092070393211001 Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2012). Happiness and Feeling Connected: The Distinct Role of Nature Relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 1–21. doi:10.1177/0013916512451901 Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 168–174. doi:10.1080/09613210010016857     113 Appendices  Appendix A A.1 Researcher’s Reflections  This section is based on my personal reflections during and after the research. It offers my interpretation of what regeneration can mean and is solely placed in this thesis to share these ideas.   A.2 Researcher’s Lens Because my lens as a researcher shifted significantly during the course of this thesis research and write up, it is important to mention my transformation as it has shaped the structure of this document. Although my survey was created and conducted in 2011, I analyzed my date and wrote my thesis more recently. My personal understanding of the aspirations of CIRS, as well as of regeneration, shifted significantly during this time. My reflections on the research instrument, the process, data, and an enquiry into what regeneration could mean at the individual and collective human scale, cultivated change within myself. In my exploration, I transformed my meanings, feelings, and behaviours in regards to my research content, process, and life. Based on my journey and shift in perception, I included the following section that goes beyond the findings of this research to share reflections and my subjective understanding of regeneration and possibilities that exist for regenerative places.   This following section is not tied to the specific research findings and can be seen as more subjective reflections on the research, my personal transformation, and the question of where we could go from here. At the time I created the research instrument, I was still located in my previous workplace. Although I was aware what the aspirations of CIRS were, I had no personal relationship to them. They did not mean anything to me. After I conducted the research and moved into CIRS, I set the intention to explore what the aspirations of place meant to me. I reflected on the research instrument, the results, and process, and began to wonder what regeneration actually meant to me, how it applied to my life, and    114 how I could realize ‘net-positive’ well-being, health, and productivity. As well, I reflected on what it could mean for me to shift from being an occupant to becoming an inhabitant and turned myself into a Living Laboratory of Sustainability. What unfolded for me was a regenerative journey that led me to become conscious of, and face my internal patterns of thinking and feeling that stem from past experiences. These patterns contributed to how I was acting in the world; the more my internal place shifted, my external world did accordingly. With my deeper understanding of the aspirations of CIRS, I now realize that feedback and other processes can be very powerful in actually facilitating transformation within inhabitants on all levels of work when they are shaped in alignment with the aspirations of place.   A.3 Human Places  When I was exploring my data, I realized that a building as a place consists of a physical structure, but what really give shape to place are the people within them, and they can also be seen as places. Just like a building or any geographical location can be referred to as a place, so can an inhabitant, according to Walter’s definition. A large part of what shapes a place like CIRS are its inhabitants and their shapes, meanings, feelings and powers. Walter (1988) defines place as  “A location of experience”;   and “[…] the container of shapes, powers, feelings, and meanings” (Walter, 1988, p. 215).   As will be proposed later, these elements of place are highly intertwined and relevant to the emergence of novelty and for a place to function regeneratively. Table 16 captures how Walter’s definition can apply to humans as locations of experience.      115 Table 16: Elements of Place Elements of Place Building Place  Human Place Shapes • Physical building design (i.e. physical structure, interior design, etc.) • Furnishings (quality & aesthetics) • Building Systems • Amenities (i.e. technologies) • Control systems available for inhabitants • Location is tied to geography  • Physical body  • Physical systems (i.e. circulatory, respiratory) • Physical features • Self-regulation of bodily functions (i.e. breathing takes place automatically, but controlled breathing can alter states of experience) • Location is not tied to geography  Our physical form, or ‘shape’, according to the definition, is manifested in this world as our physical body. Constituting our bodies are substances and materials; formed into cells and organs, which are interconnected as living systems that influence our bodily functioning and aesthetic appearance.   Powers • Movement: Processes and practices (i.e. feedback) • Support  • Conscious and unconsciously engaged in behaviours (In all stages of place)  Powers can relate to our ability, agency, and competence to create our individual and collective experiences of outer and inner places by becoming active creators. Feelings • Ambience/Energies of place (how does a place make us feel?)  • Feelings in relationship to experience of outer place (i.e. affective & emotional) • Sensual experience of outer place   Feelings, like our affective states, can be said to reveal    116 Elements of Place Building Place  Human Place how we feel about our experiences, its elements, and ourselves within them. In a sense, feelings can be seen as feedback about our experiences. Feelings are one channel through which we can navigate our experiences. We feel them in our body and our pursuit of enhanced states of well-being is connected to our feelings.   Meanings • Typical roles and functions associated with certain building types  • Mental relationship to experience of outer place (i.e. perceptions, associations, and judgments) • Beliefs about and expectations from outer places (based on past experiences and knowledge) Our thoughts about our experience of place are based on individual and collective past experiences and desires for the future. These can influence our feeling states and our actions.    A.4 Levels of Work in Living Places To better understand what regeneration could mean, I found a framework that enhanced my personal understanding and could inspire others. Krone, to whom Mang & Reed (2012) refer to in their paper, provides a framework that characterizes the functions within living systems, or places, based on levels at which systems can be said to work. If we see a place as a living system, these levels of work can be helpful in understanding what contributes to shaping the inhabitant experience of place. Although this framework has been used in a    117 different context thus far, this research explores how it can be applied to regenerative places at the building and individual level to get a better idea of what it could mean for inhabitants to work at different levels. This aids this research because it can frame the findings and develop action steps that can navigate places towards their aspirations.   Living systems are proposed to work on four levels; each of these levels of work carries out essential actions and functions within a living system. The ‘operate’ and ‘maintain’ levels of work support the existence and basic needs of a system over time.  These two levels can create an essential foundation for the ‘improve’ and ‘regenerate’ levels. Thus far, conventional and green buildings have been proposed to generally work at the operate level and focus mostly on efficiency and the reduction of harm; net zero buildings also function at the maintenance level (Mang & Reed, 2012).   Levels of Work   Figure 14: Levels of Work in a System Source: (Krone, 1992)- Institute for Developmental Processes cited in (Mang & Reed, 2012, p. 27)  In this section, I attempt to draw parallels between what it could mean for a building and a human place to work at different levels.      118 A.4.1 Operate (Existence) This level pertains to the basic existence of a system. If the system’s needs for basic existence are not met, it will not be operational.   Building Level In a building, the ‘operate’ level refers to the existence of a physical space, its operating systems, and the elements that are required for its continuation and enabling of inhabitants to meet their basic needs. Humans’ basic needs, such as air, water, food, shelter, safety, vary depending on context, and have to be met so that a place can fulfill its other functions. These basic needs, supporting the functioning of and comfort within places, are typically addressed through building codes (Vischer, 2008).   This level is essential to consider for a building; if the systems or amenities do not operate properly, or if inhabitants do not know how to use them, the basic operation of the system is likely not secured. An inability to meet basic needs can influence inhabitants, who have to expend their energy into actions that seek to create supportive conditions. If a building is not supportive of inhabitant well-being,    “[…] adverse environmental conditions, especially poor air quality, noise, ergonomic conditions, and lack of privacy, may effect worker satisfaction and mental health” (Klitzman & Stellman, 1989, p. 733)  Inhabitant Physiological Level As demonstrated earlier in the literature on the elements contributing to human experience of place, a place’s operational performance influences physiological functioning and relates to the operation of the humans’ physical bodily systems, such as digestive, circulatory, and respiratory. Their functioning is essential; if these basic systems work well, it can give the broader system the vitality to work at other levels. Subjective vitality (feeling alive and alert) indicates optimal functioning in the eudaimonic well-being tradition (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). If a    119 system does not operate well on this level, it could translate into a continuous struggle for existence and will not have the energy to work at higher levels (Mang & Reed, 2012; Reckermann, 2014).   Inhabitant Psychological Level The ‘operate’ level can relate to bodily systems (i.e. nervous, cognitive) that support basic psychological and physiological functioning.   Productivity/Creative Performance  This could entail actions related to securing the basic operational functions within a place.  A.4.2 Maintain (Existence) Maintenance functions within a system can relate to its existence over time.  Beyond basic operation, this level entails functions that are supportive of a system’s existence and growth; further, the maintenance of a system is enhanced by qualities such as resilience and robustness. These functions allow the system to exist over time, supporting growth, and working towards optimal functioning (Sherwood, 2010).   Building Level Similarly, for a building, this level of work can relate to all activities and functions that support and secure its existence and meeting of inhabitant needs, as well as the functionality of place over time. Feedback, for instance, is essential for its successful operation over time, to become more resilient and robust, as well as supporting a movement towards optimal functioning. Feedback can stabilize or bring growth in response to changing conditions. For instance, a feedback mechanism could be one that responds to changing external weather conditions that allows the inside conditions to return to a balanced state.   One mechanism through which conditions can be balanced is that of control systems, which provide inhabitants access to modifying the indoor conditions to    120 be supportive of their basic operation. This level can also include feedback mechanisms that support the navigation towards the aspirations of place; for instance, if a system falls off track, mechanisms can return it to a more desirable pathway.   Inhabitant Physiological Level For a human body, the ‘maintenance’ level can include functions that regulate bodily temperatures adjusting to shifting conditions, to prevent the body from losing heat, or bouncing back after disease. Or, this could entail conscious actions taken to support the basic operation, like a healthy diet, which strengthens the body to be able to respond better to disturbances and maintenance of fitness.    Inhabitant Psychological Level The ‘maintenance’ level of work can include functions that enable us to return to a peaceful psychological state after disturbance. For example, after having a negative reaction and experiencing negative affective responses, functions can return us to a more neutral or even positive affective state. Responses can include altering an external condition (i.e. noise), or an internal one (i.e. anger towards a situation). Although this can happen naturally, it can also be done intentionally, which is possibly more effective. This level of work plays an important role for the higher levels of work. It is important to realize that novel thinking, feeling, doing and being includes letting go of patterns that no longer are in alignment with our desires and aspirations. When old patterns fall away, temporary imbalance can occur that can feel disorienting and uncomfortable until new patterns are formed.   Productivity/ Creative Performance  This level supports functions that ensure that the system produces what is necessary to secure its basic operations over time and contributes to keeping it    121 in alignment with aspirations. In addition, it also includes functions and capabilities that are concerned with the effectiveness and competence at which a system produces its desired outcomes.  Potentials The two ‘upper’ levels relate to the latent potentials existing in systems that have not been realized yet; these could be related to the aspirations of place(s) and the possibilities that exist in bringing forth novelty based on the capabilities of the system and its elements. Living systems, such as humans, can be said to be in a constant process of ‘becoming’; they can self-organize towards higher levels of order and complexity in interrelationships (Reed, 2006). The process of regeneration in living systems is ongoing and cyclical, yet not continuous; it is the emergence of latent possibilities and a movement from simple structures to more mature and complex ones (Mang & Reed, 2012).  A.4.3 Improve (Potentials) The improve level relates to functions that serve to identify the patterns that are blocking us from navigating towards or manifesting our aspirations. In the building context, this could include expressing and dropping expectations of what an experience in a workplace building should be like. A first step in releasing past experiences and patterns that are not in alignment with our desires, is to become conscious of their existence, and how they are influencing our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.   Building Level Feedback processes, such as the CIRS Pre-Occupancy Evaluation discussed below, can reveal undesired as well as desired patterns wishing to emerge. Building inhabitants could, for instance, be very passive in their previous experience while in the new context it would benefit them to become active shapers of their experiences through control systems.   Inhabitant Physiological Level    122 Improvement at the physiological level can relate to functions that detoxify our physical body of harmful substances, letting go of habits that are not supporting our physical health (i.e. overworking), or physical places that are not supportive of our physiological well-being.    Inhabitant Psychological Level Improving psychological well-being, this level relates to functions that enhance our affective states, supporting more balanced thinking and feeling states. For instance, releasing unhealthy judgments of self and others, enhancing communication skills for better relationships, or increased mindfulness and focus can enhance life experiences and emotional self-regulation.   