Skin: our largest sense organ, and our least stimulated in the workplace

I am strongly of the belief that biophilia is far more than the emotional and psychological connection to nature that is most often suggested as the basis of biophilic design. For me, true biophilic design is about creating physical and psychological comfort. It involves creating a sensory environment where our senses are stimulated congruently.

Physical comfort depends on our brain interpreting the inputs of sense receptors, which allows us to create an internal map of our environment. This helps us know how to behave: whether to fight, flee, feed, shelter, nurture, create, etc. Stress hormones can prime us to move quickly, whereas our pleasure centres can encourage us to stay put and indulge more.

An environment that allows our senses to work in concert should be comfortable and, in a workplace setting, will enhance effectiveness (thence engagement, productivity, job satisfaction, etc.)

Designers can be very good at addressing many of our sensory needs, but all too often, our largest sensory organ is ignored.

image of the skin on a hand

Our skin is densely packed with sensors that react to temperature, air movement, pressure and even static electricity and chemical irritation. Our skin sensors tell us when a surface is safe to grip or walk on. We have sensors that provide feedback about the things we pick up, bend, twist, press, push and pull. Other sensors tell us when we are being exposed to excess heat or cold.

Human beings are unique in nature in that we are the only species that covers most of its skin, thus depriving us of a huge amount of sensory information. However, that particular behaviour is a relatively recent innovation. Modern humans have only worn clothes for about a third of their time on Earth, and there is very little evidence to suggest that our hominid ancestors ever saw the need. As with our other senses (although to a lesser degree), evolution hasn’t caught up with the changes we have made to our habitats through migration and building – we are still essentially adapted to living wild on the open plains of Africa.

Depending on the nature of the sensory inputs through our skin, we can experience great pleasure or immense pain. Those experiences are enhanced the more that the skin is exposed.

One of the reasons we find draughts so annoying is that our skin is detecting air movement over only small parts of exposed skin, but not the rest. As a result, we get conflicting sensory inputs. Our neck and face might feel chilly, turbulent air currents, but the rest of us is wrapped up snug and warm. We have to use mental effort to understand what is going on.

In workplaces, we deprive ourselves of tactile and haptic experiences. Surfaces are smooth (for easy cleaning, as well as aesthetics) and we spend so much of our time still, apart from tapping at keyboards or picking up the phone.

So, what is the answer?

There are few opportunities to expose the skin to the environment in most workplaces. Society is probably not yet ready for naturist offices (although homeworking during the pandemic lockdowns offered many the chance to experiment), so any tactile and haptic stimulation needs to be directed at whatever skin is exposed (face and hands in the main), or be felt through clothing.

But it is not enough just to stimulate the skin, there can be purpose behind it.

Textures can be used very effectively to demarcate spaces and indicate safe, or preferred routes (think of textured pavements near pedestrian crossings). They can also be used to indicate status and authority – thick carpets and soft textiles are often associated with luxury and opulence, as are natural materials such as wood and stone. Whilst the general office accommodation in a building might be a sea of laminate desks and hard-wearing carpet tiles, the executive floors tend to be more cosseting. These areas have an abundance of more natural materials and they often feature more interesting and varied textures.

The indoor climate can also be managed in a way that is more in keeping with our sensory needs. I’ve already mentioned a reason why draughts are irritating, but other aspects of thermal regulation are important too. Heat and humidity, as well as air flow, can have a significant impact our comfort.

Humidity is especially important as far as comfort is concerned. Too humid and the air is clammy and our clothes get sticky and damp, which is not comfortable. Too dry, and our skin needs artificial moisturising to prevent itching and irritation.

In a typical workplace, our environment is pretty much fixed, or variable within a very limited range. In open offices, personal control is very limited. Office workers can neither change the environment nor their behaviours beyond a narrow spectrum.

When not in the office, we can make adjustments to our behaviour to adapt to a changing environment. Uncomfortable skin can be made more comfortable by moving from one place to another, by adding or removing clothes or by taking a refreshing shower. We can choose to walk on carpet or a hard floor, or sit on a soft cushion or wooden bench. We can often change some elements of the environment ourselves, by changing the temperature, for example. We have agency.

