Building and Environment 191 (2021) 107581
Available online 7 January 2021
0360-1323/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Good indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and high energy efficiency in
multifamily dwellings: How do tenants view the conditions needed to
achieve both?
Eja Pedersen
a,*, Jonas Borell
b, Yujing Li
c, Kristian Stålne
caEnvironmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden bErgonomics and Aerosol Technology, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden cMaterials Science and Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Technology and Society, Malm¨o University, SE-205 06, Malm¨o, Sweden
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Sustainable housing Multifamily apartment building Rental housing
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) Energy use
User interface
A B S T R A C T
Sustainable housing that both creates good indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and avoids unnecessary energy use has proved difficult to realize. Renovations of multifamily houses provide an opportunity to find this balance. This study concerns whether tenants perceive that conditions for achieving sufficient IEQ with low energy use exist. Focus group interviews with 42 participants, in areas where the rents were in the lower range and included heating up to 21 ◦C, aimed to capture the tenants’ perceptions of: IEQ and actions taken to regulate it; infor-mation and control; the connections between IEQ and energy use; and the role of the housing company. Good IEQ was crucial to interviewees, who described it as sufficient heat without draughts, ability to ventilate, and no disturbing sounds or smells. The main responsibility was attributed to the housing company, but daily regulation controlled by tenants. However, unclear interfaces between tenants and the systems that regulate IEQ make it difficult for tenants to act as a positive part of the system. Tenants did not link IEQ to energy use. A holistic view of the physical environment’s affordances, including intuitive interfaces, could optimize the balance between good IEQ and energy use.
1. Introduction
There is ongoing effort in the building sector in the global temperate zone to realize sustainable housing with low energy demand, minimum environmental impact, and healthy indoor environments. This results, for example, in what are called green buildings or zero-energy housing [1]. However, it will take a long time before such housing becomes a significant portion of the total building stock. For the foreseeable future, most of the population will continue living in today’s more conventional housing. Many residential buildings in Europe were built after the Sec-ond World War, from 1946 to 1970, the proportion ranging from 17% of dwelling units (in multi- or single-family housing) in France to 46% in Germany, with Sweden’s 37% in between [2].
Characteristic of Sweden is that 50% of its dwellings are in multi-family housing buildings, of which 77% were built before 1970, with a peak in the 1960s [3], resulting in large and rather homogeneous resi-dential areas. Many of these buildings, about half a century old, have recently been, or are about to be, renovated, mainly to repair wear, but
also to make them more energy efficient [4]. For the renovations to be classified as sustainable, social aspects must also be considered [5], and the renovations should not result in the rent having to be raised more than the tenants can afford. Most renovations of multifamily buildings in Sweden therefore include basic repairs such as replacing windows and adjusting the ventilation, but without advanced high-tech solutions.
A main challenge identified in energy renovations of buildings is ensuring that indoor environmental quality (IEQ) goals are met at the same time [6]. Since buildings are complex systems, a measure intended to improve one condition could lead to the deterioration of others [7]. Although research on IEQ has been extensive, at least for discrete pa-rameters, there is still no clear answer as to how to define a good indoor environment from a holistic perspective [6], or how it should technically be measured, though suggestions have been made [8]. There are several expert assessment tools for evaluating renovations of multifamily housing based not only on energy efficiency, but also on changes in IEQ. In practice, such evaluation is rarely done, and even if it is, the intention is mostly to confirm that single known problems have been addressed * Corresponding author. Lund University, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.
E-mail address: eja.pedersen@arkitektur.lth.se (E. Pedersen).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Building and Environment
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenvhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107581
[9]. Tenants’ perspectives are scarcely captured, even in those evalua-tions that are quite comprehensive [10], though overall consumer satisfaction-type ratings are sometimes used.
Occupants’ behaviours, and behavioural change due to energy ren-ovations, significantly affect the general IEQ as well as how well the energy-efficiency goals are met [11,12]. As is repeatedly stated, resi-dents are not primarily energy consumers but individuals in need of a comfortable home [13], trying to rationally interact with the complex system that regulates the IEQ. Although a building’s physical and technical aspects are conducive to improved energy efficiency and IEQ, the ultimate performance relies on the system of building and tenants operating together. For example, airing habits, thermostat adjustments, and the interplay between household activities and settings of technical installations contribute significantly to the outcome. IEQ should be understood from a holistic perspective as resulting from a complex system involving constant interactions between technical, physical, and human factors [14]. Achieving the desired balance between IEQ and energy use requires the right conditions, such as effective technical systems and professional management, as well as opportunities for tenants to contribute constructively. Knowledge of the conditions for achieving good IEQ with low energy use in dwellings is deficient, with a shortage of holistic studies and studies that consider dwelling occupants as individuals.
Given current efforts to create sustainable housing, it is essential to ensure that residents perceive a renovation as benefitting their housing situation. This requires knowledge and an in-depth understanding of human behaviour. Ignoring tenants’ perspectives can raise barriers be-tween the design of the technical and physical systems and how these systems are understood and operated by the people depending on them. There is a need to investigate how tenants perceive the IEQ in their dwellings, how they reason about their interaction with the regulatory systems, and how they perceive the effects of renovations. Tenants are a heterogeneous group and individual differences will affect their per-ceptions of IEQ and interactions with the regulating systems. People differ in sensitivity to their physical surroundings and in how they perceive, for example, temperature and noise [15], likely not tempo-rarily but rather as a partly genetic psychological trait [16]. The indi-vidual appraisal of IEQ, together with subsequent behaviour, is also influenced by perceiving oneself knowledgeable of the system [17] and in control [18–20]. The appraisal is linked not just to the physical environment and individual resources, but also to the social climate in which it occurs [21]. Trust in an authority responsible for handling an issue and the presence of a trustworthy party perceived as capable of remedying problems and possible to contact expand the available behaviour alternatives [22,23]. To explore these aspects, a focus group interview study was conducted among tenants living in 1960s housing that had been moderately renovated to different degrees. The focus group interview is a well-established qualitative method found useful in complex system studies in which people are encouraged to reflect on a topic collectively, allowing a broader perspective than is usually possible in a quantitative survey [24]. Instead of striving for a repre-sentative sample of a population, as in e.g. a questionnaire survey, a focus group study aims to understand people’s experiences around a situation or a phenomena, in this case IEQ and energy. Participants are sought who want to share their thoughts, and who, with their different backgrounds together can contribute to an in-depth understanding. The results from a focus group study are therefore not generalizable, but have their validity in that they are transferable to other contexts. The method has its strength in the analysis of how the participants reason and discuss with each other, which enables new knowledge that extends beyond the numbers that a quantitative study presents.