Productivity/Creative Performance  Relates to functions that enhance individual and collective creations; this could include calling into awareness how our patterns of meaning and feeling associated with work are manifesting in how we practice ‘work’ individually and collectively. Possibly, moving away from a major focus on the quantity of achievement to quality and towards alignment with aspirations might require a revamping of our current understandings, competencies and associations with work and how we interact. If the aspirations of place are to work more collaboratively, many individually performed tasks could become more collaborative projects.   A.4.4 Regenerate (Potentials)  Regeneration is here referred to here as a process of growth, which realizes higher potentials (novelty) into existence within living systems. Novel shapes, meanings, feelings, and powers are created in response to letting go of patterns that are no longer in alignment with our aspirations. As regeneration is a subjective process, and definitions may vary depending on personal meanings, experiences, and individual aspirations, the processes through which it can be facilitated need to be flexible.     123  Building Level At the building level, regeneration could mean creating processes and practices that are novel and that support the continuous emergence of novelty in alignment with and towards embodiment of aspirations of place. Continuous feedback processes can trigger self-renewal, self-organization and balance in living systems and can become a power that facilitates regeneration; they can reveal embodied patterns that are not in alignment with aspirations and that need to be released in order to re-create new patterns. For a system to become alive and regenerative, not only do systems have to work well on all levels, processes and practices need to facilitate the regeneration at the individual and collective levels.   Inhabitant Physiological Level The regenerative level functions bring forth heightened physiological states of well-being that are likely unprecedented. For instance, this could relate to a renewal of cellular structures with enhanced complexity.  Inhabitant Psychological Level This level can relate to functions that call into existence heightened states of consciousness, novel ways of relating to the self, others, and one’s experience. For instance, this could include enhanced inner peace, mindfulness, more positive thoughts and feelings about life and possibilities, and a sense of empowerment over one’s experience. The enhanced affective states can positively influence physiological well-being and creative performance and support the net-positive aspirations of place (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). The process of growth in itself has been shown to support well-being as it can promote the   “[…] feeling that personal talents and potential are being realized over time” (Ryff et al., 2004, p. 1384) (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).     124  Creative Performance At the regenerative level, functions that support the regeneration of the structure of living systems can be referred to as creative performance, combining the notion of creativity while effectively manifesting ideas into their physical form. Creative performance    […] “involves the behaviours through which one’s creative potential is manifest” (Sweetman et al., 2011, p. 5).  Creative performance relates to people’s ability to create desired experiences, both on their own and collectively. To support the function of creative performance at the regenerative levels and manifest novelty into existence, we need to explore under which conditions inhabitants can create new patterns. New ideas can spring forth when the neo-frontal cortex is engaged; it shuts down when one is stressed, or feeling ‘fear’ and ‘disharmony’ (Laszlo, 2012). In a disharmonious state, one can only draw on what is already known and re-create previous patterns of thinking and doing. Thus, creative performance requires inner harmony, alignment with one’s inspiration and passions, and positive affect. Sweetman et al. (2011) explored the influence that positive psychological capital has on creative performance in the work context. Besides one’s personality traits, feelings of resilience, hope, efficacy, creativity, and optimism have been demonstrated to positively influence creative performance at the individual level, boosting organizational performance. Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving abilities (Heerwagen, 1998); similarly, the pursuit of novel ideas springs from joy and interest (Fredrickson, 1998). This means that the activity pursued needs to be one that is perceived as joyful and interesting. Enjoyment at work can be a motivator for enhanced performance; positive affect has also been proposed to enhance intrinsic motivation (Isen & Reeve, 2005).      125 A.5 Supportive People Places  The PREOE points to the possibility that associations, expectations, and feelings in regards to workplaces can be based on past experiences and prevailing norms. These can shape their relationships to their experience, co-inhabitants, our approaches to and quality of creative performance. Inhabitant interactions with building systems, such as passiveness and potential disconnection from place due to a lack of control or perceived responsibility, can best be changed by taking direct action.  Tying it back to Krone’s levels of work and Walter’s definition of place, this section proposes that creating supportive physical places is not enough for    Net-positive inhabitant experiences  Inhabitants to transform themselves from occupants to inhabitants  Them to become living laboratories of sustainability   Novelty (i.e. research) to be created  The acceleration of sustainability  Returning to Krone’s levels of work, supportive places could possibly be seen as providing a solid foundation (operate and maintain level) so that inhabitants can work at the improve and regenerate level. However, the inhabitant as a place has a large responsibility in contributing to their own well-being, health, and productivity; without inhabitants taking this responsibility on, their experience of place can only change minimally.   As mentioned previously, a physical place consists of peoples’ places. A place can only operate on all levels if its elements do; the elements carry the responsibility of becoming active inhabitants of their places, supported by the collective and the place they are embedded in. People are what create novelty in places; if we do not grow ourselves and embody novelty in our thinking, feeling and doing, we cannot bring novelty into our creative performances. Naturally, this    126 is an opportunity that presents itself to inhabitants that desire to embark on this path.  Although growth does happen naturally, intentionally and consciously tackling what is limiting us from stepping into our desired states of thinking, feeling and acting can accelerate the manifestation of creations aligned with our desired futures. What this could mean is that for a system to operate on all levels of work, inhabitants, who have this desire, need to function at all levels as well. Not all inhabitants of place might feel drawn to this experience, but it is important to offer inhabitants that wish to do so the opportunities to work at the improve and regenerate levels of work. The more inhabitants do work at these levels, the better the system will become at realizing its aspirations and contributing to positive change. For inhabitants to enhance how well they function at the Levels of Work and thus contribute to the regeneration of places and living systems, they need to have the competence, the motivation, and the responsibility to take actions towards realizing these aspirations.   Reckermann (2014) discusses in a detailed report for the Sauder School of Business what the aspirations of CIRS could mean for the human dimension and what processes could support the system in operating at the two higher levels of work. Key points of this report are outlined below. A.5.1 Intrinsic Motivation If we see regeneration as a process of bringing forth novelty and including growth at the personal and collective levels, it is important to consider what will release the energy of motivation that will carry us forward through these processes, as well as the direction into which this motivation is channeled. Niemic et al. (2008) propose that humans possess intrinsic motivation, as  “[…] the natural tendency to seek out novel and challenging situations, to expand cognitive and behavioral capacities, and to explore the inner and outer environment […] (108)”.     127 Intrinsic motivation entails the pursuit of an activity for the enjoyment and satisfaction it brings, whereas in extrinsically motivated behaviour,   “[…] the behavior is performed to obtain outcomes that are separable from the activities themselves” (Niemiec, Ryan, & Brown, 2008, p. 108-109).   As shown in Figure 15, extrinsically motivated behaviours can vary in levels along a spectrum of autonomy, from fully externally regulated, which can leave individuals feeling controlled or alienated, to the other end of the spectrum, known as integrated regulation. This type of motivation is entirely aligned with the individual’s needs and values. The assimilation of regulations into the self can lead to greater feelings of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Self-determination theory posits that   “[…] intrinsic motivation [is] more likely to flourish in contexts characterized by a sense of security and relatedness” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 71).    Figure 15: The Self-Determination Continuum     128 Showing Types of Motivation With Their Regulatory Styles, Loci of Causality, and Corresponding Processes (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 72)  When creating regenerative processes and practices, it may be effective to shift towards creating a culture in which building inhabitants can draw on their intrinsic motivation - where activities are pursued more out of interest and enjoyment. This might include shaping processes so that they are more inherently enjoyable, and not solely directed towards an end goal.  A.5.2 Alignment with Aspirations of Place To support the emergence of inhabitants’ intrinsic motivation, it is essential for them to pursue goals that are in concordance with Self. If inhabitants do desire to embark on a regenerative path, they can, if not, they do not need to. What is important though is to make inhabitants aware of the existence of this path and the possibilities that it holds. Collaboratively, in a workshop for instance, inhabitants can find meaning in the aspirations of place and connect them to their own lives, becoming aware of the possibilities that exist. Sheldon and Elliott (1999) propose that goals need to be in self-concordance and alignment with one’s developing interests and core values; this may lead to a more sustained effort in goal pursuit and   “[…] when attained, will afford the experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness that are essential to enhanced well-being” (p.485).  For a regenerative culture, this could mean that inhabitants need to find their own relationship to and meaning within the system and its aspirations; how they can contribute to its thriving while maintaining a   “[…] purpose in life, having goals and objectives that give life meaning and direction” (Ryff et al., 2004, p. 1384).     129 Further, in alignment with CIRS aspirations, inhabitants can set their own intentions and determine optimal challenges to realize these. Finding meaning in the aspirations of place can also contribute to feeling more of a sense of connectedness with them; connectedness was a desire reflected in the research findings.   A.5.3 Human Living Laboratory  Becoming regenerative can mean to not only have a ‘knowing’ of what regeneration and aspirations mean, but to embody the qualities we wish to manifest. This section speaks to the importance of shifting from knowing about something to becoming it; the CIRS aspirations to become a Living Laboratory of Sustainability intend to create inhabitants rather than occupants of place. Becoming a Living Laboratory can allow us to learn how certain patterns of thinking, feeling, and doing influence the levels we work at and how we can work at higher levels to manifest potentials.  CIRS is a place of learning, but also a place of putting ideas, processes and practices into action to learn how we can create structures that bring forth meaningful and continuous co-evolution of systems. There is a difference between knowing, and actually feeling, being, and living something (Laszlo, 2012). Knowledge is an important first step, but transformation needs to go deeper than this. Generally speaking, we draw on our thinking more than our feelings in our processes and practices. We read about something, we compare it to something else, and we make connections. This is important, but knowledge must be connected with feeling for optimal integration. Laszlo understands that  “The expression of systems being and systems living is an integration of our full human capacities, the expression of an evolving humanity. It involves rationality with reverence to the mystery of life, listening beyond words, sensing with our whole being, and expressing our authentic self in every moment of our life. The journey from systems thinking to systems being is a transformative learning process of expansion of consciousness – from awareness to embodiment” (2012, p. 101).    130  To embody means to go beyond thinking; it means to feel and to become a certain quality, to have it become integrated into a system’s structure. When one is, one no longer only claims to be; he or she shifts from thinking about a concept to fully embodying it.  Although our well-being needs and the conditions under which we create our best work are somewhat similar, by testing variables (i.e. diet, forms of exercise, and relationships) through our own experience, they become part of our structure - our path of development (Capra, 1997). For instance, we might know what compassion means, but how does it feel? How we can act compassionately goes beyond ‘knowing’, into understanding and becoming. Experiences can alter our patterning and our structure; as our structure changes, so does our living.  Whilst building systems and other elements of place are treated as test-beds for Sustainability, an opportunity that has remained generally untapped and equally important is that of turning ourselves into Living Laboratories of Sustainability. Our body, for instance, is a great place of wisdom that has been under-utilized; our thoughts, emotions, and physical health (amongst other elements) can be seen as feedback within our human system that can provide insight into how we relate to things and where opportunities for growth exist. These factors, contributing to how we act, can provide significant insights into how we relate to our experience and ourselves, which can enable us to navigate through the regenerative process and our own living laboratory, to manifest enhanced states of thinking, feeling, and being. We must begin to better understand and navigate our own systems and our thinking and feeling states. Laszlo observes that  “While technically speaking, systems thinking can be formally taught in academic contexts, the connection between systems thinking and systems feeling happens through life experiences and reflection. Systems feeling involves lifelong learning and a commitment to integrate cognition and emotion; linking head with heart” (2012, pp. 99).    