I first wrote this in May 2020, during the fifth week of the first lockdown in the UK. Most office workers were working from home. Perhaps, for the first time in their working lives, people were able to manage their working environment in ways that are not possible in an office building. Whilst it might have been lonely to be away from colleagues, it is likely to have been a more physically comfortable place to be. I wonder how much people will miss their control over their sensory environment when they return to the office. Maybe this is one reason why remote and hybrid working remains popular).

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Thoughts about indoor air quality and monitoring

My recent post about the benefits of indoor air quality (IAQ) monitoring spoke about how monitoring can be empowering and lead to improved productivity and business effectiveness. It was written before the full impact of the Coronavirus lockdown really hit. One of the most interesting things about monitoring and measuring IAQ is how our perception of what is important varies according what we are doing and how we are feeling at any time. Our urge to control our environment, even if that control may end up with exposure to something harmful, is very strong.

Photo by Kaique Rocha on Pexels.com

A recent article in the Guardian highlighted some interesting research about the link between high levels of pollution and high levels of Covid-19 mortality, in particular, pollutants such as fine particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Exposure to these pollutants seems to weaken the immune response and also damage the fine lining of the upper respiratory tract – the main site of infection by the virus.

There is an excellent podcast featuring Professor Anna Hansell (professor of environmental epidemiology and director of the centre for environmental health and sustainability at the University of Leicester) explaining all of this here.

Another report, also in The Guardian, adds weight to the link between Covid-19 and fine particulates, but this time suggesting that the virus might be carried on those particulates – two health threats for the price of one!

What does this have to do with indoor air quality and monitoring, especially at the workplace?

In modern airtight buildings with complex air management systems, it is possible to keep levels of these externally-generated pollutants down to safe levels. There are any number of air purifiers, filters and indoor vegetation systems that will help to manage this. And there are good IAQ monitors to help building operators to keep an eye on conditions. What cannot be managed, though, is the exposure of office workers to these pollutants on their daily commute or in their own homes.

Older buildings are more difficult to manage. They are often permeable (or just plain draughty), may have opening windows (which many office workers regard as being very important, and which are very effective at enabling people to reduce productivity-destroying carbon dioxide in a matter of minutes).

Openable windows would, in many situations, be great for businesses. Empowerment and physical comfort – both of which can be managed by the simple act of opening a window – are known to be drivers of performance. However, when opening a window means bringing in a load of invisible and harmful pollutants, then other measures must be taken.

An IAQ monitor (preferably with a real-time display) would, of course, be the an ideal tool to have. It would show when levels of harmful pollutants exceed safe limits and show when to close the windows. By making the monitor visible to staff, as well as building managers, the decision to act is in the hands of the workers – empowerment is restored.

Covid-19 has brought home how vulnerable we are when our respiratory tract is damaged. Pollution is something that we must pay more attention to – it is a modifiable risk factor. Not just within and immediately surrounding our workplaces (including our home workplaces – and who measures IAQ there?), but in the wider environment too. On our commute to work, where we take exercise, where we educate our children or house our senior citizens.

The old saw, “you cannot manage what you cannot measure”, is in many instances nothing more useful than the cliched utterances of a contestant on The Apprentice. However, where air quality is concerned, there is a lot to be gained by measurement.

Air quality monitors for empowerment and performance

One of the most pernicious aspects of modern working is the use of monitoring equipment by organizations to keep their staff on their toes. Often such monitoring is used to determine productivity metrics (without much understanding of what productivity really means).

However, there are some occasions where monitoring can be quite empowering, and that is in the area surrounding the use of environmental monitors, especially those for air quality.

The new RESET standard, for example, is one of those certifications that has the potential to empower and embolden building users (office workers, retail customers, hotel guests, etc.) to demand changes to the environment for comfort and safety (and also productivity).

The RESET standard (which has some degree of alignment with other building certification systems, such as WELL) not only requires several important parameters of indoor air quality to be measured and recorded (useful for building managers assessing the performance of their HVAC systems), but also to have indoor air quality reported in real time and displayed in such a way as to be accessible and understood by building users.

Awair Omni indoor air quality monitor. The green indicator light and the score show that the air here is very good

Such monitors can be very empowering. If they are visible and showing that there is something not quite right about the air, then that provides the evidence required to make a complaint to the facilities help desk. As well as the office worker seeing the data, the facilities help desk should be able to see the same information. Not only that, but there will be a record of the data, so trends can be observed and potential problems identified and fixed quickly. Furthermore, employers can be held to account if monitor data are not acted upon.