This study was part of the
People-–Environment–Indoor–Renovation–Energy (PEIRE) project, which studies IEQ and energy from a holistic socio–technological perspective. The main objective of PEIRE is to understand how good IEQ and low energy use can be achieved simultaneously in multifamily housing,
given the limitations of real-world settings. The present study examines the conditions for achieving sufficient IEQ with low energy use from tenant perspectives. Questions raised when approaching this objective con-cerned how tenants: (i) appraised the IEQ in their flats and potentially acted on it; (ii) recalled being informed of and perceived their ability to technically control the IEQ in their dwellings; (iii) connected energy use to IEQ management; and (iv) viewed the role and responsibility of external stakeholders, i.e. the housing company that owned and managed the area, and the energy company providing the heating.
The preconception forming the basis of the study design and analyses can be described as a cycle in which the perceived IEQ is valued by the tenants, in some cases leading to action, which in turn changes the IEQ and consequently also the energy use. This study focuses on the non- technical part of this cycle, and on tenants’ perspectives on the appraisal process and their opportunities to act.
2. Method 2.1. Study areas
The study was conducted in three residential areas in Lund, Sweden, comprising multifamily rental housing built in the 1960s and owned by the municipal housing company, all with rents in the lower range in Sweden, especially when compared with those of newly built flats (Table 1). All these areas were connected to the district heating network, and heated water was distributed from one or more substations in the areas to the flats’ thermostat-equipped radiators. The rent included heating up to 21 ◦C, but tenants could pay extra for a higher indoor temperature. The system was called Comfort Heating, and was based on the average temperature in the flats during the heating season, i.e. October to April, when the outdoor temperature was below 13 ◦C. In areas I and III, Comfort Heating was also synonymous with a feedback system in the form of displays in the flats that showed the average temperature per day and that also included a burglar alarm. The displays were of different designs and situated at different places in the flats, depending on when they had been installed. The ventilation system was initially mechanical air exchange with extraction in the kitchen and bathroom, and passive air intake through vents in the façade. The buildings in Area I had not undergone any extensive renovation, but ongoing maintenance had been conducted. Area II had been renovated with new windows and doors, façade sealing, and other major in-terventions, such as replacing sewer lines. In one of the 38 buildings, which served as a pilot for the renovations, a ventilation system with preheated inlet air was tested. Evaluation showed that there were problems with this solution, and it was not used in renovating the other 37 buildings. The ventilation system was therefore the same after the renovation, though the air extraction units had been updated. Of the three areas, Area III was renovated the most. Here, the ventilation sys-tem was changed to controlled intake and extraction mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, i.e. balanced heat recovery (BHR) ventilation. In all three residential areas, the number of rooms in the flats varied from one to four rooms, and the sizes of the flats from 26 m2 to 112 m2.
2.2. Study participants
The study was introduced to and approved by the housing company and the regional tenant association. Households in the three residential areas were invited to participate by a letter with a pre-paid return en-velope delivered to their mailboxes. The invitation referred to group discussions about the indoor environment in their flats without defining IEQ or otherwise trying to influence potential participants in any di-rection. Tenants interested in participating were contacted and signed up for groups based on the day and time suitable for them. Some po-tential participants cancelled at the last minute, referring to their own or close relatives’ illness. Finally, 42 people participated, 27 women and 15
men, aged 28–86 years, distributed over a total of 12 groups. The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board (Dnr 2016/841), and all participants provided written informed consent. The participants received a cinema ticket or lottery tickets after the interview.
2.3. Focus group interviews and analysis
The interview protocoll was designed to capture the participants’ perception of the IEQ, as well as their understanding of the regulating system and possible strategies to mitigate unsatisfactory indoor envi-ronments (Table 2). It further dealt with recollection of received infor-mation, including opportunities to assess feedback related to behaviour that could affect energy use, and experiences of control over the system regulating the IEQ. Social trust was discussed in terms of responsibility and who to turn to in unsatisfactory situations. The interviews started with an open question to the group about how they perceived the indoor environment in their flats. The first environmental aspect that was mentioned (i.e. heating, ventilation, daylight, or noise) was discussed,
after which the interviewer steered the conversation so that the other three predetermined aspects were also covered. The interviewer fol-lowed the guide, but if a subject covered in the guide was spontaneously mentioned before the interviewer introduced it, the group was encour-aged to continue this thread. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The text was analysed in the software ATLAS. ti, version 7.5.18, using a line-by-line coding procedure. The categories followed the themes of the research questions, while the codes were formulated after an initial reading of the texts. In total, 37 codes were used, most of which were in line with the pre-understanding; for example, in the theme “Perception”, the category “Temperature” comprised the codes “Temperature and heat” and “Draughts”. However, novel codes also emerged; for example, in the theme “Taking action”, which included several codes classified as “Active” and “Passive” actions, the code “Be concerned about not dis-turbing others” was identified. The material was analysed in an iterative process in which the significance of the quotations was compared and summarized, and emerging similarities and differences were viewed in the light of the theoretical framework. The results are presented in the Table 1
Study areas.