131  Capra similarly proposes that   “[…] the brain is not the only structure through which the process of cognition operates. The entire structure of the organism participates in the process of cognition, whether or not the organism has a brain and a higher nervous system” (2002, p.37).  As mentioned previously, many of the thought and emotional systems that we carry within us individually and collectively stem from past experiences, and are blocking us from perceiving and manifesting possibilities into existence because we are attached to the comfortable and ‘usual’ way of thinking and doing. A new way of creating things and processes requires news ways of thinking and feeling about them. Turning ourselves into Living Laboratories of Sustainability, where we explore through reflection, dialogue and feedback at an individual level, we relate differently to our experiences and question assumptions so that our practices can come into alignment with the aspirations that the system is intending to manifest. This could be a huge leverage point in bringing forth our latent potentials and to accelerate sustainability.       132 Appendix B B.1 CIRS Pre-Occupancy Evaluation Questionnaire Thank you for your participation! Letter of Consent Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research!   Purpose of Study:    The purpose of this research is to better understand how to create a green building that provides its inhabitants with a comfortable and satisfying work environment while simultaneously reducing energy and resource consumption. This research seeks to evaluate how satisfied you are with your current workplace building and what you are expecting from the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). Your answers will provide us with information that will help us to ease building inhabitant’s transition into the CIRS building and maximize our understanding of how to create the best possible workplace while achieving CIRS' sustainability goals. This study is part of larger research efforts at CIRS in which green building inhabitants’ interactions and satisfaction with the building will be explored. Data from this study will contribute to Julia Reckermann’s Master’s Thesis and may appear in various reports and journal publications.    Study Procedure:    The research project consists of three phases. To participate fully in this study, you will be asked to complete 2 online questionnaires and 1 workshop:  1. Complete an online questionnaire in which you are asked to evaluate your current workplace building and your expectations from CIRS. This survey will be used to determine how much you know about CIRS, which will then allow the research team to establish a CIRS workshop that will meet your needs.      2. Attend one of the two CIRS educational workshops.   3. Provide feedback about the effectiveness of the workshops in a second, short online questionnaire after the workshop.       133 Time Commitment: The first questionnaire takes approximately 20-30 minutes to complete, the half-day workshop about 3 hours, the second questionnaire will require 5-10 minutes. The total time commitment will not exceed 4 hours.   Potential Risks: There are no anticipated risks from participating in this study.   Potential Benefits:  This study will collect information on building knowledge, comfort, and inhabitant behaviour. The information from this questionnaire will aid in creating an educational CIRS green building workshop, which is meant to ease the transition into CIRS. Hence, this research provides you with an opportunity to provide us with feedback that will be used to maximize your health, happiness, and productivity in the CIRS building.   A summary of the results will be provided to interested participants (please indicate your interest by providing a e-mail address to which we can mail a summary document).   Confidentiality:  Participant identities will be kept strictly confidential. All data collected from the online questionnaires will be secured encrypted in a password-protected computer at the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory building (2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Room 447). For the online survey, a Canadian hosted survey site (Fluid-Surveys) will be used; this means all data will remain in Canada and in compliance with the BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. To conceal your identity, the questionnaires will be given numerical codes instead and your names will be removed. The document containing the key for the codes will be kept separately in a locked office (2202 Main Mall, Room 447). Participant names will not be revealed in the study.  Contact for information about the study:  Please do not hesitate to contact the primary contact, Co-Investigator Julia Esther Reckermann at (778) xxx xxxx, or the Principal Investigator, Professor John Robinson, at (604) xxx xxxx, if you have any questions or concerns.   Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects:  If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of    134 Research Services at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail to RSIL@ors.ubc.caor toll free 1-877-822-8598.   Consent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to your employment or reputation.    Research Team:  Principal Investigator: John Robinson, Professor, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability.   Contact: (604) xxx xxxx; johnr@ires.ubc.ca    Co-Investigator* (Primary Contact): Julia Esther Reckermann, Masters Student, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability. Contact: (778) xxx xxxx; jreckermann@gmail.com    Co-Investigator: Christopher Barrington-Leigh, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability. Contact: (604) xxx xxxx; cpbl@alum.mit.edu    Co-Investigator: Raymond J. Cole, Professor, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Contact: (604) xxx xxxx; raycole@arch.ubc.ca  Ticking this box indicates that you understand and consent that the data gathered are part of a study and will be used for analysis. Further, it also indicates that have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. (If you are interested in receiving a summary document of the research, please provide us with your e-mail) ______________________        135 BACKGROUND 1. With which organization/ research program/academic unit moving into CIRS are you associated?  BC Hydro  ISIS  Resource Management and Environmental Studies Program   Campus Sustainability Office  Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP)  National Research Council (NRC)  University Sustainability Initiative (USI)  School of Population and Public Health  Transportation Planning (TREK)  Psychology Department  School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA)  Design Centre for Sustainability  CFI-BCKDF  Other, please specify: ______________________ 2. What is your position in the organization? Please indicate whether you are a Student, Professor, Researcher, Administrative Personnel, etc.   3. Organizational Base Building Please select the name of the building in which your organization/research program/academic unit is currently located.   Aquatic Ecosystem Research Laboratory (AERL)                    136  Kenny Building  MacMillan Building  University Services Building  Frank Forward   Forest Sciences Centre  TEK III  BC Hydro Office Dunsmuir  BC Hydro Office Edmonds  NRC-IFCI  Library Processing Centre   Other, please specify: ______________________ 4. Would you consider this your main building? By main office building, we are referring to the building in which you spend the majority of work hours (excluding your home).  Yes  No 5. If not, what building do you consider your main building?   6. Which of the following statements best applies to your workspace situation in your main building?  I have an assigned personal desk/work area   I do not have an assigned personal desk/work area (desk/work area changes frequently)  Other, please specify: ______________________                     137 Please answer the remaining questions as they pertain to your 'main' building.  7. Is the office area (where your workspace is located) in your current main building normally... The term 'office area' refers to your overall office area. The term 'workspace' refers to your personal work area or desk. If you do not have an assigned workspace, please answer the following questions in regards to the workspace you most frequently use.  Occupied by you alone  Shared with 1 other  Shared with 2-4 others  Shared with 5-8 others  Shared with more than 8 others 8. Is your principal workspace located within 5 meters of a window to the outdoors?  Yes  No 9. Is your main building considered to be a 'green' building?  Yes  No  I don't know 10. If yes, how do you know it is 'green'? Please tick all that apply.  Signage  Green building features  Someone told me                 138  I am familiar with the industry  Other, please specify: ______________________ 11. How long have you been working in your main building? Please provide number of months.   12. How long have you been working at your current workspace in your main building? The term 'workspace' refers to your personal work area or desk. Please indicate number of months.   13. In a typical week, how many days do you spend working in the building?   14. In a typical workday, how many hours do you spend in the building?   15. In a typical workday, how many hours do you spend working at your desk, or your normal work area?             139 MOVING TO THE CENTRE FOR INTERACTIVE RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABILITY (CIRS)  16. Will you be working at CIRS?  Yes  No  Don't know 17. If you answered "No" or "Don't Know", please explain why.   18. If you will be working in the CIRS building, please indicate your expected level of occupancy. Permanent in this context refers to long-term occupancy. Transitory in this context refers to project based occupancy.  Full-time (permanent)  Part-time (permanent)  Full-time (transitory)  Part-time (transitory)  Don't know             140 WELL-BEING To provide us with a better context for your answers, we are interested in how satisfied you are with your life. Please keep in mind that all answers are confidential and your identity will not be revealed.  19. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life? 0=Very Dissatisfied; 10=Very Satisfied  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  0 20. In general, would you describe your life as?  Very stressful  Somewhat stressful  Not very stressful  Not at all stressful 21. In general, how satisfied are you with your current job/ degree program? 0=Very Dissatisfied; 10=Very Satisfied                   141  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  0 22. Overall, how satisfied are you with relationships you have with co-workers? 0=Very Dissatisfied, 10= Very Satisfied  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1                         142  0 23. On average, how frequently do you interact with co-workers at work (i.e. collaborate on work projects, engage in conversations, drink coffee)?  More than once a day  Once a day  Several times per week  Once a week  Once a month  Less than once a month  Never 24. On average, how frequently do members of your organization or research program engage in social activities with their co-workers outside of work (i.e. go for coffee, beer, lunch)?  More than once a day  Once a day  Several times per week  Once a week  Once a month  Less than once a month  Never 25. How satisfied are you with the space available in your building where you can socialize with your co-workers (i.e. have coffee, or chat)? 0=Very Dissatisfied; 10=Very Satisfied  10                    143  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  0 WELL-BEING COMMENTS   YOUR CURRENT WORKSPACE 26. Overall, how satisfied are you with your current workspace?  The term 'workspace' refers to your personal work area or desk.   This includes indoor environmental conditions (temperature, lighting, acoustics, ventilation) as well as building design and your physical work area/desk (size, proximity, furniture, etc.). 0= Very Dissatisfied; 10= Very Satisfied  10  9  8  7  6  5  4                      144  3  2  1  0 27. Overall, how satisfied are you with the following aspects of the indoor environmental conditions at your workspace? Please choose from the drop down menu for each of the following aspects of your indoor environment. 0= Very Dissatisfied; 10= Very Satisfied Electrical Light   0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   10 (Very Satisfied)  No response   Natural Light  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3                        145  4  5  6  7  8  9   10 (Very Satisfied)  No response   Temperature in Winter  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   10 (Very Satisfied)  No response   Temperature in Summer  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1                          146  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   10 (Very Satisfied)  No response   Acoustics  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   10 (Very Satisfied)  No response                            147 Air Quality & Movement  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   10 (Very Satisfied)  No response    Overall Conditions  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9                           148  10 (Very Satisfied)  No response  Workspace satisfaction comments: Please feel free to comment on any other aspect(s) that influence(s) your satisfaction with your current workspace.   ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS Environmental control systems can be defined as controls that can be operated to change indoor environmental conditions in buildings.  HEATING  28. What building control systems that influence heating (if available to you) do you use? Please tick all that apply.  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me  Thermostat (heating)     Adjustable wall heater     Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall     29. Think about the last few times that you have felt too cold at your workspace. How do you typically respond when you feel too cold? Please tick all that apply.  Adjust thermostat/other heating system (to achieve heating)                    149  Use personal plug-in heater  Drink or eat something hot  Adjust work hours  Seek alternate workspace  Adjust clothing  Engage in physical movement  Close a window  Request changes from building management  Wait until my discomfort passes  Not applicable  Other, please specify: ______________________ COOLING  30. What building control systems that influence cooling (if available to you) do you use? Please tick all that apply.  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me  Thermostat (cooling)     Operable windows     Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall     Ceiling Fan     Window shades/blinds                                       150 31. Think about the last few times that you have felt too warm at your workspace. How do you typically respond when you feel too warm? Please tick all that apply.  Adjust thermostat/other heating system (to achieve cooling)  Use personal plug-in fan  Use personal plug-in air conditioner  Seek alternate workspace  Adjust clothing  Drink or eat something cold  Put on ceiling fan  Adjust diffusers in wall/floor  Open window (s)  Adjust work hours  Request changes from building management  Wait until my discomfort passes  Not applicable  Other, please specify: ______________________ LIGHTING  32. What building control systems that influence lighting (if available to you) do you use? This question refers to measures taken to increase lighting (daylighting or electrical lighting), or reduce incoming light (i.e. glare from the sun). Please tick all that apply.  