Relationship between indoor environmental quality criteria and occupant satisfaction in CES-Certified buildings in Chile

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18537/est.v015.n030.a15

Keywords:

office buildings, environmental certification, indoor environmental quality, post-occupancy evaluation, occupant well-being

Abstract

Sustainability certification systems evaluate different building categories in order to reduce emissions, improve energy performance, and promote occupant well-being. Among these, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) focuses on ensuring occupant comfort. This study analyzes whether the design strategies implemented to obtain scores in the IEQ category within the Chilean Sustainable Building Certification system (CES) effectively guarantee the satisfaction of people working in these spaces. Through a comparative study between CES technical documentation and occupant surveys conducted in two certified office buildings, the consistency between certification criteria and perceived comfort was examined. The results show that the CES tool prioritizes IEQ within its framework, which corresponds with high levels of occupant satisfaction, particularly in terms of thermal and visual comfort.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al Horr, Y., Arif, M., Katafygiotou, M., Mazroei, A., Kaushik, A., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.006

Altomonte, S., & Schiavon, S. (2013). Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Building and Environment, 68, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.06.008

Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S., Kent, M. G., & Brager, G. (2019a). Indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction in green-certified buildings. Building Research & Information, 47(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1383715

Altomonte, S. (2019b). Defining comfort, satisfaction, health and well-being. En E. Naboni & L. Havinga (Eds.), Regenerative design in digital practice: A handbook for the built environment (pp. 300–305). Eurac Research / KADK: COST Action RESTORE.

Bluyssen, P. M. (2014a). What do we need to be able to (re)design healthy and comfortable indoor environments? Intelligent Buildings International, 6(2), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.866068

Bluyssen, P. M. (2014b). The healthy indoor environment: How to assess occupants’ wellbeing in buildings. Routledge.

Chávez-Finol, F., Trebilcock-Kelly, M., y Piderit-Moreno, M. B. (2021). Diseño de edificios de oficinas sustentables para promover ocupantes sustentables. Hábitat Sustentable, 11(2), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.22320/07190700.2021.11.02.03

De Giuli, V., Da Pos, O., & De Carli, M. (2012). Indoor environmental quality and pupil perception in Italian primary schools. Building and Environment, 56(2012), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.03.024

Elnaklah, R., Fosas, D. & Natarajan, S. (2020). Indoor environment quality and work performance in “green” office buildings in the Middle East. Building Simulation, 13(5), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-020-0695-1

Frontczak, M., & Wargocki, P. (2011). Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Building and Environment, 46(4), 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.10.021

Instituto de la Construcción. (2014). Certificación Edificio Sustentable: Manual de evaluación y calificación 1. https://certificacionsustentable.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/27310_Manual1_EvaluacionCalificacion_v1.1_2014.05.28.pdf

Labartino, I. (2018). Building certification as a driver in green building design [Thesis de máster, Chalmers University of Technology]. Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet (DiVA). http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-40412

Larsen, T. S., Ramos, N. M. M., Jensen, K. L., Jensen, R. L., & Wargocki, P. (2020). IEQ-Compass – A tool for holistic evaluation of potential indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment, 172(2020), 106707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106707

Leder, S., Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S., & Charles, K. E. (2016). Effects of office environment on employee satisfaction: A new analysis. Building Research & Information, 44(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.1003176

Lee, Y. S., & Guerin, D. A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 18(4), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X09105455

Lee, Y. S., & Guerin, D. A. (2010). Indoor environmental quality differences between office types in LEED-certified buildings in the US. Building and Environment, 45(5), 1104–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.019

Lee, J. Y., Wargocki, P., Chan, Y. H., Chen, L., & Tham, K. W. (2019). Indoor environmental quality, occupant satisfaction, and acute building-related health symptoms in Green Mark-certified compared with non-certified office buildings. Indoor Air, 29(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12515

Lefa, N., & Lefas, P. (2020). Buildings used: Human interactions with architecture. Routledge.

Li, P., Froese, T. M., & Brager, G. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Building and Environment, 133(2018), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.024

Liang, H. H., Chen, C. P., Hwang, R. L., Shih, W. M., Lo, S. C., & Liao, H. Y. (2014). Satisfaction of occupants toward indoor environment quality of certified green office buildings in Taiwan. Building and Environment, 72(2014), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.11.007

McArthur, J. J., & Powell, C. (2020). Health and wellness in commercial buildings: Systematic review of sustainable building rating systems. Building and Environment, 171(2020), 106635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106635

Park, J., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. H. (2017). Critical review of the material criteria of building sustainability assessment tools. Sustainability, 9(2), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020186

Shan, M., & Hwang, B. G. (2018). Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research efforts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39(2018), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.034

Trebilcock-Kelly, M., & Chávez-Finol, F. (2022). Impact of indoor environmental quality criteria on the certification of sustainable office buildings in Chile. Arquiteturarevista, 18(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.4013/arq.2022.182.02

Downloads

Published

2026-06-15

How to Cite

Salazar-Vera, C., Trebilcock Kelly, M. E., & Wegertseder-Martinez, P. (2026). Relationship between indoor environmental quality criteria and occupant satisfaction in CES-Certified buildings in Chile. Estoa. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, 15(30), e6202. https://doi.org/10.18537/est.v015.n030.a15

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 30 (2026): Estoa 30 (July - December 2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Estoa. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Journal declines any responsibility for possible conflicts derived from the authorship of the works that are published in it.
The University of Cuenca in Ecuador conserves the patrimonial rights (copyright) of the published works and will favor the reuse of the same ones, these can be: copy, use, diffuse, transmit and expose publicly.
Unless otherwise indicated, all contents of the electronic edition are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Funding data