AREA I AREA II AREA III
Built 1965 1968 1965
No. of flats 400 352 72
Characteristics Four eight-storey buildings and four two-storey
buildings in two clusters Thirty-eight two-storey buildings in seven clusters Four three-storey buildings in one cluster Status No extensive renovation. Renovated 2011–2014 Renovated 2015–2016
Change to BHR
Display Display in the living room by the cable TV socket No display Display in the entrance of the flat Heating - Included in the rent (up to 21 ◦C).
- Possibility to pay more for increased “comfort heat”
Table 2
Interview protocol.
HEATING VENTILATION DAYLIGHT NOISE OTHER
ASPECTS
Perception How do you experience the indoor climate in your flat?
How are you affected by the indoor environment in your flat? What kind of heating is
this? How does it work? What kind of ventilation is this? How does it work? How do you adjust the daylight in your flat? How does it work? (Only areas II and III) Did you live here before the renovation? Do you notice any difference?
Taking action What do you do if you think
it is too hot or too cold? What do you do if you think the air is bad? What do you do if you think it is too light or too dark? What do you do if you think it is too quiet or too noisy?
Information Have you received any information on how the heat and
ventilation work and how to regulate them?
Do you have the possibility to see [an indication of] the temperature or air quality in your flat? Do you have the possibility to see how much electricity you are using?
Do you have the possibility to see how much heat you are using?
Perceived ability to control How much can you regulate the heat in the flat yourself?
How much can you regulate the
ventilation in your flat yourself? How much can you regulate the daylighting yourself? Can you influence how much noise there is in your flat?
Energy You can choose an electricity provider yourself. Have you done that? Why/why not?
How is the electricity produced by your electricity provider?
You cannot choose who delivers the heating. What kind of heating is used in the area?
What responsibility does the energy provider have to ensure as little environmental impact as possible? Do they take that responsibility?
Social trust Who has the responsibility for a good indoor environment?
Who do you turn to if you are unsatisfied with the temperature or air quality?
next section, following the initial research questions and coding themes, though adjusted to fit the interviewees’ own stories.
3. Results
The interviewees participating in each focus group revealed strong ties to their housing area and described it as a place where they belonged. The quality of their homes, the rest of the building, and the outdoor environment was important, and they expressed a sense of personal responsibility for both the physical and social environments. When deviations from what they considered good quality were dis-cerned, it was important for them that these were corrected. The indoor environment, which was the focus of the interviews, was expected to be of a certain quality. IEQ was similarly discussed in all groups, and ex-periences of the indoor environment, possible ways of acting, and the relationship with the housing company formed a shared story. However, the view of the actual conditions and how IEQ could, and should, be regulated differed, giving rise to heated discussions between the in-terviewees. In contrast, the connection between IEQ and energy use seemed to be a non-issue that few wanted to address.
In all groups, the IEQ was discussed as part of living in a dwelling, and not as separate from other issues, both personal, such as stage of life, and physical, such as the outdoor surroundings. The constituents of IEQ were also discussed as a whole, resulting in summarizing stories that included many topics within the focus of this study. The following structured presentation of the results promotes understanding from a scientific perspective, but does not reflect the tenants’ way of telling. In each section, however, the text is written so as to capture the in-terviewees’ views.
3.1. Perception of IEQ
3.1.1. Temperature and draughts: too cold and draughty, and too hot The group interviews usually started with discussion of the temper-ature in the dwelling in response to an open question regarding IEQ. The main reported problem, though not agreed on by everyone, was that the dwellings were too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer. Indi-vidual differences in perception, as a personality trait or as effects of what the interviewees were used to, were acknowledged by the in-terviewees in terms of being a person who easily gets cold or a person who sits still a lot. Individual differences were also used to reinforce the problem, as in “Even I who am usually warm think it is cold”.
Stories about problems with low temperatures were told in all areas, though more frequently in Area I, not yet renovated, especially in connection with draughts. There was a shared understanding that the design and construction of the building was the main reason for the inadequate temperature control, and that it mattered where in the building one’s flat was located. Several interviewees had also experi-enced that strong winds from a particular direction cooled the flat, resulting in uneven temperature within the flat. The connection between heat and draughts was described by participant (P) number 17, referring to the housing company as “them”:
P17: The thing is that I have tried to explain to them that it is not the heat we have problems with, but it is the draughts we have problems with. And then you can raise the heat as much as you want, and you never get too hot. Because if you have a constant draught, you do not feel the heat. (Area I)
3.1.2. Air quality and ventilation: we don’t want to smell what the neighbours are doing
Although the temperature was the issue usually addressed first in the discussions, the importance of ventilation was also stressed by the in-terviewees and seemed to have the greatest impact on their daily life. Most problems related to neighbours’ cooking generating unpleasant
smells, or to their bathrooms. Cigarette smoke from outside was also considered a problem. The interviewees related these problems to the ventilation system. However, the connection seemed difficult to un-derstand and describe. For example, it was unclear to several of the interviewees which of the visible vents in the flat were air inlets and which were extractors.
Some problems with unwanted smells were attributed to the stair-wells and leaky doors, or to the fact that all flats were connected to the same ventilation duct. Most interviewees in Area III, where the venti-lation system had been changed to a BHR system, experienced improved ventilation. However, some noticed that the air exchange rate had increased, leading them to perceive the indoor temperature as too cold. Air quality as such and possible health effects were not an issue in any of the groups, though ventilation was heatedly discussed.
3.1.3. Daylighvt and lighting: no street lamps just outside my window, please
The architecture of the buildings was often praised and most in-terviewees were satisfied with the available daylight. The renovations in areas II and III, which entailed replacing windows but no actual change in the façade design, were perceived as not having had any impact on daylight access. The summer before the interviews took place had, by Swedish standards, been sunny, and some groups discussed how the light could be kept out to prevent the flats from becoming too hot, assuming that this was the tenants’ own responsibility. In general, too little daylight did not seem to be an issue, although a flat’s position in the building as well as the presence of trees near the windows could make the flat darker than ideal. What bothered the interviewees more was having a streetlight just outside the window, which could cause annoyance when the light intruded into the flat during the hours of darkness. This seemed to be a problem that occurred now and then, but that could be rather easily addressed by contacting the housing company to adjust the streetlight.