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me                  151 Electrical lighting      Personal desk light     Adjustable blinds/shades     33. Think about the last few times you have felt there was either too little light or too much glare at your workspace. How do you typically respond? Please tick all that apply.  Turn central lighting on/off  Use personal desk light  Adjust solar blinds/shades  Adjust work times  Seek alternate workspace  Request changes from building management  Wait until my discomfort passes  Not applicable  Other, please specify: ______________________  AIR QUALITY & AIR MOVEMENT  34. What building control systems that influence the air quality and air movement (if available to you) do you use? Please tick all that apply.  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me  Operable windows                                 152 Mechanical ventilation      Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall     Ceiling Fan     35. Think about the last few times that you were dissatisfied with the air quality and movement at your workspace. How do you typically respond? Please tick all that apply.  Open/close window(s)  Turn mechanical ventilation on/off   Use personal plug-in fan  Adjust work hours  Seek alternate workspace  Operate ceiling fan  Adjust diffusers  Request changes from building management  Wait until my discomfort passes  Not applicable  Other, please specify: ______________________ 36. Think about the last few times that you experienced noise discomfort at your workspace. How do you typically respond? Please tick all that apply.  Wear headphones                            153  Wear earplugs  Adjust work hours  Seek alternate workspace  Close a window  Close a door  Request changes from building management  Ask colleagues to be quiet  Wait until my discomfort passes  Not applicable  Other, please specify: ______________________ 37. Who has the primary responsibility for controlling the building systems that influence indoor conditions at your current workspace? The term 'workspace' refers to your personal work area or desk. Please tick all that apply.  Building manager A designated person Automated System (sensor activated) Shared responsibility of building inhabitants You Don't know Heating       Cooling       Lighting       Air circulation       Noise                                                   154 38. If you share the responsibility for controlling building systems with other inhabitants, please describe briefly how this sharing occurs.  (i.e. by consent, proximity to switches)   39. How frequently do you engage in actions that influence the following aspects of the indoor environment at your workspace? This question refers to how frequently you operate buildings systems that influence the following aspects of the indoor environment. Please consider that some actions can influence more than one aspect of the indoor environment (i.e. window). Please tick all that apply.  Never Once/month Once/week Several times/week Every day Don't know No access Heating (when seasonally appropriate)        Cooling (when seasonally appropriate)        Lighting        Air quality and movement        Noise        40. How satisfied are you with your ability to alter the environmental conditions at your workspace?                                        155 0=Very Dissatisfied; 10=Very Satisfied  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  0 41. For actions that you take that adjust building systems, how satisfied are you with their...? 0= Very Dissatisfied; 10= Very Satisfied Accessibility   0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8                        156  9  10 (Very Satisfied)  Not applicable (no access)  Don't know    Speed of system response   0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 (Very Satisfied)  Not applicable (no access)  Don't know    Ease of Use  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4                          157  5  6  7  8  9  10 (Very Satisfied)  Not applicable (no access)  Don't know    Effectiveness   0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 (Very Satisfied)  Not applicable (no access)  Don't know    YOUR CURRENT WORKSPACE COMMENTS Please feel free to add comments about your current workspace.                         158   HEALTH To provide us with a better context for your answers, we are interested in how healthy you feel. 42. In general, how would you rate your overall health?  Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor  Very Poor 43. How satisfied are you with your health?  Very Satisfied  Satisfied  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied  Dissatisfied  Very Dissatisfied  Don't know 44. How satisfied are you with your ability to perform daily living activities?  Very Satisfied  Satisfied  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied  Dissatisfied  Very Dissatisfied                     159  Don't know 45. Do you regularly suffer from any of the following symptoms when working at your workspace?  Please tick all that apply.  Eyes: itching, irritated, dry, watering  Nose: irritated, itching, runny, dry, blocked  Throat: sore, constricted, dry mouth  Head: headache, lethargy, irritability, difficulty concentrating  Skin: dryness, itching, irritation, rashes  I have none of those symptoms  Don't know Health Comments:   Productivity 46. Overall, how would you rate your productivity at your normal work desk/ work area? 0=Very Low; 1= Very High  10  9  8  7  6  5  4                    160  3  2  1  0 47. Overall, how satisfied are you with your productivity at your normal work desk/ work area? 0=Very Dissatisfied; 10= Very Satisfied  10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  0 48. To what extent does the indoor environmental quality (i.e. air, temperature, acoustics, lighting conditions) at your workspace interfere with, or enhance your productivity?  Strongly interferes  Interferes  Somewhat interferes  Neutral                       161  Somewhat enhances  Enhances  Strongly enhances  Don't know PRODUCTIVITY COMMENTS Please feel free to add any comments regarding aspects that affect your productivity at your current workspace.   CIRS Knowledge In this section, we are interested in how much you know about how a healthy and comfortable working environment will be provided in CIRS. To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions... 49. Have you heard of the Centre for Interactive Research for Sustainability (CIRS)?  Yes  No  I don't know 50. If yes, what have you heard about it? (i.e. sustainability features, goals, etc.) Please describe what you have heard about the CIRS building.    51. If you have heard about it, where did you heard about it? Please tick all that apply.  Employer  Colleague               162  Newspaper  Internet  Presentation  Other, please specify: ______________________ 52. Have you been on a tour through the CIRS building?  Yes (please provide date (last) tour) ______________________  No  53. How much do you know about your future workspace at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  I have seen where it will be located on a building plan  I have seen where it will be on a building tour  I know what the furniture will be  I know which technology I will have access to  I don't know anything about it  Other, please specify: ______________________ 54. Given your current knowledge, how satisfied are you with your future workspace at CIRS? 0= Very Dissatisfied; 10= Very Satisfied  0 (Very Dissatisfied)  1  2  3  4                     163  5  6  7  8  9  10 (Very Satisfied)  Not applicable  Cooling  55. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to cooling the indoor environment at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Operable windows  Mechanical system (air conditioning)  Solar Shades (outside)  Building Orientation  Ceiling Fan  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ 56. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust cooling at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Open windows  Adjust thermostat                    164  Operate ceiling fan  Request lower temperatures (vote)  Nothing it is automatic  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ Heating 57. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to heating the indoor environment at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Operable windows  Mechanical system (radiant heat: perimeter heating)  Mechanical system (hydronic air: in-floor diffusers)  Electric system (i.e. baseboard heaters)  Thermal mass  Solar panels  Passive solar building design  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ 58. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust heating at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Request temperature change (vote)  Adjust thermostat  Open diffusers at work desk to increase air flow  Plug in personal heater                      165  Nothing it is automatic  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ Lighting  59. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to lighting conditions at CIRS? In your answers, please take into account that although the goal at CIRS is to maximize the amount of daylight, it is also important to consider systems to reduce solar glare for inhabitants. Please tick all that apply.  Daylighting  Electrical system  Personal desk lights  Solar Shades (outside)  Narrow floor plan  Glass partitions in cubicle space  Glass walls for offices  Large windows  Building orientation  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ 60. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust lighting at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Switch central lighting on or off                   166  Use personal desk light  Nothing, it is automatic  Adjust blinds  Request for lights to be turned off (vote)  Request for lights to be turned on (vote)  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ Air Quality & Movement  61. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to air quality and movement at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Operable windows  Ceiling Fans  Mechanical system (hydronic air: in-floor diffusers))  Open concept for air flow  Narrow floor plan for cross-ventilation  Orientation of the building  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ 62. What actions do you think can be taken by building inhabitants to adjust air quality and movement at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Open windows  Open/close diffuser at desk to increase/decrease air flow                     167  Nothing, it is automatic  Operate ceiling fan  Use personal plug-in fan  Don't know  Other, please specify: ______________________ 63. Who do you think will be responsible for controlling the building systems influencing indoor conditions at CIRS? Please tick all that apply.  Building Manager A designated person Automated System (sensor activated) Building inhabitants Don't know Heating      Cooling      Lighting      Fresh Air      Noise      CIRS KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS Please feel free to add any comments on CIRS knowledge.   Expectations Based on what you have heard about CIRS, and what you imagine it will be like working in the building, we are interested in hearing what your expectations are.  64. How excited are you to be part of the CIRS building? 0= Not at all excited; 10= Very Excited  10  9                                    168  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  0 65. Is there anything that you are concerned about in regards to your move to CIRS?   Yes  No 66. If yes, what are these concerns? Please explain briefly what your concern(s) are.   67. Are there things that you are looking forward to in regards to your move to CIRS?   Yes  No 68. If yes, what are they? Please explain briefly some of the advantages that you are anticipating.                     169 69. We are interested to find out what you think your experience at CIRS will be like. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. At CIRS, I expect that... 1= Strongly Disagree; 10= Strongly Agree  1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Strongly Agree) Don't know ...air quality will be excellent at all times            ...temperatures will be comfortable at all times in the summer            ...temperatures will be comfortable at all times in the winter            ...lighting conditions will be excellent at all times            ...the acoustic environment will be excellent at all times            ...my personal work space/desk will be better than my current one            ...the indoor conditions will enhance my productivity                                                                                            170 ...the indoor conditions will enhance my personal health            ...the indoor conditions will enhance my well-being            70. Environmental Control System Expectations: At CIRS, I expect that... 1= Strongly Disagree; 10= Strongly Agree  1 (Strongly Disagree)       2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Strongly Agree) Don't know ...I will have full control over the indoor environmental conditions            ...the environmental control systems will be fully automated to maintain comfortable indoor conditions            ...the environmental control systems will be easy to understand                                                                      171 ...the environmental control systems will be very conveniently located            ...the environmental control systems will respond in a fast and effective manner            Expectations comments Please feel free to add comments on other expectations that you hold from the CIRS building.   Background  71. Are you completing this survey before or after attending the CIRS Pre-Occupancy workshops?  Before attending the workshop  After attending the workshop 72. If you are completing the survey before attending the workshop, are you planning to attend the workshop?  Yes  No  Don't know (please explain) ______________________ 73. What is your gender?  Female                                172  Male 74. What is your age?   75. What is your name? In order to monitor changes at the individual level throughout the course of this research, we would like to ask for your name. Before any analysis will be conducted, your name will be replaced by a code to protect your identity. Your name will not be revealed under any circumstances.   Thank you very much for your participation! Appendix C C.1 CIRS PREOE Data  1. With which organization/ research program/academic unit moving into CIRS are you associated?  Organization Count A 0 B 0 C 6 D 9 E 6 F 0 G 5 H 1 I 2 J 3 K 2      173 Organization Count L 0 M 5 Other 6 Total Responses 45  2. What is your position in the organization? Removed for privacy protection  3. Organizational Base Building Building Name Count Aquatic Ecosystem Research Lab (AERL) 12 Campus Community Planning  9 Fred Kaiser 2 Forest Sciences Centre 6 Kenny Building 2 Library Processing Centre 3 MacMillan 2 Oxford University 1 TEF3 5 General Services Administration Building 3 Total Responses 45  4. Would you consider this your main building? Response Percentage Count Yes 98% 44 No 2% 1 Total Response  45    174 Response Percentage Count (N)  5. If not, what building do you consider your main building? Removed to protect privacy 6. Which of the following statements best applies to your workspace situation in your main building? Response Percentage Count I have an assigned personal desk/work area 91% 41 I do not have an assigned personal desk/work area (desk/work area changes frequently) 9% 4 Other, please specify: 0% 0 Total Responses 45  6. Which of the following statements best applies to your workspace situation in your main building? (Other, please specify:) Removed to protect privacy  7. Is the office area (where your workspace is located) in your current main building normally... Response Percentage Count Occupied by you alone 42% 15 Shared with 1 other 14% 5 Shared with 2-4 others 14% 5 Shared with 5-8 others 8% 3 Shared with more than 8 others 22% 8  36  8. Is your principal workspace located within 5 meters of a window to the outdoors?    