Sometimes, people are reluctant to complain, for fear of being regarded as moaners. However, a dispassionate air quality monitor certainly empowers and emboldens people to encourage their employers to manage the environment better, or even hand over control, where practical, to the users of the space concerned. Where organizations are struggling to retain and recruit, such a visual demonstration of provision of a decent quality working environment is very helpful.

Taking appropriate action

My recent forays into the complex world of indoor air quality (and I claim little expertise beyond a couple of online courses and some fascinating discussions with real experts) has demonstrated just how complex and multi-dimensional the subject is. Even though there are many indices for air quality, it is an understanding of the relative importance of each parameter in different situations that is fascinating – and this goes beyond purely objective physiological impacts. It strays well into aspects of human behaviour.

It is actually very important to recognise how individuals are pretty good at determining what matters to them.

Whilst maintaining a safe environment always has to be a top priority for building operators, the fickleness and resourcefulness of the apparently irrational humans that populate the building have to be taken into account.

In buildings where it is still possible to open windows, there is a risk that pollutants from outside will be brought in, which might worry a facilities manager doing their best to keep particulates out. However, that simple act of opening a window because the office is stuffy is both empowering (individual control rather than imposed conditions), but also might be the most effective way of getting rid of pollutants building up inside the building (carbon dioxide and VOCs for example).

People are actually quite good at assessing some risks. At one building where I carried out some interviews of office workers, most people readily appreciated that there were risks of pollution coming in when opening a window (the office was only a few hundred metres from a busy motorway), but they were prepared to do that because they wanted to freshen the air and reduce stuffiness (associated with carbon dioxide, temperature and humidity).

An air quality monitor might be one way to resolve arguments between facilities managers and building users – the decision to open the window can be validated by an improvement in the particular indoor air quality parameters that mattered to the user at the time.

Air quality monitoring for performance

Some recent research, for example that carried out by Joseph Allen (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037, for example) shows clearly that elevated levels of carbon dioxide have a significant impact on cognitive ability.

It only takes a few minutes in a meeting room for carbon dioxide levels to increase above levels that are detrimental to cognitive ability. One of Allen’s studies showed that, on average, a 400-ppm increase in carbon dioxide was associated with a 21% decrease in a typical participant’s cognitive scores.

My own (rather informal) studies carried out in a small (but not untypical) meeting room showed that a small group of people in a 36 cubic metre room could increase carbon dioxide concentrations from a base level of approximately 500 ppm to over 1,200 ppm in under fifteen minutes.

Given that important business decisions are often made in small meeting rooms, rather than well-ventilated open-plan offices, it is potentially very concerning that those critical decisions are made by people whose cognitive abilities are compromised by high levels of carbon dioxide – senior executives are just as susceptible to the effects of elevated carbon dioxide as anyone else.

Photo by Christina Morillo on Pexels.com

A good quality indoor air quality monitor might be one of the best investments a business can make.

Thoughts on working from home during the COVID-19 crisis

With office workers rightly being told to work from home during the coronavirus crisis, employers seem very keen to pass on tips for how to do it.  Interestingly, the people who do it regularly are rarely asked for their advice. So here are some thoughts and tips for employers as well as new home workers. 

Tip No. 1 for managers: trust your staff. They probably know how to do their job and don’t need micromanaging or check-ins every 20 minutes. Timetabled calls and clear plans are fine – everyone welcomes clear direction and constructive review. 

Tip No. 1 for new home workers. It’s OK to mute notifications.  If you are lucky enough to be able to get into a state of flow whilst working, you can do without the buzz and distraction of chat messages. Every interruption is going to take about 20 minutes to recover from. 

Tip No. 2 for managers. Don’t be frightened that your lack of direct supervision will make you irrelevant or in some way invalidate your purpose. If you are any good at management, you will be respected more by trusting and empowering your team. 

Research shows that empowerment results in better business outcomes (my good friend Dr Craig Knight – @TheBritishPsych  – can tell you more about that). You might find your team becoming even more productive and you will be a hero. 

Of course, if you do want to micromanage and over monitor under really stressful times, your team’s performance will drop, you will lose respect and credibility and will rightly be considered an arse. 

