Ultimate/Proximate Relationship Relative to Codes and Standards
- Perspectives
Note: This essay was originally featured in Constructing Our Niches: The Application of Evolutionary Theory to the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry at evolution-institute.org.
In the last essay, I broadened the discussion of ultimate design features for the building/construction industry, focusing on six categories of features likely relevant for most facility types and occupant demographics – Connection to Nature, Individual Comfort / Wellbeing, Control, Enablement, Cooperation, and Competition. It’s important to recognize that the most appropriate proximate manifestations of these ultimate design features will look different in different social/cultural and physical environmental contexts. And there must be the right mix of proximate manifestations of all the above core design features to ensure that individual self-interests driving within-group competition don’t override our social drive for unity and cooperation at the organizational level.
Codes are developed with the intention of adoption by jurisdictions to serve as criteria for the design, construction, and operations of our built environment.
In this essay, I’m discussing the relationship between ultimate design features and their proximate manifestations relative to the standards and codes used within the building/construction industry. For those unfamiliar, the Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences, provides a succinct overview of codes and standards – what they are, how they’re developed and how they’re used. Both generally serve as minimum requirements for the manufacture, construction/assembly, and performance of various building attributes, often with a focus on public health, safety and general welfare. However, there are also what’s known as stretch, reach, or green codes that go beyond the minimum requirements found in base codes (energy efficiency being a common example). Codes are developed with the intention of adoption by jurisdictions to serve as criteria for the design, construction, and operations of our built environment. Standards, however, may or may not be developed with this regulatory intent in mind, but if adopted by a jurisdiction they do become code. In general, codes and standards provide a measure of consistency and guidance for designers, builders, and code officials.
But to further increase consistency across regions and the nation as a whole, model codes have been developed by various organizations with the intent of potential adoption by Federal, state, and/or local governments, or other organizations. Model codes can also help facilitate a faster incorporation of the latest information and research and reduce the cost of code development. This consistency is a key evolutionary benefit at multiple levels within contemporary society. It provides a greater assurance for building occupants, regardless of where they live or travel to within the U.S, that they will experience a minimum level of quality and safety in the facilities they find themselves in. Referring back to the last essay, the quality of the physical environment and the safety it affords can be considered part of the Individual Comfort / Wellbeingset of ultimate design features, and ensuring that the contextual environment is aligned with these ultimate needs increases occupant relative individual fitness levels.
Wilder Block Restoration
For example, consider the Wilder Block building, a 130-year old, four-story structure in Brattleboro, VT, that was rehabilitated during the 1990s.82(ppxii-xiii) Working with local fire safety officials, the design/construction team was able to develop design solutions that achieved an equivalent level of safety as required by state/local adoptions of the National Fire and Life Safety model codes, while also preserving the building’s historic character. One such solution involved the original glass transoms above the doorways to each building unit. They weren’t self-closing and so could not provide an effective barrier to smoke and fire spreading into or out of the individual units. Instead of destroying the historic nature of the building by replacing the original doorways and transoms, automatic door closers were added, and the transoms backed with plywood. The closers decreased the risk that doors would remain open during a fire, and the plywood backing increased the fire rating of the transoms to the minimum code required level, increasing the time it would take for smoke or fire to penetrate the transom.
During a subsequent 2004 five-alarm fire, this solution proved a reliable barrier, preventing the penetration of fire and smoke into the individual units. This solution, along with other code-compliant renovation solutions, allowed all the building occupants to evacuate without any loss of life. It’s a textbook example of how building codes help align proximate solutions with ultimate needs to increase individual fitness levels.
Moving to the level of the group, as I discussed in the second essay, norms (that include formal building codes and standards) “…help create common experiences and expectations among group members, binding them together. As a result, they help suppress within-group selection among group members that can disrupt the cohesiveness of groups, ensuring that between group forces dominate.”26 Specifically, codes and standards help drive the standardization of materials, systems, building configurations, construction methodologies, and operational procedures, increasing the uniformity within the building/construction industry among manufacturers, designers, buildings, and building owners. Such industry-wide standardization provides a unifying force at the level of the community, state, and nation-state to help each level operate more efficiently. In this case building codes help ensure that unity and other group level ultimate needs of Cooperation and Competition, discussed in the last essay, are met, increasing their respective fitness levels.
In the case of the Wilder Bock building, the normalized expectations and potential design solutions available through a) the uniformity provided via similarities in codes and standards, b) widely available building materials and equipment, and c) a common building/construction intellectual tradition, set the stage for an affordable solution meeting the ultimate design needs in question. The functional integration provided through the different design professionals, contractors, manufacturers, code officials, and other key stakeholders contributing their own parts to the final solution, enhanced by the uniformity just mentioned, further ensures a successful outcome to a complex problem. And by successfully meeting the occupant and owner needs, public trust in the overall system of code development, design/construction, and oversight from code officials is maintained, contributing to a strong group identity and ensuring that the economic and political stability offered by a well-functioning building/construction industry continues. Tragedies that unfortunately occur, such as the Station nightclub fire, Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, and the Oakland Ghost Ship fire (sometimes exacerbated by the political weakening of code adoption and enforcement), undermine this trust, even if the eventual outcome is a stronger set of building codes, Constructing Our Niches: The Application of Evolutionary Theory to the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry 42 evolution-institute.org better design, and more effective enforcement. Such tragedies may also result in a loss of code enforcement flexibility, negatively impacting the ability to meet other ultimate needs. The successful outcome for the Wilder Block building came about because of local code officials’ flexibility in finding a solution they deemed provided an equivalent level of safety. A less flexible interpretation could have required replacing the original doors and transoms, negatively impacting the building’s historic nature. A loss of local history removes some of the common bonds that tie a community together, negatively impacting its group identity and uniformity, and ultimately its relative fitness.