175 Response Percentage Count Yes 80% 36 No 20% 9 Total Responses (N)  45  9. Is your main building considered to be a 'green' building? Response Percentage Count Yes 40% 18 No 53% 24 I don't know 7% 3 Total Responses  45   10. If yes, how do you know it is 'green'? Response Percentage Count Signage 28% 5 Green building features 56% 10 Someone told me 83% 15 I am familiar with the industry 39% 7 Other, please specify: 0% 0 Total Responses 18  10. If yes, how do you know it is 'green'? (Other, please specify:) No responses  11. How long have you been working in your main building? # Response 1. 18 2. 18    176 # Response 3. 5.5 years 4. 4 5. 8 Months 6. 3 7. 30 8. 34 9. 8 months 10. 96 11. 1 12. 32 13. 37 months 14. 1 year 15. 81 16. 3 17. 10 18. 13 19. 2 20. 48 21. 48+ months 22. 36 23. 11 24. 2 25. 24 26. 84    177 # Response 27. 70 28. 1 year 29. 7 30. 12 31. 9 months 32. 21 33. 12 months 34. 9 months 35. 24 36. 1.1 years 37. 9 months 38. 15 39. 15 40. 2 41. 40 42. 46 43. 230 44. 10 45. 144  12. How long have you been working at your current workspace in your main building? # Response 1. 18 2. 18    178 # Response 3. 6 months 4. 4 5. 8 Months 6. 3 7. 30 8. 34 9. 5 months 10. 96 11. 1 12. 30 13. 37 months 14. 1 year 15. 81 16. 3 17. 10 18. 13 19. 2 20. 6 21. 11 months 22. 6 23. 11 24. 2 25. 24 26. 36    179 # Response 27. 70 28. 12 29. 7 30. 12 31. 9 months 32. 5 33. 12 months 34. 9 months 35. 24 36. 10 months 37. 9 months 38. 15 39. 15 40. 2 41. 10 42. 14 43. 230 44. 10 45. 72  13. In a typical week, how many days do you spend working in the building? # Response 1. 1 2. 4 3. 4    180 # Response 4. 45 5. 5 6. 5 7. 5 8. 5 9. 3 10. 2.5 11. 5 12. 4 13. 2 14. 5 15. 3-5 16. 5 17. 5 18. 35 19. 1 20. 5 21. 5 22. 4 23. 3 24. 3 25. 5 26. 3 27. 5    181 # Response 28. 3 29. 5 30. 5 31. 0-3 32. 5 33. 5 34. 5 35. 5 36. 5 37. 5 38. 5 39. 5 40. 2 41. 4 42. 4 43. 8 44. 5   14. In a typical work day, how many hours do you spend in the building? # Response 1. 10 2. 10 3. 7.5 4. 8.5    182 # Response 5. 7 6. 4 7. 45 8. 6 9. 7 10. 17.5 11. 7 12. 8 13. 9 14. 5 15. 8 16. 3.5-7 17. 8 18. 7-10 hours 19. 7 20. 8 21. 7-8 22. 8 23. 6 24. 6.5 25. 8 26. 9 27. 7 28. 8    183 # Response 29. 7 30. 8 31. 8 32. 0-24 33. 9 34. 7 35. 8 36. 40 37. 6 – 7 38. 8 39. 6-8 40. 6 41. 6 42. 8 43. 3 44. 2 45. 13    15. In a typical work day, how many hours do you spend working at your desk, or your normal work area? # Response 1. 9.5 2. 7 3. 6.5    184 # Response 4. 7.5 5. 7 6. 4 7. 40 8. 5.5 9. 6 10. 15 11. 6 12. 5 13. 7 14. 4 15. 8 16. 3.5-7 17. 25 18. 7-10 hours 19. 5-6 20. 8 21. 6-7 22. 6 23. 4.5 24. 5 25. 7 26. 6 27. 6    185 # Response 28. 7 29. 4 30. 5 to 7 31. 7 32. 0-24 33. 5 34. 6 35. 5 36. 8 37. 5 38. 7 39. 5-7 40. 6 41. 5 42. 7 43. 3 44. 1 45. 10   16. Will you be working at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Yes 93% 42 No 0% 0 Don't know 7% 3    186 Total Responses  45  17. If you answered "No" or "Don't Know", please explain why. Removed to protect privacy  18. If you will be working in the CIRS building, please indicate your expected level of occupancy. Response Percentage Count Full-time (permanent) 51% 23 Part-time (permanent) 16% 7 Full-time (transitory) 18% 8 Part-time (transitory) 13% 6 Don't know 2% 1 Total Responses  45  19. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life? Response Percentage Count 10 9% 4 9 29% 13 8 36% 16 7 20% 9 6 4% 2 5 0 0 4 2% 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0       187 Response Percentage Count Total Responses  45  20. In general, would you describe your life as? Response Percentage Count Very stressful 4% 2 Somewhat stressful 82% 37 Not very stressful 13% 6 Not at all stressful 0% 0 Total Responses (N)  45  21. In general, how satisfied are you with your current job/ degree program? Response Count 10 4 9 8 8 10 7 13 6 6 5 0 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 0 Total Responses 45  22. Overall, how satisfied are you with relationships you have with co-workers? Response Count    188 Response Count 10 7 9 12 8 12 7 9 6 4 5 1 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Total Responses 45  23. On average, how frequently do you interact with co-workers at work (i.e. collaborate on work projects, engage in conversations, drink coffee)? Response Percentage Count More than once a day 73% 33 Once a day 11% 5 Several times per week 9% 4 Once a week 7% 3 Once a month 0% 0 Less than once a month 0% 0 Never 0% 0 Total Responses (N)  45     189 24. On average, how frequently do members of your organization or research program engage in social activities with their co-workers outside of work (i.e. go for coffee, beer, lunch)? Response Percentage Count More than once a day 4% 2 Once a day 0% 0 Several times per week 20% 9 Once a week 11% 5 Once a month 27% 12 Less than once a month 31% 14 Never 7% 3 Total Responses  45  25. How satisfied are you with the space available in your building where you can socialize with your co-workers (i.e. have coffee, or chat)? Response Count 10 2 9 2 8 2 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 5 2 7 1 3 0 3 Total 45    190 Response Count Responses  WELL-BEING COMMENTS 1. “having young children makes for an on-going struggle to balance work and life expectations” 2. “I have become curious to figure out how moving my office might affect my satisfaction with life or degree program!” 3. “I am over (age) and I work mostly with those under (age), many just turned (age). I have found that there is much less personal interaction at work in the last 5 years or so. I'm rather shocked to get an email about something from less that 5 metres away...it seems to be the way though but it's much less personal, satisfying and fun for me” 4. “Note: Question 23 I answered "more than once a day" as each day that I am in contact with my work colleagues, we always collaborate more than once... however I am only in the office once/week (part time employee), and so technically we only collaborate "once a week". For question 25, I filled out to reflect my experiences with the building that the [name of organization] is currently located within, not [name of building], which I consider my primary building” 5. “In November 2010, we moved from a building where there was a nice shared kitchen that our department and other units used to eat lunch and have a coffee break. Since moving to the (name of building) building, I haven't used the downstairs kitchen space (it isn't very appealing) and so I find I will either eat lunch at my desk” 6. “We do sometimes socialize as office workers but tend to do this outside rather than in the building (eg: eating lunch near the Orchard Garden, or walking to Wreck Beach for lunch)” 7.  “We are starting up a once a month full staff coffee break session, which will start in late July 2011. At these sessions we have vowed not to talk about work but to use the time to share updates from our personal lives or find out more about each others' interests”. 8. “Sometimes we will all arrive at work and not say hello, which I think is a shame. This probably comes from working in close quarters with each other and not wanting to disrupt people's concentration/work flow” 9. “the informal social space [name of building] is limited to a thoroughfare beside the sink. the designers should have programmed for a proper lounge space that doesn't feel like a random table in a hallway ;)”  26. Overall, how satisfied are you with your current workspace?    191 Response Count 10 2 9 5 8 6 7 7 6 8 5 8 4 1 3 3 2 4 1 0   Total Responses 44     WORKSPACE SATISFACTION COMMENTS 1. I have an assigned desk but in an open space.  This makes it very challenging to have meetings, phone calls etc without disturbing (and being disturbed by) others. 2. There are a number of desks located in "premium" locations (i.e., right next to a window that opens to the outside) that are rarely used. Although there is a policy for the amount of use one must have to occupy these desks, it is not enforced. It makes it frustrating for students who use their office almost every day to see these premium places so under utilitized. 3. It does not have a window to outdoors. 4. right now constant construction is making it very noisy and super irritating because the windows need to be open...I love the trees outside my window 5. Cannot open windows, which is terrible - for air quality, temperature, and general happiness.    192  WORKSPACE SATISFACTION COMMENTS 6. Love the huge wall of north-facing windows with greenery right outside.  Do not like open-concept work area, very distracting to overhear other people.  It's too hot in summer and too cold in winter, but mostly I can deal with it via clothing choices. 7. The ventilation system provides good air circulation and creates a comfortable temperature within the building.  However, it creates a very distracting clicking noise on a regular basis sometimes for over an hour - for this reason, I ranked acoustics as dissatisfying in my building. 8. Desk chair quality 9. The passive heating and cooling system of this building mean that ambient noise by other occupants is very noticeable and distracting. Similarly, outside noise from nearby construction is highly disruptive, particularly when the windows are open during summer months. Noise is the primary concern in (name of building). 10. I like (name of building), the current building because there is a gym on the 2nd floor for staff to do exercise and Starbucks close by. 11. it is great to have access to a community kitchen but having a common table for people to eat and connect would be a wonderful addition.  We are in a very old building with little opportunity to retrofit. However, through provision of portible laptops would help alliviate some of these associated challenges (temperature, sound) since it would enable staff to work in other rooms, etc. 12. while the work space doesn't rate particularly high on any of the specific categories, the "ambience" and "feeling" of the place mean that the overall conditions are much better than the average of all of the aspects of the indoor environment options. 13. We have trees right outside our big windows which are a delight and are frequented by squirrels, birds and raccoons. I really like having a sense of being so close to a more natural environment (we did not have this in our last building).  I am fine with my cubicle but wish there was space for us cubicle folks to have our own white board so that we can use it for planning, creative thoughts etc...  The heating is very wonky in this building - especially in summer. None of our radiators are on so it's simply a greenhouse effect from the windows. This could be mitigated with placement of blinds that we can close/open. We do have control over opening the windows so this certainly helps.  As for winter heating, it can get cold but I use a blanket and sweaters    193  WORKSPACE SATISFACTION COMMENTS for warmth. 14. There is no air movement in the interior meeting rooms which makes those spaces very hot during the summer months. The building heating system wasn't able to keep the building work during the cold spells of the 2010-2011 fall/winter 15. workspace satisfaction score is directly related to the cubicle configurations, which dampen natural light, temperature and airflow. that said, the space is configured for a large number of students... (name of building) needs underfloor ventilation with individual controls (like CIRS!). shorter cubicle walls would allow more daylighting (and maybe airflow) into cubicles except that this would cut down on privacy... oh well... just can't win ;)) 16. one colleague who works near me is socially challenged. it'd be nice to have a more fun neighbour.     194 27. Overall, how satisfied are you with the following aspects of the indoor environmental conditions at your workspace?  0 (Very Dissatisfied) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Very Satisfied) No response Total Electrical Light 0                (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 3 (7%) 5 (11%) 6 (14%) 2 (5%) 15 (34%) 6 (14%) 1 (2%) 5       (11%) 0          (0%) 44 Natural Light 3                  (7%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 7 (16%) 4 (9%) 6 (14%) 3 (7%) 11      (25%) 1          (2%) 44 Temperature in Winter 3               (7%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 4 (9%) 8 (18%) 6 (14%) 10 (23%) 3 (7%) 1 (2%) 3         (7%) 5        (11%) 44 Temperature in Summer 1                 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 4 (9%) 6 (14%) 7 (16%) 10 (23%) 5 (11%) 3 (7%) 3          (7%) 0         (0%) 44 Acoustics 0                   (0%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 4 (9%) 6 (14%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 6 (14%) 6 (14%) 0 (0%) 3           (7%) 2         (5%) 44 Air Quality & Movement 2                  (5%) 2 (5%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 7 (16%) 5 (11%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 3          (7%) 0          (0%) 44 Overall Conditions 0                 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 4 (9%) 6 (14%) 8 (18%) 11 (25%) 7 (16%) 4 (9%) 0         (0%) 0          (0%) 44    195   HEATING  28. What building control systems that influence heating (if available to you) do you use?  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me Total Thermostat (heating) 3 (7%) 2 (5%) 7 (16%) 32 (73%) 44 Adjustable wall heater 1 (2%) 5 (11%) 1 (2%) 38 (86%) 45 Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 43 (100%) 43  29. Think about the last few times that you have felt too cold at your workspace. How do you typically respond when you feel too cold? Response Percentage Count Adjust thermostat/other heating system (to achieve heating) 18% 8 Use personal plug-in heater 9% 4 Drink or eat something hot 47% 21 Adjust work hours 2% 1 Seek alternate workspace 11% 5 Adjust clothing 82% 37 Engage in physical movement 9% 4 Close a window 24% 11 Request changes from building management 18% 8 Wait until my discomfort passes 11% 5 Not applicable 13% 6 Other, please specify: 4% 2 Total responses  45    196  29. Think about the last few times that you have felt too cold at your workspace. How do you typically respond when you feel too cold? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. I like cold 2. go home  COOLING  30. What building control systems that influence cooling (if available to you) do you use?  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me Total Thermostat (cooling) 1 (2%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 35 (80%) 44 Operable windows 15 (34%) 8 (18%) 2 (5%) 19 (43%) 44 Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 43 (100%) 43 Ceiling Fan 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 42 (98%) 44 Window shades/blinds 7 (16%) 8 (18%) 8 (18%) 21 (48%) 44  31. Think about the last few times that you have felt too warm at your workspace. How do you typically respond when you feel too warm? Response Percentage Count Adjust thermostat/other heating system (to achieve cooling) 16% 7 Use personal plug-in fan 18% 8 Use personal plug-in air conditioner 2% 1 Seek alternate workspace 18% 8 Adjust clothing 87% 39 Drink or eat something cold 44% 20 Put on ceiling fan 2% 1    197 Response Percentage Count Adjust diffusers in wall/floor 0% 0 Open window (s) 44% 20 Adjust work hours 9% 4 Request changes from building management 4% 2 Wait until my discomfort passes 20% 9 Not applicable 7% 3 Other, please specify: 7% 3 Total responses  45  31. Think about the last few times that you have felt too warm at your workspace. How do you typically respond when you feel too warm? