Abstract
Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) has been defined as the manifestation of dermatological conditions, mucosal disorders, and general symptoms causally associated with residing or working in specific buildings. Although the term designates the building itself as “sick,” the actual sufferers are its occupants, whose health and productivity are affected by environmental factors. This article synthesizes findings from medical, environmental, and architectural research to examine SBS as both a clinical phenomenon and a socio-environmental issue, highlighting its implications for workplace productivity, design practices, and regulatory frameworks.
Keywords: Indoor health; indoor comfort; sick building; wellness architecture
References
- Burge PS. “Education: Sick Building Syndrome”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 61.2 (2004): 185-190.
- Eriksson NM and Stenberg BGT. “Baseline prevalence of symptoms related to indoor environment”. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 34.4 (2006): 387-396.
- Loftness V., et al. “Elements That Contribute to Healthy Building Design”. Environmental Health Perspectives 115.6 (2007): 965-970.
- Millan SA. “Green Buildings and Plugging the Gaps in Environmental Laws”. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 27.1 (2013): 43-59.
- Niven R McL., et al. “Building Sickness Syndrome in Healthy and Unhealthy Buildings: An Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment with Cluster Analysis”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 57.9 (2000): 627-634.
- Olaf CG Adan., et al. “In Search of a Common European Approach to a Healthy Indoor Environment”. Environmental Health Perspectives 115.6 (2007): 983-988.
- Paevere PJ. “Impact of Indoor Environment Quality on Occupant Productivity and Well-Being in Office Buildings”. Environment Design Guide (2008): 1-9.
- Skov P, Valbjørn O and Pedersen BV. “Influence of indoor climate on the sick building syndrome in an office environment”. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 16.5 (1990): 363-371.
- Wakefield-Rann R and Fam D. “Initiating a Transdisciplinary Conversation to Improve Indoor Ecologies”. Human Ecology Review 24.2 (2018): 3-24.