Tip 2 for home workers. Put yourself and family first. You will find a way to work and come up with routines that will work for you. The complications of suddenly becoming home educators don’t help and it may take a week or two to adapt. At the end of this, managers and workers might want to rethink the working dynamic. This is an opportunity to learn a lot about individual working styles and how to accommodate them for the benefit of all.

If homeworking turns out to be more successful than traditional managers hope, then physical offices are going to be much more like co-working spaces than the battery farms of now – free-range humans, having tasted freedom and flexibility might be reluctant to return to the old ways. It has been said that the mistake Churchill made at the end of WW2 was that he assumed that successful wartime leadership would be rewarded by a return to the status quo ante. It wasn’t.

Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Pexels.com

There was a social revolution then. There may be a workplace revolution in the autumn.

Evolution is often a gradual process, but massive change applies the greatest selection pressure. Those that can adapt and adjust to new circumstances will fill the voids left by the dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus rex was top of the tree once.

Tip No.3 for managers: don’t be T. rex!  

Photo by icon0.com on Pexels.com

Stimulating the senses

Thoughts on biophilia and biophilic design (part 1) – it’s as much to do with human physiology as it is an emotional response

I’ve been thinking a lot about why Biophilia and biophilic design has much more to do with evolution and the way our senses work, rather than the emotional response to nature that is so-often suggested. 

Let’s look at one definition of biophilia. The most famous, and most important is that given by EO Wilson – the man who catalysed the development of the concept. In 1984, he defined Biophilia as “…the innate affiliation people seek with other organisms and especially the natural world.”

This is a strong statement.  Wilson also speaks of the human bond with other species, which is beautifully explained in his book. This all suggests that biophilia is essentially an emotional need to connect with nature and natural surroundings. 

Stephen Kellert, the grandfather of biophilic design, spoke of “our physical, emotional and intellectual inclinations for nature and life”. By expressing our need to connect with nature on an emotional level, we instinctively understand the concept.  We remember that being in natural places makes us feel good and that the countryside or woodlands are instantly relaxing.

Bringing nature into our built environment – our offices and cities – is a great response to that feeling of calm we get when in nature. However, let’s examine why being in nature really makes us feel comfortable.

I contend that it isn’t wholly a psychological or emotional need, but much more of a physiological need, based on humanity’s evolutionary history and our origins in the plains of Africa.

If you were to take a mole away from its burrow and place it in an open, sunny garden, such as where we might want to spend some time, it would be stressed, frightened and try to dig a new hole. Its senses are not able to cope with the bright light, the lack of close skin contact and the shrill noises of birdsong.  Millions of years of evolution have produced a creature that thrives in dark, damp, tight tunnels.  This is where it finds food, shelter and other moles with which to mate.  If we were to create an environment for a captive mole, it too would be dark, damp and tight, because that would be the humane thing to do.

A mole would rather be underneath this garden than in it!

When we create environments for humans – offices, for example – we tend to make them very space efficient, very energy efficient and completely unlike the environment where our species has spent over 99% of its evolutionary history. 

Not our natural habitat

Humanity evolved on the plains of Africa.  Wide open spaces with undulating landscapes.  The vegetation was scattered and grew in clusters; water was plentiful and skies were bright. 

Humans use their eyes to look for food and threats – sight is our most developed sense.  Colour perception for us – the part of the spectrum that we can see – enables us to spot shapes (food or danger) against the background of vegetation, and recognise when fruits are ripe. 

Our hearing is fine tuned to the noises of prey animals and the sound of running water.  Our sense of touch helps us to determine the quality of materials that we can use for shelter, and our sense of smell tells us what is safe to eat. Our senses are highly adapted to that environment. Those senses evolved to enable our species to survive.  If we stress our senses, we react as if there is a threat to our survival.  Stress hormones prepare us to fight or flee. Our senses become overwhelmed or under used. 

Biophilic design is the trend of the moment and is associated with wellbeing. However, many designers think mainly, or only, in terms of the emotional, almost spiritual, need to connect with nature. This can be an effective approach, is easily understood and has a lot of merit. 

However, I think we can create more effective spaces if we unpick what we mean by an emotional response and use a sensory approach to design.  Let’s stimulate our senses the way nature intended.

Footnote: some books worth having a look at. Nature by Design, by Stephen Kellert, Biophilia by Edward O Wilson and Biophilic Design be Kellert, Heerwagen, et al