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. leave or work elsewhere; not that we do not have celiing fans, but we do have standing fans and plug-in heaters that some occupants use 2. I usually dress for the temperature 3. open office door  LIGHTING  32. What building control systems that influence lighting (if available to you) do you use?  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me Total Electrical lighting 18 (40%) 15 (33%) 5 (11%) 7 (16%) 45 Personal desk light 7 (17%) 4 (10%) 7 (17%) 24 (57%) 42 Adjustable blinds/shades 6 (14%) 9 (21%) 10 (23%) 19 (44%) 44   33. Think about the last few times you have felt there was either too little light or too much glare at your workspace. How do you typically respond?    198 Response Percentage Count Turn central lighting on/off 48% 21 Use personal desk light 30% 13 Adjust solar blinds/shades 36% 16 Adjust work times 0% 0 Seek alternate workspace 5% 2 Request changes from building management 0% 0 Wait until my discomfort passes 9% 4 Not applicable 23% 10 Other, please specify: 11% 5 Total responses  45  33. Think about the last few times you have felt there was either too little light or too much glare at your workspace. How do you typically respond? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. reposition my monitor 2. adjust my computer monitor to reduce glare 3. I would like having a personal desk light 4. Lighting's fine 5. very occasionally i'll use the personal desk light  AIR QUALITY & AIR MOVEMENT  34. What building control systems that influence the air quality and air movement (if available to you) do you use?  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me Total Operable windows 15 (35%) 9 (21%) 4 (9%) 17 (40%) 45    199  Yes, I use this regularly Yes, I use this sometimes Available, but do not use it Not available to me Total Mechanical ventilation 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 4 (10%) 36 (86%) 42 Adjustable diffusers in floor/wall 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 40 (95%) 42 Ceiling Fan 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 41 (100%) 41  35. Think about the last few times that you were dissatisfied with the air quality and movement at your workspace. How do you typically respond? Response Percentage Count Open/close window(s) 45% 20 Turn mechanical ventilation on/off 5% 2 Use personal plug-in fan 16% 7 Adjust work hours 7% 3 Seek alternate workspace 14% 6 Operate ceiling fan 0% 0 Adjust diffusers 0% 0 Request changes from building management 2% 1 Wait until my discomfort passes 14% 6 Not applicable 25% 11 Other, please specify: 18% 8 Total responses (N)  44  35. Think about the last few times that you were dissatisfied with the air quality and movement at your workspace. How do you typically respond? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. open door from enclosed shared work area to building foyer    200 # Response 2. move around then return to desk 3. use standing floor fan 4. Air's good 5. have migraine 6. go outside for fresh air 7. opened door but noise level raised 8. open door with hope of catching a breeze and/or go for a walk or run  36. Think about the last few times that you experienced noise discomfort at your workspace. How do you typically respond? Response Percentage Count Wear headphones 51% 23 Wear earplugs 2% 1 Adjust work hours 9% 4 Seek alternate workspace 20% 9 Close a window 20% 9 Close a door 33% 15 Request changes from building management 0% 0 Ask colleagues to be quiet 16% 7 Wait until my discomfort passes 36% 16 Not applicable 9% 4 Other, please specify: 9% 4 Total responses (N)  44  36. Think about the last few times that you experienced noise discomfort at your workspace. How do you typically respond? (Other, please specify:)    201 # Response 1. earplugs + headphones + ambient music = noise bubble 2. there is constant construction noise as well, nothing we can do about that 3. speak louder 4. use portable office phone when sound is too loud in office. A huge benefit, that others use my phone as well.  37. Who has the primary responsibility for controlling the building systems that influence indoor conditions at your current workspace?   Building manager A designated person Automated System (sensor activated) Shared responsibility of building inhabitants You Don't know Total Heating 15     (34%) 0          (0%) 6        (14%) 10        (23%) 3      (7%) 15 (34%) 49 Cooling 14     (33%) 1         (2%) 7        (16%) 8           (19%) 3     (7%) 16 (37%) 49 Lighting 8     (18%) 1         (2%) 2           (5%) 16         (36%) 14 (32%) 11 (25%) 52 Air circulation 8     (18%) 0         (0%) 6        (14%) 5          (11%) 7    (16%) 22 (50%) 48 Noise 1       (2%) 0         (0%) 0          (0%) 19         (44%) 5   (12%) 21 (49%) 46    38. If you share the responsibility for controlling building systems with other inhabitants, please describe briefly how this sharing occurs. # Response 1. Lights for open work space are generally turned on and left on for the entire day.  In the even that part of the room is not being used, it is acceptable to turn off one bank of lights.   Noise is controlled by common courtesy, and the occasional request by    202 # Response colleagues to be quiet. 2. track lighting in the shared work spaces - basically whoever wants it on turns it on, until somebody else turns it off. I have made a lighting diagram and put it beside the two main light switches to help explain what light switch turns on what set of track lights. Others have also put up signs to demonstrate how much electricity the track lighting uses when operational. 3. Whoever has the greatest need in my workspace compared to whoever is ambivalent.   4. Whoever is uncomfortable changes the setting 5. The first person coming in turns the lights on and the last person leaving turns them off. 6. it's very casual...if things are really bad our admin assistant will call trouble calls but I suppose I've sort of given up and think that nothing can be effective because we've tried and nothing much has changed...if it were really intolerable, I 'm sure I would act...it's tolerable when it gets bad 7. lighting - switches; thermostat shared in shared office; no control over excess heat; noise - shared occupants  Note that when i chose building manager, I don't know really if anyone can actually control the building systems because they seem to work so poorly 8. We ask for consent and change the temperature 9. We ask each other whether it's ok to open or close a window.  Usually people agree.   The last person to leave turns out the lights for the whole floor. We share the floor with other departments, and they seem to do this as well. 10. Switch on light 11. Personal requests to keep office noise down among co-workers to control noise issues 12. ask permission to change conditions with other employees. 13. Fight over light switches; discussions of noise at student soc meetings 14. by consent 15. For noise - building inhabitants talk to one another if this is a challenge.  For air cirulcation, building inhabitants talk to oneanother to ask others in workspace if we can open windows. For heating and cooling, we inform our energy manager who then makes the appropriate trouble shooting calls, but most of the time little can be done to    203 # Response allievate current challenges associated with an old building.  For lighting, inhabitants have a shared understanding that the last person to leave the building turns the lights off, etc 16. Noise is discussed at the monthly student society meetings 17. Whoever leaves last at the end of the day is responsible for turning off the lights. 18. Lights - we try to remind our staff and staff in other areas of the 2nd floor to turn of the lights at the end of the work day. Sometimes this happens, sometimes it doesn't. If our office staff are the last to leave the 2nd floor then the lights will get shut off. If it's left up to other units on the 2nd floor (who may not care about sustainability as much as we do), then it happens sporadically. We have to constantly remind.  Air circulation/cooling: We have control over our windows so will often ask each other if we can open the windows to cool the work area and improve air circulation.  Noise - we are 10 people in a small shared work area so it can get noisy. It was noticeable at first but I've gotten used to it. I find that if any of us need silence, we'll either put on headphones to block out noises or work from a different area. I have requested to work from home twice for reporting writing whenever I need complete concentration.  We have construction going on outside our building so that noise/vibrations is very annoying day in and day out but not under our control. 19. opening windows, mainly... however as i'm not seated next to a window, unless the window desks are empty (or occupied by someone i know well) i don't feel comfortable opening or closing them. as for lighting, i don't bother with the overheads. i just use my task light, which is plenty for what i need. noise - obviously there is tacit agreement (normalization) between inhabitants to not talk in the cubicle areas, which generally works well. 20. shared lighting switches 21. Thermostat in my office is accessible to colleagues who enter to make adjustments without my knowledge. 22. i guess for noise it's a shared experience in that in general we try to respect each other by not being too loud for too long      204  39. How frequently do you engage in actions that influence the following aspects of the indoor environment at your workspace?  Never Once /month Once/week Several times/week Every day Don't know No access Total Heating (when seasonally appropriate) 17 (38%) 4                   (9%) 2                (4%) 5               (11%) 6 (13%) 0   (0%) 12 (27%) 46 Cooling (when seasonally appropriate) 12 (27%) 2                    (5%) 3                 (7%) 5              (11%) 11 (25%) 0  (0%) 12 (27%) 45 Lighting 9   (20%) 3                   (7%) 9              (20%) 9               (20%) 13 (29%) 0  (0%) 3        (7%) 46 Air quality and movement 13 (30%) 4                   (9%) 2               (5%) 5                (11%) 10 (23%) 2  (5%) 9  (20%) 45 Noise 13 (30%) 7                 (16%) 7              (16%) 2                  (5%) 7 (16%) 2  (5%) 7  (16%) 45   40. How satisfied are you with your ability to alter the environmental conditions at your workspace? Response Count 10 1 9 2 8 3 7 6 6 5 5 3 4 5 3 9    205 Response Count 2 6 1 2 0 2 Total Responses (N) 44  # Response 1. My main complaint is the AC and that windows cannot be opened to get some fresh air. 2. The only real action I would like to be able to take is to open the windows, and I can't.  So that was not captured in my responses to 41, which really only captured my use of light switches.  The heating/cooling is far more important, and we do not control that in any real way. 3. For the above responses, the only control available is windows.  No access to mechanical systems. 4. Although I have little to no control over the environmental systems and controls, I find that they are wee regulated for me. 5. There are zero building systems that control for noise in (name of building). 6. Too dark and no windows close by. 7. old building posing many challenges re access to controls, air quality, etc central lighting that needs to be kept on throughout the entire day (even though entire workspace might not be occupied, and many of us have table lamps and we have some natural lighting it is so hot in the summer that it affects employees ability to work, yet we are not encouraged to use fans since this is considered energy intensive but employee energy definately suffers as a result.  window are hard to open and can only be opened at the top - thus little airflow as a result 8. Tons of daylight. However, the electrical lights above are always on since there is only one light switch for half of the 2nd floor (and we can't turn it off since people without access to windows need this type of lighting). So that's too bad.  Access and ability to open/close windows is great.  Noise is not so great but I can control the amount of noise by blocking it out with headphones/music. 9. Noise is greatest frustration in the (name of building) building.    206 10. the lack of control beyond lighting and to a good extent, noise, is bothersome. in particular, if you asked anyone in (name of building), they'd say that they'd love it if they could open a window in their office.    207 41. For actions that you take that adjust building systems, how satisfied are you with their...?  0  (Very Dissatisfied) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Very Satisfied NA DK N Accessibility 5 (11%) 0 (0%) 2   (4%) 4 (9%) 2   (4%) 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 4    (9%) 0       (0%) 5         (11%) 7   (16%) 1    (2%) 45 Speed of system response 3    (7%) 1 (2%) 3    (7%) 3 (7%) 3  (7%) 6 (13%) 3   (7%) 3   (7%) 1     (2%) 1       (2%) 5         (11%) 8          (18%) 5 (11%) 45 Ease of Use 3    (7%) 0 (0%) 4    (9%) 3 (7%) 1   (2%) 6 (13%) 3   (7%) 3   (7%) 6  (13%) 1      (2%) 4            (9%) 8          (18%) 3   (7%) 45 Effectiveness 2   (4%) 0 (0%) 5 (11%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 3   (7%) 2   (4%) 1    (2%) 3       (7%) 4           (9%) 7  (16%) 4  (9%) 45    208   42. In general, how would you rate your overall health? Response Percentage Count Excellent 27% 12 Good 67% 30 Fair 7% 3 Poor 0% 0 Very Poor 0% 0 Total Response (N)  45  43. How satisfied are you with your health? Response Percentage Count Very Satisfied 16% 7 Satisfied 70% 31 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 9% 4 Dissatisfied 5% 2 Very Dissatisfied 0% 0 Don't know 0% 0 Total Response (N)  44  44. How satisfied are you with your ability to perform daily living activities? Response Percentage Count Very Satisfied 59% 26 Satisfied 36% 16 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2% 1 Dissatisfied 2% 1    209 Response Percentage Count Very Dissatisfied 0% 0 Don't know 0% 0 Total Response (N)  44  45. Do you regularly suffer from any of the following symptoms when working at your workspace? Response Percentage Count Eyes: itching, irritated, dry, watering 33% 14 Nose: irritated, itching, runny, dry, blocked 31% 13 Throat: sore, constricted, dry mouth 14% 6 Head: headache, lethargy, irritability, difficulty concentrating 38% 16 Skin: dryness, itching, irritation, rashes 12% 5 I have none of those symptoms 31% 13 Don't know 0% 0 Total Response (N)  45  Health Comments: # Response 1. I'm relatively healthy but wish that I had more time to exercise (again I blame my kids, why not, they'll be blaming me for everything pretty soon). 2. I would like to do more sports. 3. Good furniture is most important for the health of me and most my colleagues in order to prevent back pain. 4. The air quality does seem to affect energy levels and in the winter I feel sick after working too long in the building 5. I have hayfever but the symptoms are carried with me from whenever I go outside.  ie, coming to work    210 # Response 6. I have several of the above symptoms everywhere I go, they are not confined to the workplace 7. I guess looking at the PC for too long make my eyes sore and dry.  I have allergies and that's why my nose will be itchy sometimes and have running nose.  For my head, I guess not enough fresh air that cause this problem. 8. Eyes irritation is in allergy season. I think the (name of building) vegetation is full of allergens. 9. bike to and from work everyday year round.  run several days a week. etc. touch wood but i am basically a healthy person who rarely gets sick.  46. Overall, how would you rate your productivity at your normal work desk/ work area? Response Count 10 2 9 7 8 13 7 19 6 4 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Total Response (N) 45  47. Overall, how satisfied are you with your productivity at your normal work desk/ work area?  