I was informed that the survey had glitches and the formatting was hard to read. I edited and hopefully it works better. You are welcome to try again if you didn't complete it. I also made it so that hopefully, some input would allow you to actually end the survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WV56SLL

There is certainly research the other way round and a good deal of it.  We know that contact with nature is sufficiently fundamentally good as to increase the rate of recovery of patients in hospital.  Interestingly of course nature can be brought indoors either physically or by views from windows.  Even a picture can help.  If this interests you then I can point you in the direction of references in that field.  My group focussd for a number of years of all the data that shows how healthcare design can increase wellbeing.  There is now so much of this that new hospitals could be built on the savings that can be made from simply using empirical evidence.  One of the strongest factors is contact with nature.

@Bryan

I am interested in the aspects of nature personally. In fact, I would take on the biophilia approach personally but for the studies I am doing, I have to realize that biophobia exists as well. As an artist I also appreciate art and I personally love landscapes, animals, and nature as well as abstract art. Those forms of art are very meditative to me and calming. I personally have a biased towards green spaces and I feel that the incoming evidence and numbers of the affects of nature is proof that we need more of it. The resources we glean from the environment can also help us support the environment- a proper steward. 

I appreciate the work of commercial and hospital design. I hope to be a part of huge projects like that with my emphasis of Design for Human Health but I feel that residential homes are just as important especially if our lives are spent there and its a priority and even a social status to have or even own a home. People in poverty, people not quite in poverty but able to survive, and people who can live within their means and without the extras or danger of poverty live lives much different from people who don't have the worry or the stress to spend their time and days doing things that are healthily beneficial for them no matter if there is a price tag or not on it. 

My problem is, as an architectural designer, and specifically looking at residential design where we spend most of our time right next to other indoor activities such as work, we haven't done much to improve well being where we spend the most time. 

In health, we teach and preach healthy lifestyles and how it affects us in the long run but unless we are in an environment and culture that supports it, your time at home may be just as big of danger to your health as any other "healthy habit or lifestyle." Granted, their are other factors but this is what I want to find out by my survey.

I want to find out if the layout/floor plan/design of residential homes is functioning in our culture as a first step. Is it getting us to where we need to. Is it supporting the lifestyle that as an American culture we need to survive? Are we still living in home built for a culture that no longer exists? With our new technology and awareness, are the "bandages" we put on our built environment to fix what we need now proof that something needs to change or just an internal/personal need? Is there something wrong in the way we build homes that affects our health? Do we still orientate our homes to take advantage of passive heating and cooling? Are we saving money/energy/and resources by building smart that supports a lifestyle and an income that we need? Although I don't ask income on my survey (because how you spend your money may affect more than just the home you build, its the lifestyle you live), saving money still reduces stress and it is still something people like no matter their income level, to know they are spending less money/bills on something that functions appropriately with quality work, at the right price affects our mental/stress health just as it does our bodies (such as in regulating temperature, right air quality, comfortable social/private spaces, etc.)

I know we have regulations in place but there are loopholes or depending on where you are at, many exceptions or leeway that actually may be part of the issues of our health in relation to the built environment. Air quality, temperature, plumbing, etc. are all a part of separate at home systems such as HVAC systems and the purpose of electricians or plumbers. They have regulations as well and that can be a separate study, thus looking at the floorplan/layout/design rather than the individual systems. I am not a plumber, carpenter, technician, or electrician. I am a designer that can influence how those systems work just as much it affects the family living in their residence. Does my design work matter to their health?

In addition, bringing it back to the nature, is it something that I need to design because our culture actually needs it? In my proposed designs based on what I find, I can put in that flexibility without forcing the person outside. For example, the simple technology of greenhouses/porches/windows can improve well being without imposing unwanted environments.

well the interesting thing about our analysis of architecture and well being research was that although we applied it initially to healthcare the issues turned out to be generic and largely about quality of place.  We found the same ideas worked in school environments.  So it looks to us as if our tool ASPECT has generic value.  You can see all this arguement in my latest chapter listed on here.  Quality of place and wellbeing.  Nature and so on plays a major role.