P22: That outdoor streetlight, it’s … P23: It’s annoying.
P22: … actually extremely annoying. We have to …
P24: But you, you can’t … a few years ago, it was also complained about. What did they do? Well, they changed something so it wouldn’t be so bright.
P22: So?
P24: So contact them. (Area III)
3.1.4. Noise from neighbours: you have to accept some but not all Noise was the inconvenience that prompted the longest discussions and was something everyone, with only one or two exceptions, had experienced. The main reported noise source was the sound of neigh-bours in other flats or of stairwell traffic. This could be tolerated to some degree, especially noise due to daily activities that were part of life. Children were also commonly excused, if not too noisy. However, noise late at night or music at high volume at any time was intolerable. Traffic noise, especially from motorbikes, was reported by some who lived on the edges of the otherwise mainly green residential areas. Appliance noise in the flat, for example, from the fridge, was not as frequently mentioned, although some were annoyed by noise from the ventilation system. A new noise source was the garbage disposal facility located in the middle of buildings in Area I. The system was installed to promote recycling and was designed to be easily accessible to the tenants, which the interviewees approved of. However, the different waste fractions were collected by trucks, sometimes early in the morning, generating intolerable noise.
insulated to prevent sound from entering the flats, this being noted both by interviewees expressing annoyance and those not annoyed by noise. Sometimes the noise from neighbours could not be identified, leading interviewees to wonder what was happening, and this was problematic as the noise was difficult to ignore. Furthermore, the origin of noise and how it travelled through the building construction caused uncertainty, which was difficult to disregard.
3.2. Recollection of information, perceived ability, and taking action 3.2.1. Regulating the indoor environment: no, or unwanted, effects
The radiators in the flats were equipped with graduated thermostats. Several groups questioned how or whether they actually functioned, as the interviewees had found that turning the knob to the left or right did not change the temperature of the radiator. The buildings were con-structed at a time when high-temperature water was circulated in the radiators. At the time of the interviews, the water temperature was lower and was regulated based on the outdoor temperature, indoor temperature, and temperature of the water returning to the central heating station – as explained by one interviewee. The thermostats therefore played a minor role, which seemed confusing. Some flats had temperature sensors placed just under the ceiling, and the temperature in the flat at the height of approximately 2 m was estimated by an al-gorithm to establish whether the tenant should pay for extra heat, defined as the temperature exceeding 21 ◦C. This was not generally known, and those who learned about it were sceptical of the procedure, not trusting it to be fair.
P38: Yes, but these thermostats do not work. P39: No?
P38: No, no. Not at our place anyway.
P39: So, works or works. Well, there are only two modes, actually. It is graded from one to seven, but there are only two temperatures – it’s nothing or everything. (Area II)
How to regulate the air flow in the flats was also a common subject of discussion in the groups. Several interviewees seemed unaware that the inlet air flow could be regulated, and when others tried to tell them how to do this, it became apparent that the design of the inlet vents did not clearly show how to use them, or even whether they were actually open or closed. Some interviewees were also afraid of opening the inlet vents, even though they perceived the air flow to be insufficient, as they were unsure whether this would result in charges for extra heat.
P10: There is an exhaust air valve in the bathroom and then the kitchen fan runs. That one we cannot control ourselves, but the … P11: But is that not also ventilation, those that are placed behind like this? But they are not in every room I think, huh?
P10: No.
P12: What are you pointing at when you say … ? P11: Behind the radiators here, there is such a big thing. P12: Yes, yes, just that. Is it also … ?
P11: And you can close it and there is a lever to tighten. And when you close it, you get no fresh air. I can’t remember which way it is, but you can test it.
P11: If you open more, you get more cold air.
P10: You almost have to have some tool to access it, some a little longer thing to poke it with. (Area 1)
It was unusual for the interviewees to use the feedback systems provided via Internet or the displays in their flats. Some did not know
that it was possible to see the average temperature, and some knew but did not bother. In Area III, where some flats had recently been broken into, the system was associated with an alarm that could be activated via the displays, but most did not use that either.
3.2.2. Recollection of information: maybe I got some info, but I did not pay attention
A prerequisite for interaction with devices that regulate IEQ is being informed, or rather feeling sufficiently informed to act with confidence and, in cases of automatization, to trust that the systems are working properly. The interviewees commonly had difficulties recalling whether they had received any systematic information on the heating system when they moved into their flats. This was one interview topic that evoked rather long discussions in which the interviewees did not reach any conclusions. One interviewee who was new to the area claimed that he did not receive any information when he moved in, while those who had moved in long ago were more cautious in their statements. In another group, one interviewee recalled getting information when he moved in and another added that there were also instructions on the housing company’s website, but both dismissed such information as too extensive to absorb. The interviewees blamed the housing company for the information not having reached them, as the company had provided such difficult texts and difficult-to-access information. Other in-terviewees took responsibility themselves, and confessed that they had got information, but not read it at the time. They believed that it was up to them to read and understand the information provided:
P6: I think I should have got into this myself. That … I got … So, after a long, long time, I got information about how it worked, but I actually couldn’t bear to get into it, but I just “yes, yes”.
P7: How did you get information?
P6: But I actually found … well, I found one of those housing folders … with instructions about refrigerators and freezers and so on. And in it, I found those instructions. But then I had lived there for a while before looking into it. So … well, actually. (Area I)
Formal information from the housing company was a requirement, according to the interviewees, but informal paths of becoming informed seemed more important. Some had been told how to ventilate, for example, after showering, by friends or relatives who worked in the construction industry. Most commonly recalled and trusted, however, was information transferred to the tenants by caretakers or repairmen. Obtaining information from people coming into the flat to fix something could be problematic if the information was contradictory, though. This was especially the case regarding how to ventilate, as one contractor might state that the vents should always be open while another stated that they should usually be closed. The diversity of the interviewees’ recollections of whether and how they had been informed about the system, and what this information included, was reflected throughout the interviews in the various stories about the indoor climate regulation system. In Area III, which had been subject to excessive renovation, one interviewee recalled receiving written information directly from the subcontractor, but this information concerned only what the contractor had installed, and not how the system as a whole should be regulated. 3.2.3. Perceived ability to control the IEQ: how much control do we want?
