Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: The Varying Degrees of Truth in the Built Environment

Schools, Air Quality and the Hidden Cost to Future Generations

But it’s worse than that. Take schools for example. We now know from recently published studies in schools that poor air and environmental quality is not only the leading contributor for adolescent chronic diseases (including respiratory, cardiovascular and mental health) which are then taken into adulthood but also are a leading cause for infertility and poor reproduction fitness in women.

Studies also show a 14 -20% drop in academic test results. Is this what the health and wellbeing of future generations is really about? Are these outcomes acceptable from the current system?

What about the people? Do we suffer from poor decisions, made for commercial expedience and financial gain that is not evidence based? Organisations making sales based on misleading LinkedIn marketing campaigns without a shred of evidence on the outcomes of their goods and services. We should be asking: where is the evidence? And asking ourselves - Why don’t we demand it?

When Innovation Becomes a Shield Against Scrutiny

The system has made evidence the enemy of innovation. The people in the system have used it to access a vulnerable and unprotected market – standards have become voluntary, legislation a convenient loophole. Inequalities abound, especially in the built environment where the current standards and legal framework for build actively discriminates against women, as the majority of evidence used to develop standards and legislation is based on old male data.

Is it acceptable that we actively discriminate against 51% of the population because we can’t be bothered to design things properly and actively doing something about the glaring gaps in the evidence?

What the Evidence Actually Tells Us About Indoor Environmental Quality

With regards to evidence, what actually is the evidence that poor building design impacts on the health and wellbeing of occupants? Holistic evaluations of IEQ attempting to incorporate a range of environmental factors, including air pollutants generated outdoors and in the vicinity of the building and with respect components of acoustic, lighting, and thermal quality have described the negative impact of poor IAQ/IEQ on occupants’ health and wellbeing. Within IEQ, acoustic, lighting and visual aspects constitute important and substantial fields of study, even on their own, and can influence ventilation practices.

By triggering many toxicity mechanisms, including oxidative stress, DNA methylation, epigenetic modifications, and gene activation, indoor air pollution can cause a range of health issues. Low birth weight, acute lower respiratory tract infections, sick building syndromes (SBS), and early death are more prevalent in exposed residents.

On the other hand, the main causes of incapacity and early mortality are lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disorders contributing to an age-standardised mortality rate of 1,500 – 5,000 per 100, 000 population consistent across Europe and North America but higher in low- and middle-income countries.

This is not only a health and wellbeing disaster it carries a significant economic burden with cost estimates of £1.08 billion per year for the next 30-years in the UK just due to poor housing.

A Global Health Emergency Hiding in Plain Sight

What might be the solution? A scientifically credible, evidence based approach to re-engineering the built environment is needed now, more than ever, as the awareness of and call for clean indoor air is building to a crescendo.

The United Nations GA 80, WHO and COP are all silent witnesses to a global health emergency due to poor air quality with a mortality rate that dwarfs COVID-19 in its significance and impact on population health and wellbeing. At the same, time the majority of western governments are making significant U-turns in policy, firmly placing climate change in the ‘too hard to do’ box.

How do these two rapidly diverging approaches actually make any sense in the same system? Or is it all a game for the people in control?

From Debate to Reform: What Should Be Done?

What can (and should be done in my humble opinion) if we are to make any sense in the built environment? I feel we need to establish a government funded, independent regulator for the built environment and not leave concordance with standards to be self-regulated by the industry. We should support procurement by publishing independent tests results of monitors (e.g. IAQ and other devices) undertaken by academic partners using standardised protocols that can be replicated internationally.

When reporting and sharing data, base this on actual outcomes not just reporting against exceedance values for compliance which standards bodies currently do (WELL, LEED, BREAM, BRE are all examples of this). We need to base outcomes on actual data collected from people and homes not modelled data which at best is old and at worst misleading.

It makes sense to trust people and organisations with actual expertise and experience, not just how they market themselves on LinkedIn (all because you are a great software developer doesn’t mean you can give an insight into health and wellbeing!).

Building a Better Britain – Or Continuing the Illusion?

Agree, disagree or couldn’t care less? For those of you who actually have an interest and want to see us ‘Building a Better Britain’ let’s start the debate.