Tobacco Documents Online

A CHARACTERIZATION OF METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING HUMAN RESPONSES TO THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT Nisha P. Sensharma, Patricia K. Edwards, James E. Woods, Julie Seelen Indoor Environment Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, U.S.A. SUMMARY This paper characterizes human responses to indoor environments in terms of four domains, and identifies two types of confounding factors, namely, extraneous factors and methodological effects that may reduce the internal validity of the results of building diagnostics. A process of systematically matching human response domains, methodologies, and confounding factors is proposed to improve the accuracy of diagnostic procedures. RESULTS The typology of human response (Figure 1) is based on Iwo objects of evaluation: Personal State and Environment, and Iwo aspects of evaluation: Perceptual and Affective. M:zlraneous factors (physical-environmenlal, adaptive, intrinsic, social-environmental and psychotogicai-environmental factors, secular trends and risk perception) can be arranged in a hierarchy associated with these human response domains (Figure 2). 'I'hree types of methodologies currently available to assess each human response domain can be identilied, based on the length of time Ihat respondcnls spend in the environment being evaluated and the amount of control over environmental and respondent characteristics. Each of these methodologies can be associated wilh rive types of methodological effects (see Figure 2). APPLICATION TO BUILDING DIAGNOSTICS Appropriate human response domains and the corresponding melhodolugies can be identified for investigating three of four different building conditions, namely, healthy buildings, undelecled problem buildings, and buildings manifesting the Sick Ituilding Syndrome. Iluman response domains can be malched wilh extraneous factors, and methodologies with methodological effects. Consequently, appropriate methodologies can be selected to control for the effects of these Iwo Iypes of confounding factors for different building conditions. For healthy buildings, persunal-affective responses acsessed by occupant melhtKioluRies are most suitable. Panel methodologies assessing environmenlat-perceplual responses are appropriatc for undelected problem buiWings, and persunal-perceptual responses assessed by occupant melhodologies are appropriate for buildings manifesting the Sick Buikling Syndrome. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OBJECT ASPECT OF JUDGEMENT OF JUDGEMENT Perceptual Affective Environment E"t.m'1'«"°rY A°°.ot'wWH r Prelerence Personai state inlertil seMpy rlspaM. G.n.rai physioloaicat Caniort symploms Figure 1. A typology of human response 1 i Extraneous W ~°z Y /actors W 41 L rn~ ¢a J -~ J J W' J>. < W a ut > J W a > ~ W ~ li ~ W ~ W ¢ a W d Human response domains Available methodologies PANELS SUBJECTS OCCUPAtITS hi gh high low high medium low medium high medium high high low low /ow high T Rdlabiiity Methodological s,~..a. w.. effects Test rN W S Predictiv" val/ditq Gerter.8 mbiNty We are pleased to acknowledge Ihe partial support of Philip Figure 2. Relationships between human response Morris II.S.A. for this stuuy. domains, extraneous factors, and methodological effects