There were large differences between individuals in their under-standing of the systems and their perceived ability to regulate it, and few seemed confident in their interactions with the heating and ventilation system. Some groups included interviewees whose professions made them more aware of how the system functioned. This made other in-terviewees reflect on how skilled one must be to regulate and be in control of one’s indoor environment. The interviewees also had different views on how much a tenant should be able to, or be responsible for, controlling the indoor environment. For some, not having to deal with
problems was one advantage of renting instead of owning one’s dwell-ing, emphasized by those who had previous experience of detached dwellings. Others, especially those with relevant professional knowl-edge, wished that they could adjust the environment by themselves more than was currently possible. Some referred to individual prefer-ences, which one interviewee expressed as “you know best yourself how you would like it”. Though there were many different aspects of the possibility of controlling the IEQ, the common view was apparently that the housing company was responsible for providing good IEQ with a high enough temperature and sufficient air exchange, though tenants should be able to individually adjust the IEQ somewhat in accordance with their preferences:
P29: I would have preferred to be able to control it more myself. Now it is not possible because all the radiators are at maximum heat. So I can’t increase [the heat] any more. But I have worked with heat exchangers for a long time in my professional career, as an engineer, so I know, of course, heat exchangers, huh. And I understand that in this case so … it’s like this, there can be two reasons for this. Either the heat exchangers that are in the room on the south end are under- sized, or the control system is not working, or it is both. But that’s where the error lies, huh, in this case. So I understand how it is connected.
P28: Well, I really think it’s very convenient if you don’t have to take care of it. But then you want it to work.
P30: Yes. [laughs] P29: Yes, exactly. (Area II)
3.2.4. Adjusting oneself and the living space: conventional and innovative solutions
Among the first actions mentioned when the flat was perceived as too cold was to put on a sweater or curl up under a blanket. Several in-terviewees were aware of the effect on the temperature of how they furnished their flats, and had accordingly rearranged their furnishings. They also noticed that the material had an effect; for example, hard laminate floors seemed colder than soft carpets. Adjusting one’s clothes or decorating one’s flat in a way that supported good IEQ were things that the tenants could do themselves and that seemed to be natural first choices:
P4: And then it is not that I have put the sofa in front of the radiators. I have not done that, because I have furnished [the flat] so that the radiators, so that they can spread their heat so that the heat does not stay in one place. It does if you put a big couch [in front of it]. (Area I) Some interviewees had taken more extensive actions, beyond what could be expected of a tenant. Several had bought small electric heaters that they used occasionally, even though they had to pay for the elec-tricity themselves. One interviewee said that she found running a heater so costly that she no longer did so. Others explained that the tempera-ture sensor would then send signals to the ordinary heating system that the room was already warm enough, and the water temperature in the radiator would then be decreased. This awareness was shared by only a few, however.
There were also stories of more drastic measures. Several in-terviewees in the BHR-regulated buildings had tried to stop the incoming airflow, which they experienced as too draughty and as transporting undesirable odours. However, this could not be done as easily as in the flats with mechanical ventilation. One interviewee experienced both noise and odour in his dwelling and related them to the ventilation; he stopped the inflow by opening the locker to the inlet vent, something only the manager was supposed to do, and stuffing the duct with fabric.
3.2.5. Contacting others: the neighbours and the landlord
Interviewees might talk directly to the neighbours when disturbed by their noise. Though sometimes successful, this strategy could also result in conflicts and was, as described by one interviewee, an action that required strength and inner energy. For most interviewees, the first priority was to contact the landlord, i.e. the housing company, to resolve any inconvenience. Some used the help desk on the housing company’s website, while others called the service centre. The interviewees’ ex-periences of contacts with the housing company’s employees were usually good and they usually received help. A fair number had also established direct relationships with the managers working in their residential areas, an approach that was reportedly successful in most cases. However, when the problems were difficult to solve, the in-terviewees expressed frustration that it was impossible to reach higher levels in the housing company’s hierarchy, where there were employees perceived to have the power to approve larger measures. The strategy of direct contact with known employees also became troublesome when there was a change of staff.
P41: So they [the housing company] have my understanding any-way, I can say that they have. But usually it is also the case that the staff are changed so much [at the housing company] and there will be this new round again. … I’ll have to talk to a new and completely different person, and you have to redraw the whole thing again, from the beginning. So I’ve stopped doing that, and I write to them instead. And it somehow has a little better effect. (Area II) Few reports of contacting the authorities came up during the in-terviews, and in all these cases it had not led to the tenant’s desired outcome. One participant was bothered by noise in his dwelling that the housing company could not identify or fix, so he had contacted the local health authorities, but such extremes were uncommon. A few in-terviewees said that they had become resigned after trying for a long time to get their problems fixed. They expressed frustration and tired-ness, but tried to adapt and not fixate on the problem, as that would – as one interviewee said – impair their well-being. Only a few talked about moving away, and in those cases, the perceived unsatisfactory indoor environment was not the main reason.
Restrain oneself: if I am bothered by them, they could be bothered by me.
Experiencing inconveniences from other tenants in the building made several interviewees aware that they might also be disturbing others. This awareness led them to adjust their behaviour, usually so as not to disturb others by making noise. One interviewee told about how she tiptoed at nights so as not to disturb her downstairs neighbours, and how that made her nervous and affected her everyday life. Another had adjusted her cooking so that she did not make dishes that produced a lot of steam, to avoid both inconveniencing her neighbours and the risk of mould in her flat.
