The impact of buildings on health

This blog was first published in June 2017 on the Saint-Gobain Multicomfort website - www.multicomfort.co.uk. I haven't shared it before because the topic - health and buildings - sat uncomfortably when the Grenfell Tower fire happened. What did all of these nuances about data and damp matter in the face of such catastrophe? It feels like time to share it now.

Earlier this year, Saint-Gobain published their UK Home Health and Wellbeing report, a survey of over 3000 UK householders covering a wide range of topics related to buildings, health and wellbeing.

You can download the report and the underlying data set here (you’ll need to register for the data set).

As I was reading through, one number struck me.

Only 9% of people agree with the following statement: “I am concerned about the health and wellbeing impact of the buildings where I spend my time”.

9%.

I wondered why.

First off: do people know the health and wellbeing impacts of buildings? Some people will – building physicists, energy advisers and others with a professional interest (although, no doubt, the realm of cognitive dissonance means that some of these people will live in unhealthy homes…).

Others will know because of very direct impacts: those living with asthma are very conscious of damp, mould and dust; those who are housebound are very tuned to internal temperatures and energy bills. And if you’ve ever worked in a building where coughs and colds seems to spread like wildfire, you probably have an idea that the space was somehow at fault.

So some people, the 9%, see the connection between buildings and health. The key concept here is relevance. If it’s going to affect you or your loved one, then you’ll pay attention to it.

Traditionally this is where a central body would step in – Government would say “this is an issue, here’s a public information campaign” and we would collectively learn more about the problem.

We can see it now with the rise in awareness and communication about outdoor air quality, particularly in the attention being brought to the issue by the Mayor of London.

The risk, however, is that we raise awareness of an issue without providing people with the agency to do anything about it. On outdoor air quality, it is informative to know which areas have the worst performance, but there is very little that the individual can do – stay indoors (sometimes a recommended option)? Move house? Block off the end of their road? Action on an issue might be individual or collective, or more metaphysical – the awareness raising around air quality gives the Mayor the political backing to change the types of vehicles that can drive through London.

Communication needs to be relevant, personal and supportive of individual action, and here’s where it becomes harder to talk about the link between buildings and health. Many of the investments that are needed might be sizeable (better insulation, a new boiler, new floor coverings) – a barrier for those without capital or living in rented accommodation. And many of the impacts on health might seem too trivial (“Another cold? Get more Lemsip!”) or remote to householders who are not living with an immediate health condition.

These thoughts led me to wonder who can do what to bring the issues of health and comfort – the concept of multi-comfort – to the fore. Solution providers like Saint-Gobain have a clear role in bringing the issue to public attention, but often lack that direct contact with the consumer. So who are the intermediaries?

Links into the health sector have proven powerful for some energy efficiency projects – particularly working with health practitioners who spend time in the individual home, such as occupational therapists or community midwives. There are still barriers to working with the health sector – constrained resources, other priorities and a system built around treating symptoms rather than preventing them.

Links into local authorities could also prove powerful, particularly as a way to tackle housing quality issues in the private rented sector (historically the worst, reflected in some of the comments from renters in Saint-Gobain’s Health and Wellbeing report). Local authorities enforce the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, which requires private landlords to provide safe and healthy accommodation to their tenants. Many local authorities also provide energy efficiency and fuel poverty support for local residents, again bringing the concept of multi-comfort to play can help them to define solutions which address multiple, often complex needs.

Of course the issue here is money – local authorities are under severe budgetary pressure and many do not have the resources to provide grants to households. Partnerships with the major energy companies – and support for a move away from a measure-by-measure approach to whole house retrofit could really deliver benefits for vulnerable householders. It’ll be a hard slog against an industry and a set of obligations that are set up in a certain way…

Social housing providers – housing associations and local councils – could provide the cornerstone market for bulk investment in multi-comfort approaches. They have a strong interest in the health and wellbeing of their tenants – some of whom are among the most vulnerable – a long-term commitment to their properties and a social mission.

Last but not least: the link between health and buildings will be of critical importance to employers. Anyone who has ever run a team in a “sick building” will know about days lost to illness, the additional cost of bringing in temporary staff, the effect on morale of poor air quality or cold office spaces. As business considers what it means to be a good employer, it should also be thinking what it means to be a good provider of spaces where employees spend their time.

Will the majority of people ever come to care about the link between buildings and health? As long as our buildings keep operating like they always have, and we keep those patches of mould in the bathroom or the draughts whistling through the windows to ourselves, then no. But the more we can bring the issue of buildings and health to the forefront – by working with intermediaries who can help spread the word more widely – the more we can start to move towards getting the buildings we need rather than simply putting up with the buildings that we have.