COVID-19 Return to Work: Commuting and Workplace Concerns of Dutch Workers

Introduction:
Organizations are preparing to re-open their doors to the workers, but their buildings must be safe before they can be occupied. Currently, a main focus in facility management (FM) seems to be on redesign and refinement of technical systems (Kimmel, 2020). Which as such is a very important prerequisite of safeguarding healthy human interaction in confined spaces. And although many organizations prepare for a safe return of their workforce to the buildings and workplaces, it is yet unclear how workers experience this prospect. This information may proof to be vital in ensuring that building occupants are not only safe, but also feel safe on their return to work. But what is the influence of the built environment on occupants’ health?
Health and the built environment:
The built environment can have a positive influence on the recovery of humans. It can reduce anxiety, stress, pain, and depression; in contrast, in the sick building syndrome users complain about, for instance, headache, fatigue, irritation (eye, nose, throat), difficulty with concentrating, and sensitivity to smells (Mobach, 2009). Designers of hospitals are advised, for example, to use single rooms (more calm, less infections), distractions including view of nature (stress reduction), better ventilation (healthier environment, less infections), and better lighting (better diagnosis, less fall incidents). Also, workplaces can be healthier and foster healthier workforces. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that unprotected people gathering in buildings for work is currently not a good idea.
However, the literature is broader than that. Nijkamp & Mobach (2020) refer to the WHO and contend that a healthy workplace is a place in which workers collaborate to use a continual improvement process to protect and promote the health, safety, and well-being of all workers (WHO, 2010). Furthermore, attention should be paid to indoor environmental quality at work, such as air quality (airflow, particulate matter, CO2), temperature (comfort, suitability for the task), noise (nuisance, privacy, intelligibility), and light (access to natural light, visibility in task performance, reflection on screens) (Becker & Steele, 1995; Mobach, 2009; Frontczak & Wargocki, 2011). According to Vimalanathan & Ramesh Babu (2014), optimum levels of indoor temperature at 21°C and illumination at 1,000 lux improve the health of office workers. Bluyssen et al. (2016) showed that main complaints of the indoor environment at offices concern noise, dry air, and temperature variation. Moreover, a lower number of occupants, the operability of windows, absence of carpet flooring and the presence of cleaning activities were positively associated with occupants’ health. Suboptimal spatial properties, such as an unhealthy interior climate, can cause complaints such as dry eyes, headaches, and allergic reactions (EPA, 1991). Implementing a healthy indoor environment also has short-term economic advantages, as factors such as thermal comfort, indoor air quality, office layout, noise, and acoustics have significant influence on occupant productivity (Al Horr et al., 2016). Hence, it seems safe to argue that the built environment can advance the health and well-being of humans, but it can also affect it negatively (Mobach, 2009; Nijkamp & Mobach, 2020).
COVID-19:
Currently, facility managers lower human density in buildings by decreasing occupancy rates, employ signage for physical distancing and proper wayfinding, hand washing, and other preventive measures. Siegelaar, Zuidema, Boersma, & Mobach (2020) argued that many redesigns of the physical environment are currently being implemented on a trial-and-error basis. Examples are semi-open glass-partitions, adjustable retrofitting to enable isolation of individuals and small groups, use of more access points to the building to prevent merging traffic, the use of acrylic glass screens, and ventilation with windows and/or building technology to maximize indoor air quality, according to Siegelaar et al. (2020).
A July 2020 global survey held by the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) among facility managers showed that for reopening after COVID-19, 40% of facility managers were concerned about HVAC systems and 31% about the interiors (Smithwick & Kasana, 2020). Other areas of concern were plumbing, central control systems, utilities, electrical, fire protection, site and landscape, and shell and finish.
However, these are the concerns of professionals, it is yet unclear how workers feel about the prospect of reboarding. By making these latent concerns of workers made explicit - as is proposed in this current application - allows architects, interior designers, engineers, and facility managers to anticipate to theirs needs. This increases the likelihood of a better alignment between buildings, precautions, procedures, and imagined design interventions with the concerns, needs, and daily work practices of employees. In turn, this may create a safer and healthier work environment for individual employees and their organizations.