P33: It’s creaking. And it kind of echoes when you walk. So I’ve al-ways been a little worried about how it sounds to the neighbours. Do they hear every single step I take? And maybe they do, yes. P34: I think they do. Because it becomes like an amplifier, it’s like a box. First it is – what is it called? – concrete. Then there are beams. You know, beams – that is what it says. Then they put the floor on top of that. So it is just as if it was reinforced.
P33: So I tiptoe in the evenings. P34: That’s great. [laugh]
P33: It’s very difficult. You can’t put down your heels, because then [making noise] it sounds like that, and you get a little nervous. P34: Can’t you move above me? [laugh]
3.3. Connecting energy and IEQ
Only a few spontaneous reflections on energy use came up during the interviews. An interviewee in Area I – not yet renovated – used energy as a further argument for why the windows should be replaced, referring to the housing company as a business that should review its costs. Another interviewee in the same area explained that he put on a sweater rather than adjusting the radiators for more heat, as he was concerned with the environmental impact of energy use.
When energy was introduced as a discussion subject by the inter-viewer, the often lively conversation faded. The part of their energy use for which the tenants were responsible, i.e. household electricity, engaged them the most. Several interviewees had used the opportunity to choose their electricity supplier instead of settling for the default option. Lowering the cost seemed to be the dominant motive, as well as finding a company that was easy to interact with. Some had chosen what was called “green energy”, and even if that was not the case, how the electricity was generated seemed to be of interest. However, it was not obvious what was best from an environmental perspective – for example, hydropower was mentioned as favourable by some, but questioned by others. Overall, renewable energy was said to be positive, although it was difficult to evaluate:
P26: I have 100% renewable green [electricity]. But renewables have their disadvantages too, because they use different metals that are running out. So then you use these metals. So I do not know how environmentally friendly it is if we are to think from such a wider perspective. (Area III)
Energy related to heating was not something the interviewees wan-ted to discuss. Some groups discussed whether or not the area was connected to district heating, and that they did not know how the energy that heated the water for the district heating was produced. However, these discussions shifted towards concern about the role of the energy providing company.
3.4. The role and responsibility of external stakeholders
Most interviewees expressed considerable trust in the housing com-pany, as seen above, but also high expectations regarding what it was responsible for and what it should deal with. This was revealed in several stories about difficulties in contacts with the housing company and disappointments in its responses, despite the basic positive evalu-ation. The housing company was seen as reasonable when it came to environmental sustainability, though some interviewees thought that more could be done, such as installing solar panels. No other stakeholder seemed as important to the interviewees as the housing company. The company providing the district heating was known by name to most interviewees, but had an unclear role regarding the thermal comfort and how much the flat temperature depended on it versus the landlord. The main concern, mentioned by some interviewees, was the reliability of the heating system. In stories of problematic situations that had occurred, the landlord, i.e. the housing company, rather than the energy provider was the party that had been contacted and blamed.
4. Discussion
The interviews provided rich material for studying how people who live in multifamily rental housing perceived their IEQ and whether and how they connected it to energy use. Adequate IEQ was important for the interviewees, and although there were individual differences in preferences, which were also recognized, it was seen as a basic right to live in a home with sufficient heat, good ventilation, and without dis-turbing odour or noise. This ideal situation was not always achieved, however. From the tenants’ perspective, energy use was not an issue in this context, as good IEQ was more important than other considerations.
Since this connection was lacking in the interviews, the question of whether there are conditions for simultaneously achieving both good IEQ and low energy use from the tenants’ perspective cannot be answered directly. However, energy use is implicit in the matter of tenants’ ability to be a positive part of the complex system that a home constitutes through their understanding and actions rather than their awareness.
The tenants saw the housing company as responsible for IEQ, but believed that they themselves also played an important role in their daily behaviour. The perception of the material part of homes as intangible and therewith immaterial rather than material [25], em-phasizes the importance of the interface with the heating and ventilation systems. A user interface can be defined as the link between a human and an artefact, allowing use of the artefact. In a flat, such artefacts included openable windows, thermostats on radiators, and adjustable air vents, each with its own intentionally designed user interface (e.g. a handle of a window or a rotating knob on a thermostat). The combined state of all parts of such a system affects the state of the IEQ. What matters is therefore not merely the intentionally designed user interfaces in a flat, but rather the total interface as experienced and understood by the individual tenant. If some intended parts, or their operation, are misunderstood or unknown to the tenant, which often occurs [26], total system performance might be compromised.
It this study, it was clear that the design of the interfaces, such as inlet vents, did not lead to an intuitive understanding of how to regulate them. From the perspective of Gibson’s affordance theory [27], the design of the physical environment should offer tenants the possibility of interacting with it in their best interest. One problem in buildings from the 1960s is that the visual interface is often outdated, representing a technical system different from the current one, for example, with thermostats that still look as they did when constant-temperature hot water was distributed and the effect of adjusting them was stepwise rather than on–off [28]. It was therefore unclear to the tenants what the physical environment offered, making their action possibilities limited [29]. This may have contributed to an unsatisfactory outcome of the appraisal process, such as perceiving oneself as not having control [30], and to disappointment with the IEQ [31].
From the tenants’ perspective, optimizing energy use was an issue for the housing company not immediately connected with IEQ. The op-portunity to receive feedback related to energy consumption through the housing company’s website or on displays in the flats was scarcely used. It is unknown how many tenants used this opportunity, though a similar Swedish case study after an energy renovation in rental housing with smart metering found that only about 5% logged into the system [32]. Several attempts to design feedback systems to reduce energy use in rental housing have been reported, but it has proven difficult to find the right concept [33,34]. In the present study, the tenants did not seem to be motivated as the heating costs were included in the rent, although they had to pay extra if they raised their indoor temperatures in the winter. Low trust in how the sensors and thermostats functioned, and high reliance on the housing company, may have further decreased the tenants’ motivation, as they were unsure how to use the feedback offered.