@Bryan

Thank you for the insight. That would help in my research and I can look up research as well as those key terms.

Hello Chloe,

I recommend you look into the keyword Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) where you may find material for your research.

Best regards,

JP

Thank you Jean-Pierre. I am familiar with that term and a particular case study but that may be an outlet to the direction I need to go. Thank you for the reminder.

The trouble we have found with SBS is that is a vaguely undefined phenomenon that covers such a huge range of possibilities.  It's rather like some of the very early diagnoses in medicine.  It may help point to some better references but our experience is sadly that most publications that refer to it turn out to be as sloppy as the term.  By almeans use it to search but beware!

From a clinical perspective, in the following related studies, Kembel et al showed that conventionally, indoor microbiomes were significantly more pathogenic to humans than outdoor air. Naturally ventilated buildings tend to have higher biodiversity but are less pathogenic.

1. Kembel, S. W. et al. Architectural design influences the diversity and structure of the built environment microbiome. ISME J. 6, (2012).  http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ismej.2011.211

2. Kembel, S. W. et al. Architectural Design Drives the Biogeography of Indoor Bacterial Communities. PLoS One 9, e87093 (2014).  http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087093

Dr Jessica Green gives a wonderful overview of their work in her TED Talks. https://youtu.be/6nc_X3wzW-0

see also:

3. Wargocki, P., Wyon, D. P., Sundell, J., Clausen, G. & Fanger, P. O. The effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity. Indoor Air 10, 222–236 (2000).  http://doi.wiley.com/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004222.x

4. Godish, T. & Spengler, D. Relationship Between Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality: A Review. Indoor Air 6, 135–145 (1996). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0668.1996.00010.x

@Bryan

This is true. SBS does have issues but there may be articles that tried to explore why this happened and thus, a possible analyses of the human user and building error. The case study I am most familiar with is where the ventilation systems were put in bathrooms where the bacteria from sick people then traveled to other people and made all the people sick. There were other issues as well but it depends on the building I guess.

@Toby

Thank you for those research options. I will definitely look them over.

It is obvious from all your posts that there are two major groups of effects and you might do well to categorise and analyse separately.  There are the physical problems recently covered in thenSBS posts and the psychological problems which my contribution focussed on.

I should have included this recent article describing the proximity effects of indoor airborne disease transmission.

1. Liu, L., Li, Y., Nielsen, P. V., Wei, J. & Jensen, R. L. Short-range airborne transmission of expiratory droplets between two people. Indoor Air 1–11 (2016). doi:10.1111/ina.12314 .

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ina.12314

This relates quite strongly to occupancy rates in congregate settings and puts the proverbial cat among the pigeons in terms of the currently prescribed occupancy rates.

You should also investigate the Wells-Riley model and how that relates to the impact of ventilation rates and occupancy levels on disease transmission.

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ina.12314

@Bryan

Yes, there are two aspects, at least. In my program, we focus on 3 aspects to the element of design in architecture, psychological, psychosocial, and physical. In holistic terms it would be mind, body, and spirit.  Either way, it is looking at the well-being as a whole. In the program, it makes sense to analyze all parts of said focus. Yes, it is complicated and more work but it is more complete and applicable to the end goal. 

@Toby

Thank you for the additional resource.

Dear Chloe,

As you've mentioned, there is neither pure and absolute indoors nor outdoors space existing. There are only conventional assumptions about in and out in general. Light, sound, air, people, money, electricity, waste, etc. enter and exit from our indoors spaces. Therefore you need to define what you mean by indoors and outdoors before answering your research question. No robust research about indoors could be done neglecting outdoors and borders though. Perhaps a responsive approach in your research would be to study the relationship between health and environment and try to look at the problem from a selection of different points of view e.g. daylight, acoustics, pollution, sense of place,... and then try to define the borders you find functioning or even wipe them out regarding conventional perception. 

Thank you Aryan. As of now, I am sticking with my approach on the movement through space and well being rather than defining indoors and outdoors but if it is a question to consider, I may address it as why I chose not to go that particular direction. I appreciate the advice.