Response Count    211 Response Count 10 1 9 5 8 14 7 12 6 8 5 3 4 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 Total Response (N) 45  48. To what extent does the indoor environmental quality (i.e. air, temperature, acoustics, lighting conditions) at your workspace interfere with, or enhance your productivity? Response Percentage Count Strongly interferes 0% 0 Interferes 16% 7 Somewhat interferes 40% 18 Neutral 27% 12 Somewhat enhances 11% 5 Enhances 4% 2 Strongly enhances 2% 1 Don't know 0% 0    212 Response Percentage Count Total Response (N)  45  PRODUCTIVITY COMMENTS  # Response 1. Heat in summer does make it impossible to work in office sometimes 2. The noise distraction of the open-concept office interferes. 3. I think question 48 should be broken out into the air/temp/acoustics/light categories. The noise in (name of building) strongly interferes with my productivity, but the temperature and lighting systems strongly enhance my productivity. 4. I force myself to keep working and don't bother about the environment for most of the time.  Just to get my work done! 5. The biggest factor affecting productively is ergonomics at my work station. This could be greatly improved. 6. The construction noise and workmates conversations in nearby workspaces is a distraction sometimes but overall I find I work best when I'm in a busy/bustling space. 7. if there are poor conditions at (name of building), the worst for me is if the workspace is stuffy or smelly, in which case i usually leave. 8. i'd say i'm noise sensitive.  but for the most part i can control that by listening to music, etc.  soon (name of building) will have some major construction right outside its main entrance for a almost 2 years, and then i expect the issue of noise will be great, not just for people like me, but for everyone in the bldg.   49. Have you heard of the Centre for Interactive Research for Sustainability (CIRS)? Response Percentage Count Yes 95% 42 No 2% 1 I don't know 2% 1 Total Response (N) 44  50. If yes, what have you heard about it? (i.e. sustainability features, goals, etc.)    213 # Response 1. reduces UBC's overall carbon user responsive building 2. I have heard about the partners who will take up space and be present in CIRS.  I have heard about some of the sustainability features, including net positive energy and water goals, as well as the potential for the building space to interact more closely with the needs of the inhabitants. 3. It will be the 'greenest' building in North America (at least until the next greenest building is built). It will be net-positive energy, water, and GHGs.  Green roof Grey water & rain water traps and reuse The world will be a better place because of it. 4. Know lots through working in USI. Regenerative building. Water and energy net positive. Green wall and accessible roof garden space. 5. Greenest Building in North America, water recycling, plants on the walls, personal work environment contol, and shared copiers. 6. It is a sustainable building intended to act as a research facility 7. lots...I've been to workshops, talks etc. 8. windows that open, natural lighting, 9. Sustainability features, design concept 10. I have followed its development and design over the years and was involved in discussions about it. 11. re-circulated water; PV system; we can open the windows; the building is going to watch everything we do; we have to use a computer interface to control systems; etc (shared heating/geox); green wall; 12. most green building in North America, aiming to restore surrounding natural environment 13. CIRS will be the greenest building in Canada. 14. Everything from the tour in June 15. "Greenest building in North America".  Net zero energy and water.  Scavenges heat from EOS building.  PV for electricity.  Rainwater harvesting, on-site wastewater treatment.  Green roof. Green wall. 16. greenest building in North America 17. It attempts to bring together a series of available and accessible technologies in new ways with the goals of creating a net positive impact on the environment around it. Its primary innovation is not in the invention of new technologies within the field of sustainable building, but rather the innovative combination of existing    214 # Response technologies.  I believe the goals associated with this include: - A net positive energy balance (supplying energy back to the grid for buildings around it). - On site water treatment -Harnessing solar and steam energy from the surrounding environment   Beyond its goals in environmental sustainability, it seeks to enhance the social life of the environment within the building; i.e. - better working environment, improved work satisfaction and productivity.   18. That it will be Canada's most sustainable building (but not meet current Swiss Code. ) 19. living building 20. I know about many of the green features as I have given tours that highlight the building's water, electrical and waste systems. I was also involved in planning the bicycle facilities. 21. Green roof, inhabitant-based approach, more cOntrol over space, water recycling, carbon Positive, daylight for all inhabitants, noise cOntrols, interactive space for social learning, shared desk areas 22. Sustainable features 23. very well informed about many aspects 24. most sustainable building in north america, green roof, all water from rain, water treatment on site, net positive energy producer... 25. Green building in the N. America! 26. Meetings 27. - rain water capture for all water usage - structural carbon storage in wood building (more carbon stored that released in construction/deconstruction) - daylighting - green roof - heat captured from neighboring building thus overall use decreased on campus - large lecture hall, decision theatre - student sustainability office off main lobby - loop cafe with local, organic food - CIRS is not just a regenerative building, but a research project - flexible design  - inhabitants interact with building    215 # Response 28. from ubc website 29. I've heard John Robinson's talk on the building features, goals etc several times. 30. multiple energy sources, on site water treatment, solar shading, decision support theatre; green roof, green wall. Reduces energy consumption of adjacent building, sequestered all embodied energy in structure. 80kWh/m2/yr 31. Through USI communications 32. living laboratory, accelerating sustainability, partnerships, cutting edge in sustainable buildings, net positive on energy, inhabitants vs. occupants. 33. restorative living building challenge LEED Platinum energy self-sufficient, off the main grid recovering heat from adjacent building solar paneling and ground heat 100% use of rain water in building for potable and grey water systems onsite blackwater treatment 100% daylighting throughout building interactive spaces for collaboration, networking net energy and water positive living lab and agent of change wide variety of inhabitants from staff to researchers to students and external partners a space for learning and teaching 34. Will likely be North America's greenest building. Has all sorts of green features like a living wall and green roof. Will use rainwater and treat wastewater. Has a big lecture hall and a decision theatre. Research will be applied on and off campus. 35. A lot. Living lab; most innovative high performance building in North America; regenerative building process 36. Sustainability objectives, solutions, strategy, funding, events 37. regenerative, humane green smart, 100% daylighting, net zero features, focus on active inhabitants, research test-bed... 38. Regenerative, net-positive, PV, solar aquatics... the works. 39. I am generally aware of its design features and objectives. 40. i know a reasonable amount about the bldg, as i have had the good luck of having been involved in discussions about cirs for well over a year now.  51. If you have heard about it, where did you heard about it?    216 Response Percentage Count Employer 75% 33 Colleague 68% 30 Newspaper 16% 7 Internet 36% 16 Presentation 45% 20 Other, please specify: 7% 3 Total Response (N)  45   51. If you have heard about it, where did you heard about it? (Other, please specify:)  Response 1. Supervisor 2. Meetings 3. Interviews  52. Have you been on a tour through the CIRS building? Response Percentage Count Yes (please provide date (last) tour) 38% 17 No 62% 28 Total Responses  45  52. Have you been on a tour through the CIRS building? (Yes (please provide date (last) tour)) # Response 1. June 23 ish 2. May 4    217 # Response 3. 05-2011 4. a few months ago 5. June 6th 6. June 6th, 2011 7. sometime in June2011 8. early June 9. May 2011 10. June 2011 11. July 12, 2011 12. fall 2010 13. May 2011?  53. How much do you know about your future workspace at CIRS? Response Percentage Count I have seen where it will be located on a building plan 78% 35 I have seen where it will be on a building tour 29% 13 I know what the furniture will be 33% 15 I know which technology I will have access to 27% 12 I don't know anything about it 16% 7 Other, please specify: 0% 0 Total Responses  45  53. How much do you know about your future workspace at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) No responses     218 54. Given your current knowledge, how satisfied are you with your future workspace at CIRS? Response Percentage Count 0 (Very Dissatisfied) 0% 0 1 0% 0 2 0% 0 3 0% 0 4 5% 2 5 11% 5 6 5% 2 7 30% 13 8 18% 8 9 11% 5 10 (Very Satisfied) 9% 4 Not applicable 11% 5 Total Responses  44  Cooling  55. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to cooling the indoor environment at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Operable windows 82% 37 Mechanical system (air conditioning) 27% 12 Solar Shades (outside) 71% 32 Building Orientation 58% 26 Ceiling Fan 18% 8 Don't know 13% 6    219 Response Percentage Count Other, please specify: 7% 3 Total Responses  45  Cooling  55. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to cooling the indoor environment at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. cross-ventilation 2. floor air flow  56. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust cooling at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Open windows 82% 37 Adjust thermostat 29% 13 Operate ceiling fan 24% 11 Request lower temperatures (vote) 40% 18 Nothing it is automatic 7% 3 Don't know 16% 7 Other, please specify: 7% 3 Total Responses  44  56. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust cooling at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. I think workspace specific controls 2. open vents on the ground    220 3. Turn off lights, machines  Heating  57. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to heating the indoor environment at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Operable windows 56% 25 Mechanical system (radiant heat: perimeter heating) 40% 18 Mechanical system (hydronic air: in-floor diffusers) 56% 25 Electric system (i.e. baseboard heaters) 11% 5 Thermal mass 42% 19 Solar panels 29% 13 Passive solar building design 73% 33 Don't know 18% 8 Other, please specify: 7% 3 Total Responses  45  Heating  57. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to heating the indoor environment at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. waste heat from neighbouring building 2. heat from EOS 3. scavenged from adjacent building. i don't know if there's radiant, unless it's related to the hydronic. and what is hydronic air??  58. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust heating at CIRS? Response Percentage Count    221 Response Percentage Count Request temperature change (vote) 49% 21 Adjust thermostat 30% 13 Open diffusers at work desk to increase air flow 58% 25 Plug in personal heater 5% 2 Nothing it is automatic 5% 2 Don't know 26% 11 Other, please specify: 2% 1 Total Responses (N)  43  58. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust heating at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. I think workspace thermostats are available  Lighting  59. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to lighting conditions at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Daylighting 96% 43 Electrical system 53% 24 Personal desk lights 40% 18 Solar Shades (outside) 71% 32 Narrow floor plan 42% 19 Glass partitions in cubicle space 27% 12 Glass walls for offices 53% 24 Large windows 84% 38    222 Response Percentage Count Building orientation 69% 31 Don't know 9% 4 Other, please specify: 2% 1 Total Responses (N)  44  Lighting  59. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to lighting conditions at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. don't know about the glass partitions - would hamper air flow, acoustics  60. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust lighting at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Switch central lighting on or off 36% 16 Use personal desk light 50% 22 Nothing, it is automatic 9% 4 Adjust blinds 64% 28 Request for lights to be turned off (vote) 36% 16 Request for lights to be turned on (vote) 39% 17 Don't know 20% 9 Other, please specify: 5% 2 Total Response (N)  44  60. What actions do you think building inhabitants will be able to take to adjust lighting at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response    223 1. personal lights in office, not sure if they are desk or not, can turn them on/off on the dashboard 2. not sure if will have access to central lighting  Air Quality & Movement  61. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to air quality and movement at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Operable windows 82% 36 Ceiling Fans 23% 10 Mechanical system (hydronic air: in-floor diffusers)) 48% 21 Open concept for air flow 66% 29 Narrow floor plan for cross-ventilation 45% 20 Orientation of the building 45% 20 Don't know 16% 7 Other, please specify: 0% 0 Total Response (N)  44  Air Quality & Movement  61. Which environmental control systems/building design features do you think will contribute to air quality and movement at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) No responses  62. What actions do you think can be taken by building inhabitants to adjust air quality and movement at CIRS? Response Percentage Count Open windows 86% 37 Open/close diffuser at desk to increase/decrease air flow 63% 27 Nothing, it is automatic 5% 2    224 Response Percentage Count Operate ceiling fan 19% 8 Use personal plug-in fan 14% 6 Don't know 14% 6 Other, please specify: 2% 1 Total Response (N)  43  62. What actions do you think can be taken by building inhabitants to adjust air quality and movement at CIRS? (Other, please specify:) # Response 1. are there seriously ceiling fans?? showed up every question ;)  63. Who do you think will be responsible for controlling the building systems influencing indoor conditions at CIRS?   Building Manager A designated person Automated System (sensor activated) Building inhabitants Don't know Total Heating 9 (20%) 2 (5%) 16 (36%) 31 (70%) 7 (16%) 65 Cooling 8 (18%) 2 (5%) 14 (32%) 32 (73%) 8 (18%) 64 Lighting 7 (16%) 1 (2%) 16 (37%) 30 (70%) 7 (16%) 61 Fresh Air 4 (9%) 0 (0%) 13 (30%) 31 (72%) 7 (16%) 55 Noise 3 (7%) 1 (2%) 4 (9%) 29 (67%) 11 (26%) 48  CIRS KNOWLEDGE COMMENTS # Response 1. I feel like I don't know as much as I thought I did! Need for an orientation...I'm am looking forward to moving in though 2. I am not sure if I responded to the above questions accurately. I interpreted the questions as requiring prio knowledge of specific building features. I think there should be "skip to question X" if I already reposnded with I have little to no knowledge of future workspace in #53. Unless I misunderstood this question set as    225 trying to elicit my feedback on what I think the building SHOULD have?? 3. a fair bit of this was guess work. for all the press on CIRS, i don't think i've come across many specific details on building features and systems.  