In this study, the social context was clearly intertwined with the physical one, and seemed to be equally or even more important. The building company, including its employees and hired contractors, was an ever-present partner: tenants trusted it, but also demanded a lot of it, and it was contacted first in the event of problems or inconvenience. Trust has previously been found to be especially important for judge-ments by people who perceive themselves as not knowledgeable of the system [17]. Trust in landlords and installers was among the most important factors when tenants interacted with the technical systems as intended after the energy renovation of multifamily housing in the UK [35]. In our study, tenants’ understanding of how the IEQ should be managed was partly formed by information from the building company. Though written material was provided, informal communication with
individuals representing the housing company seemed to be more important. Giving people information in an attempt to improve their knowledge is a proposed way of building their cognitive capacity for proper control of the indoor environment of their homes. However, such attempts have repeatedly proved fruitless, especially in the longer term [36]. There is a difference between receiving information and perceiving oneself as informed. In a previous Swedish study, 44% of the participating tenants reported that they had understood little or none of the information received about the individual metering system, of the same kind as in the present study, installed in their flats [37]. The complexity of such systems makes it difficult for outreach to rely on traditionally designed information, and in that way increase the op-portunities for tenants to be satisfactorily involved in the socio-–technical system. An unexpected finding of this study was the stories about how awareness of insufficient ventilation or sound insulation between flats led to behavioural constraints. The human part of the complex system in housing was not driven just by the appraisal process initiated by the state of IEQ, but also by social concerns. The effects of indoor environmental nuisances have so far mostly been studied in terms of reduced well-being due to exposure. There are examples in acoustics in which opportunities for acoustic activities that do not annoy others have been included in the definition of comfort [38], but it is unclear how tenants are affected by restraining themselves and what significance this has for how they interact with the physical and social living environment. This remains an issue for future research. 5. Conclusions and implications
This study was conducted for a subset of the housing market, where the rents are in the lower range, and heating up to 21 ◦C included in the rent. It can therefore not be taken for granted that the findings are applicable other segments of the housing market. However, tenants in this study did not differ from others in similar settings in their percep-tions and descrippercep-tions of good IEQ, confirming previous findings that sufficient heat without draughts, the ability to ventilate, and no dis-turbing sounds or smells are of major importance [39]. When tenants perceive the state of IEQ as incongruent with their needs and desires, the inconveniences are appraised as warranting action [40]. In the sec-ondary appraisal, in which action options are evaluated, modifying the physical environment by technically regulating the system is not always an option, as the complex system that constitutes a dwelling is difficult to understand and manage. Energy use is not a factor that tenants consider in this appraisal process, but rather is seen as something separate that the housing company should take responsibility for.
Achieving balance between good IEQ and low energy use in multi-family housing cannot rely on tenants’ understanding of the complex system of physical parameters or commitment to perform technical regulation. Providing more information on how the systems work and should be managed and providing systems offering feedback on energy use do not guarantee that this information will be perceived or that more tenants will be motivated to increase their interaction with the system. Instead, applying a holistic view of the affordances of the indoor envi-ronment, designing the interface to promote intuitive interactions that include the tenant as a positive part of the system, might be more suc-cessful [41]. The importance of the social climate and good relations between tenants and the housing company has been mentioned by others, but should be stressed again.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The PEIRE research project is funded by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning – FORMAS (2016–0079) and the Swedish Energy Agency (43092–1). We would like to thank our partners LKF, Kraftringen, and Lunds kommun as well as all the tenants who participated in the study.
References
[1] S. Yang, J.G. Pernot, C.H. J¨orin, H. Niculita-Hirzel, V. Perret, D. Licina, Energy, indoor air quality, occupant behavior, self-reported symptoms and satisfaction in energy-efficient dwellings in Switzerland, Build. Environ. 171 (2020), https://doi. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106618.
[2] Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Housing Statistics in European Union, The Hague, 2010.
[3] M. Dahlblom, Towards Sustainability with Building Services Systems – by Focusing on Material Choices, Energy Use and Thermal Indoor Climates in Residential Buildings, Thesis, Lund University, 2020.
[4] Å. Blomsterberg, E. Pedersen, Tenants’ acceptance or rejection of major maintenance and energy renovation of block of flats – IEA ANNEX 56. 6th International Building Physics Conference (IBPC 2015) in Turin 14, Energy Procedia 78 (17 June, 2015) 2346–2351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. egypro.2015.11.396.
[5] N. Chileshe, J.M. Khatib, M. Farah, The perception of tenants in the refurbishment of tower blocks, Facilities 31 (2013) 119–137, https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02632771311299403.
[6] G. Clausen, G. Bek¨o, R.L. Corsi, L. Gunnarsen, W.W. Nazaroff, B.W. Olesen, T. Sigsgaard, J. Sundell, J. Toftum, C.J. Weschler, Reflections on the state of research: indoor environmental quality, Indoor Air 21 (2011) 219–230, https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00706.x.
[7] V. F¨oldv´ary, G. Bek¨o, S. Langer, K. Arrhenius, D. Petr´aˇs, Effect of energy renovation on indoor air quality in multifamily residential buildings in Slovakia, Build. Environ. 122 (2017) 363–372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.009. [8] T. Malmqvist, Environmental rating methods: selecting indoor environmental
quality (IEQ) aspects and indicators, Build. Res. Inf. 36 (2008) 466–485, https:// doi.org/10.1080/09613210802075841.
[9] K. Fars¨ater, P. Strandberg, Å. Wahlstr¨om, Building status obtained before renovating multifamily buildings in Sweden, Journal of Building Engineering (2019) 100723, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.015.
[10] N.W.O. Brown, T. Malmqvist, W. Bai, M. Molinari, Sustainability assessment of renovation packages for increased energy efficiency for multi-family buildings in Sweden, Build. Environ. 61 (2013) 140–148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. buildenv.2012.11.019.
[11] L. La Fleur, B. Moshfegh, P. Rohdin, Measured and predicted energy use and indoor climate before and after a major renovation of an apartment building in Sweden, Energy Build. 146 (2017) 98–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.04.042.
[12] B. Nordquist, E. Pedersen, P. Wallent´en, R. Magnusson, N. Sellin, Impact of Residents’ Interaction with Inlet Air Vents on Energy Demand and Outdoor Air Supply in Exhaust-Ventilated Multi-Family Housing before and after Renovation, Submitted to Energy and building, 2020.
[13] K. Gram-Hanssen, New needs for better understanding of household’s energy consumption – behaviour, lifestyle or practices? Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 10 (2014) 91–104, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2013.837251.
[14] A. Wierzbicka, E. Pedersen, R. Persson, B. Nordquist, K. Stålne, C. Gao, et al., Healthy indoor environments: the need for a holistic approach, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 15 (2018) 1874, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091874. [15] E. Pedersen, City dweller responses to multiple stressors intruding into their
homes: noise, light, odour, and vibration, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 12 (2015) 3246–3263, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120303246.
[16] M. Heinonen-Guzejev, H. Vuorinen, H. Mussalo-Rauhamaa, K. Heikkil¨a, M. Koskenvuo, J. Kaprio, Genetic component of noise sensitivity, Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 8 (2005) 245–249, https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.8.3.245.
[17] M. Siegrist, G. Cvetkovich, Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge, Risk Anal. 20 (2000) 713–719, https://doi.org/10.1111/0272- 4332.205064.
[18] K. Ellsworth-Krebs, L. Reid, C.J. Hunter, Integrated framework of home comfort: relaxation, companionship and control, Build. Res. Inf. 47 (2019) 202–218,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1410375.
[19] M. Johansson, J. Frank, O.-G. Støen, A. Flykt, An evaluation of information meetings as a tool for addressing fear of large carnivores, Soc. Nat. Resour. 30 (2017) 281–298, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1239290.
[20] B. T¨orestad, D. Magnusson, A. Ol´ah, Coping, control, and experience of anxiety: an interactional perspective, Anxiety. Res. 3 (1990) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08917779008248737.
[21] R. Küller, Rethinking Environmental assessment from a neuropsychological perspective, in: T. G¨arling, G.W. Evans (Eds.), Environment, Cognition, and Action, Oxford University Press, New York, 1991, pp. 111–147.
[22] M. Johansson, J. Karlsson, E. Pedersen, A. Flykt, Factors governing human fear of brown bear and wolf, Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 17 (2012) 58–74, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10871209.2012.6119001.
[23] Y. Liu, Z. Hong, J. Zhu, J. Yan, J. Qi, P. Liu, Promoting green residential buildings: residents’ environmental attitude, subjective knowledge, and social trust matter, Energy Pol. 112 (2018) 152–161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.020. [24] C. Robson, Real World Research: a Resource for Users of Social Research Methods
in Applied Settings, Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, 2011. [25] Y. Strengers, C. Maller, Materialising energy and water resources in everyday
practices: insights for securing supply systems, Global Environmental Change- Human and Policy Dimensions 22 (2012) 754–763, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2012.04.004.
[26] T. Peffer, M. Pritoni, A. Meier, C. Aragon, D. Perry, How people use thermostats in homes: a review, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 2529–2541, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. buildenv.2011.06.002.
[27] J.J. Gibson J J, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass., 1979.
[28] A. Wolff, I. Weber, B. Gill, J. Schubert, M. Schneider, Tackling the interplay of occupants’ heating practices and building physics: insights from a German mixed methods study, Energy research & Social science 32 (2017) 65–75, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.erss.2017.07.003.
[29] D. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, Revised and expanded edition, Basic Books, New York, NY, 2013.
[30] R.T. Hellwig, Perceived control in indoor environments: a conceptual approach, Build. Res. Inf. 43 (2015) 302–315, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2015.1004150.
[31] I. Wittenberg, B.G. Fleury, Application of sustainable habitat: what is the appropriation and utilisation of equipment after energy-saving renovations in social housing? J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26 (2016) 409–420, https://doi. org/10.1002/casp.2271.
[32] W. Glad, Housing renovation and energy systems: the need for social learning, Build. Res. Inf. 40 (2012) 274–289, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2012.690955.
[33] S.N. Timm, B.M. Deal, Effective or ephemeral? The role of energy information dashboards in changing occupant energy behaviors, Energy Research & Social Science 19 (2016) 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.020. [34] L. Rubens, J. Le Conte, C. Assegond, E. Fairier, R. Salvazet, B. Bonnefoy, A.-
C. Baud, How do French social housing tenants interpret normative descriptive feedback connected with energy?/¿C´omo interpretan los inquilinos de vivienda social en Francia los mensajes normativos descriptivos respecto al consumo de energía? PsyEcology 8 (2017) 323–353, https://doi.org/10.1080/
21711976.2017.1359371.
[35] P. Brown, W. Swan, S. Chahal, Retrofitting social housing: reflections by tenants on adopting and living with retrofit technology, Energy Efficiency 7 (2014) 641–653,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9245-3.
[36] D. McKenzie-Mohr, New ways to promote proenvironmenatl behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing, J. Soc. Issues 56 (2002) 543–554, https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00183.
[37] S. Siggelsten, S. Olander, Individual heat metering and charging of multi-dwelling residential housing, Struct. Surv. 28 (2010) 207–214, https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02630801011058933.
[38] N.G. Vardaxis, D. Bard, K. Persson Waye, Review of acoustic comfort evaluation in dwellings-part I: associations of acoustic field data to subjective responses from building surveys, Build. Acoust. 25 (2018) 151–170, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1351010X18762687.
[39] M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 922–937,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.10.021.
[40] S. Delplanque, D. Grandjean, C. Chrea, G. Coppin, L. Aymard, I. Cayeux, C. Margot, M.I. Velazco, D. Sander, K.R. Scherer, Sequential unfolding of novelty and pleasantness appraisals of odors: evidence from facial electromyography and autonomic reactions, Emotion 9 (2009) 316–328, https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0015369.
[41] E. Shove, H. Watson, M. Hand, J. Ingram, The Design of Everyday Life, Berg, Oxford, UK, 2007.