64. How excited are you to be part of the CIRS building? Response Count 10 16 9 15 8 7 7 3 6 2 5 2 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Total Response (N) 45  65. Is there anything that you are concerned about in regards to your move to CIRS? Response Percentage Count Yes 51% 23 No 49% 22 Total Response (N)  45  66. If yes, what are these concerns? # Response    226 # Response 1. I would very much like a permanent desk assignment that is private, but I understand that this may not be possible. 2. How close I will be to a window? What will my work space be like because I actually quite like my existing workspace set up in terms of efficacy. Will the light desk top set up afford me the flexibility I have become used to it? Will require me to spend some of my own money to get a set up that works with my laptop? Will I have the storage space for books etc.. that I currently have? How close to a window will I be? Do I still get free printing or will this come out of my own pocket now? Will I feel like I am too close to my workmates and not enough private space? To be honest, I feel like the easiest thing to do is to just stay where I am but I am really excited to see what CIRS holds (and a little anxious about the change to new environments and habits as well). 3. Not really sure how it's going to work. Will green features impact on comfort? 4. Inhabitants of green buildings are not very satisfied with their environment. 5. I'm hoping my desk can be away from one of my colleagues who is rather tense and I seem to absorbe it from being close by 6. office noise levels because of glass partitions 7. With complexity of design and ambitious energy reduction targets, I am concerned that systems will not perform in real life as they do in models. 8. 1) Are there trees planned for the landscaping? The responsible landscape architect wasn't able to answer that question. 2) How ergonomic is the furniture? 9. Space will be too loud; space will be too small; we have to use a computer to interact with building systems; everything we do is recorded (open windows, etc) a bit like Big Brother 10. Amount of support staff for technical needs. 11. 1) What safeguards are in place to ensure the recycled water is working? What if the recycled water is contaminating the fresh water source? 2) There was a weight concern for placing file cabinets in the building.  What is the weight/pressure threshold for the floor?   3) What contingency plans are in place in case of system failures?  12. South-facing office will result in visual and thermal discomfort 13. Not having an office wall 14. IT and equipment relative to research capabilities; shared and personal work- and support spaces will downsize with unrehearsed, therefore unknown productivity impact; open concept ventilation and acoustic control seems unresolved; there will a lot of heat generating uses and no thermal mass --    227 # Response cooling may be a challenge. 15. I get the feeling that many work areas will be quite busy because people will not have designated workspaces and at first many people will be touring the building. I expect that my productivity will sharply decrease because of these distractions. 16. I wonder if each floor has coffee machine in the kitchen area or each office has to buy their own one. 17. Not knowing what type of workspace I will have (is it loud, can I have a lamp, will I be near a window?). Not knowing if there will be a frige and kitchen appliances. Basically, overall feeling of uncertainty due to not having any mechanism in place for this information to be communicated to future inhabitants (outside of director meetings which not everyone can attend) 18. will the building be ready? 19. Part of my work function is HR and I am concerned that my workspace and the CIRS meeting rooms do not provide enough privacy for confidential meetings. 20. I've heard a lot about building control systems and our interaction with them but I want to make sure that as inhabitants, we are also really on top of waste reduction and water conservation efforts (eg: composting program, deskside recycling, battery recycling, plastics/container recycling). I hope that everyone in the building will get involved with these programs and others.  I am also concerned about how long it will take us to do things like voting on building system controls etc... It will be interesting to find out if this is a system that will work and enhance productivity or if it will be distracting.  My other concern is regarding building a strong, collaborative community of inhabitants. Ie: taking time to say hello, to talk to one another, build a workplace of respect and enable health workplace practices like ergonomics, wellness days, exercise and movement.  Finally, I'm curious about end-of-trip facilities for biking and whether there will be showering facilities for cyclists. 21. Technological changes. If Mac/Apple environment is not conducive to what the building's tech environment. 22. - Less than optimal indoor environment. - Distance from my home department - inadequate office and lab furnishings. 23. that (xxx) will keep me from being in cirs as often as i would like.  the latter in particular is an issue, as when i committed myself to cirs i had no idea at the time that (xxx).     228 67. Are there things that you are looking forward to in regards to your move to CIRS? Response Percentage Count Yes 87% 39 No 13% 6 Total Response (N)  45  68. If yes, what are they? # Response 1. bright, open workspace being a part of a cutting edge building 2. Being in close proximity to a variety of colleagues who were once scattered across campus.  I think I will have more control over personal comfort, lighting, heating etc - but I have lots to learn here.  I'm looking forward to being located in a building a can be proud of and show to colleagues/visitors. 3. Being in such an efficient building. I love the idea of providing the same level of services with far few inputs and impacts on the environment. I really hope that it delivers! 4. New space. Access to natural light and air. Access to roof garden. 5. I'm hoping for shared spaces to meet with colleagues from my department and others.  I'm looking forward to an improved social work environment. 6. Windows! 7. Having a window in the workplace, becoming more familiar with sustainability issues. 8. to satisfy my curiosity about what the building may offer or how it is different. 9. decison theatre, operable windows, and the living wall/garden 10. I am excited to be inhabiting a leading edge building and to see how some of the technologies and design approaches may be transferable to mass construction. 11. The green building design with hopefully a better indoor climate and all the technical equipment. 12. openable windows and cross-ventilation 13. Being surrounded by like-minded people 14. To have full control of the environment that I will be working in.    229 15. Natural Light 16. Interacting with colleagues from different departments.  Very exciting to be surrounded by interesting people. 17. To have more light and airflow around my desk. 18. Being a part of the process to try to determine ways of improving work/study environments within the built environment. 19. sustainable work environment, new office space, more ventilation, better light, co-located with colleagues 20. being in a new building. being in the greenest building in north america. being able to monitor energy consumption real time and alter behaviour. 21. Being in an innovative, green building; collaborating with other inhabitants 22. better air circulation, heating and cooling better lighting at workspaces 23. It's a very good idea and I look forward to being a part; much better proximity, concentration and connectivity to facilities, people and activities supportive of my interests and work; this will likely stimulate new opportunities; I'll learn something about what works (and doesn't) 24. The collection of so many colleagues on sustainability in one building, the opportunity for interaction with them and learning of all the interesting work happening on other departments/groups/labs. 25. more natural light and air in the office 26. It is a new building with lots of windows so air quality and light should be beneficial to enhance work environment.  Most importantly, being situated within larger sustainability team - opportunities for new and enriched collaboration, initiatives, and so much more. 27. - various sustainability groups in one place (working with colleagues) - better office furniture/ergonomics - less noise - common space for informal discussions/reading - cafe with good food! 28. Everything. big windows/ 29. An enhanced work station with a lunch room where me and my colleagues can collaborate 30. Operable window, a view, IT system 31. More heat/cool balance in office.  Proximity to other USI folk 32. My own office space, working together in one space with the whole USI team, sustainable features, technology (ie, Thin Client),  new office equipment and furniture.    230 33. -100% day lighting -user controls over systems like lighting being still next to a window! -I'm very excited about the rain water harvesting and can't wait to see how this works -I'm looking forward to moving into a building where every inhabitant is passionate about sustainability - I think this will be a very invigorating environment to work in -I look forward to the open spaces for eating, collaborating on each floor. We are going to apply for a Health Workplace grant in the fall to propose a morning yoga class for building inhabitants. 34. More showers for use after cycling. Getting the USI team under one roof. 35. Better indoor environment; better acoustics; more places for social interaction; The Loop 36. seeing if and how the building environment enhances productivity and well-being. being involved in the community. 37. - Being part of an experiment. - Interacting with other inhabitants. - Having windows in my lab. 38. the change. the part of being some unique and progressive. i'm interested in seeing how the bldg will influence me and my colleagues. i'm excited to act on the research questions that such a unique initiative will provide. i'm looking forward to meeting a number of people i would not normally meet, and look forward to being a positive contributor to cirs and the community.       231 69. We are interested to find out what you think your experience at CIRS will be like. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. At CIRS, I expect that...  1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Strongly Agree) Don't know N ...air quality will be excellent at all times 0          (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 5 (11%) 12 (27%) 12 (27%) 8       (18%) 3     (7%) 45 ...temperatures will be comfortable at all times in the summer 0          (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 8 (18%) 10 (22%) 8 (18%) 4         (9%) 4     (9%) 45 ...temperatures will be comfortable at all times in the winter 0          (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 9 (20%) 11 (24%) 8 (18%) 6        (13%) 4   (9%) 45 ...lighting conditions will be excellent at all times 0          (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 8 (18%) 7 (16%) 15 (34%) 7        (16%) 3  (7%) 44 ...the acoustic environment will be excellent at all times 1          (2%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 3 (7%) 7 (16%) 6 (13%) 7 (16%) 6 (13%) 6         (13%) 5 (11%) 45 ...my personal work space/desk will be better than my current one 1         (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 7 (16%) 6 (13%) 7 (16%) 9        (20%) 4  (9%) 45 ...the indoor conditions will enhance my productivity 0       (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 5 (11%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 12 (27%) 10 (23%) 5    (11%) 5 (11%) 44 ...the indoor conditions will enhance my personal health 1       (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 6 (13%) 2 (4%) 6 (13%) 10 (22%) 8 (18%) 4     (9%) 6 (13%) 45 ...the indoor conditions will enhance my well-being 1      (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 8 (18%) 1 (2%) 5 (11%) 11 (24%) 10 (22%) 4     (9%) 4    (9%) 45      232    70. Environmental Control System Expectations: At CIRS, I expect that...  1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Strongly Agree) Don't know N ...I will have full control over the indoor environmental conditions 0         (0%) 2 (4%) 5 (11%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 3 (7%) 9 (20%) 5       (11%) 5 (11%) 45 ...the environmental control systems will be fully automated to maintain comfortable indoor conditions 2          (4%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 3 (7%) 6 (13%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 7 (16%) 5       (11%) 5 (11%) 45 ...the environmental control systems will be easy to understand 0          (0%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 3 (7%) 2 (4%) 7 (16%) 7 (16%) 9 (20%) 7       (16%) 5 (11%) 45 ...the environmental control systems will be very conveniently located 0         (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 10 (22%) 5 (11%) 9 (20%) 6       (13%) 6 (13%) 45 ...the environmental control systems will respond in a fast and effective manner 0           (0%) 3 (7%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 4 (9%) 3 (7%) 10 (23%) 7 (16%) 7 (16%) 4         (9%) 4    (9%) 44    233  Expectations comments # Response 1. I heard we'll be able to modify our workstations to our own preferences, and we'll be able to see how much energy we're personally using.  If that's true, I say we have a contest, like Survivor.  The person who uses the most energy in a given week or month or year is publicly outed!  Or made to work over Christmas!  Just kidding, of course. 2. Nothing can be excellent all the time, especially in a new, shared space! I have no real expectations that the indoor environment will be all that noticeably different from where I am now. 3. Having occupied a few green buildings int he past, I have very low expectations for my freedom to affect the indoor environment, and for the accessibility provided to controls by building designers. 4. my expectations of the building enhancing health/ well-being/ productivity are not overwhelmingly high, because i take more responsibility for these things (ie, based on internal, emotional, health etc factors) than they are based on external conditions. also, if i'm in a beautiful and optimally functional space, will this make me want to work more -- or less?? that said, looking forward to seeing if & how these factors might actually be enhanced...  71. Are you completing this survey before or after attending the CIRS Pre-Occupancy workshops? Response Percentage Count Before attending the workshop  98% 43 After attending the workshop  2% 1 Total Response   44  72. If you are completing the survey before attending the workshop, are you planning to attend the workshop? Response Percentage Count Yes 73% 33 No 13% 6 Don't know (please 13% 6    234 Response Percentage Count explain) Total Response  45  72. If you are completing the survey before attending the workshop, are you planning to attend the workshop? (Don't know (please explain)) # Response 1. scheduling (I certainly hope to) 2. May be on vacation. 3. have conflicts with both options 4. on vacation but would like to go 5. Dont know the schedule for workshops  73. What is your gender? Response Percentage Count Female 52% 23 Male 48% 21 Total Response  44  74. What is your age? Removed to protect privacy 75. What is your name? Removed to protect privacy   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0167655/manifest

Comment

Related Items