This doesn’t mean that the uniformity within the building/construction industry contributed to by codes and standards results in limited to no competition among designers, contractors, etc. But if there is generally sufficient work for everyone (i.e., the local environment is capable of supporting the current population), the competition for individual projects typically doesn’t include extensive efforts to put the competition out of business. Codes and standards, code enforcement (i.e., low-cost monitoring), maintaining professional reputations (i.e., Graduated sanctions) and the legal ramifications (i.e., Graduated sanctions) also restrict the actions potentially taken by design firms and contractors to increase their profit margins at the expense of the final project’s quality and safety. More cut-throat competition is an indication that within group selection is rivaling or dominating between group selection forces, contributing to instability at the community or larger social level. As already alluded to, code consistency, or more specifically the potentially associated inflexibility, can unintentionally contribute to instability. It can lead to (or at least contribute to) misalignments of local level proximate manifestations with ultimate needs. There may not be enough flexibility built into a code or standard to begin with to allow adequate adaptation to local conditions or local code officials may adopt a generally inflexible approach. I’ve already discussed the benefit of code interpretive flexibility in the case of the Wilder Block building. And standards, while not necessarily having the regulatory requirements of codes, are sometimes applied by designers in an inflexible manner, or at least without fully understanding the context in which they were developed. This too can lead to misalignments of ultimate needs with proximate manifestations of the physical environment.
In the fourth essay, I mentioned how BranchPattern’s post-occupancy evaluations of pre-K – 16+ campus environments found thermal discomfort to be a too-common occurrence, particularly for students. One of the reasons for this is design solutions often don’t adequately account “… for how variation in demographics (age, gender, clothing, etc.) impacts thermal comfort.” ASHRAE Standard 55 and ISO 7730 Standard for “Ergonomics of the thermal environment” are both standards used to help maximize thermal comfort in the built environment. But as pointed out in a report by the Committee to Review and Assess the Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Schools,83 both are based on experimental studies of adults, not children (or young adults).
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the metabolic rate estimation methods and predefined clothing insulation values recommended for use by these standards to model thermal comfort during design don’t adequately address a) younger physiologies, b) the variation in clothing insulation values between adults and students, and c) the wide variation of clothing insulation values among students. Yet many designers and modelers use these methods and values in education environments without attempting to adjust for the varying ultimate needs of students. This results in a greater thermal discomfort among students, negatively Constructing Our Niches: The Application of Evolutionary Theory to the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry 43 evolution-institute.org impacting their ability to learn (at least compared to an environment better capable of meeting their thermal needs).
One disadvantage of codes and standards is that they’re only updated every 3+ years, delaying updates that could improve the alignment of people’s ultimate needs and their proximate environments.
One disadvantage of codes and standards is that they’re only updated every 3+ years, delaying updates that could improve the alignment of people’s ultimate needs and their proximate environments. This is compounded by the fact that for a variety of reasons ranging from inertia to implementation and construction cost implications, the versions of model codes adopted by municipalities are often one or more cycles out of date. Sustainability is often negatively impacted because the only real driver in many locations is relative to the requirements for energy performance mandated by the local building energy code. If it’s several cycles out of date, then the current best practices with regards to energy performance aren’t mandated and associated utility savings and emissions reductions aren’t obtained.
Certification systems, such as LEED, BREEAM, and the WELL Building Standard, provide municipalities and building owners the option of exceeding out of date code requirements or of even going beyond current model codes. However, unless aspects of these certification systems have been mandated and/or incentivized in some manner by municipalities, utilities, or other relevant organizations, their use is sometimes limited. They have an associated certification cost and can also add varying amounts to the costs associated with design, construction, and operations, though the percentages are often comparatively small. Providing the associated return on investments from utility savings, quantified occupant productivity and health benefits, increased rental rates, and other operational benefits can help make the decision-making process more prosocial and longer-term in nature, but not always. And certification systems suffer from the same potential update cycle limitations as codes and standards.
Stretch codes, though, if adopted, provide municipalities the ability to establish a vision and set of goals for energy efficiency (or other aspects of sustainability, health/wellness, etc.) looking forward ten to twenty years as opposed to being tied to the 3+ year cycle of updates. This also gives the market time to react to and accommodate any needed new practices and technologies. Businesses, universities, school districts, etc., can all see what will be required of their existing, or potentially renovated or new buildings, for years down the road. And because such codes are typically performance or outcomes-based (as opposed to prescriptive-based), they have greater flexibility in adopting new technologies, methodologies, or understandings of relevant ultimate needs as they develop over time. Stretch codes, when properly implemented, help facilitate longer-term assessments of costs and benefits, as well as the environmental and societal impacts beyond the individual building or project. At the level of the community, state or nation, they have even greater potential than non-stretch codes at minimizing within-group selection forces that can overly disrupt unity, cohesiveness and group identity.e.g. 26
The next essay represents the culmination of the series. It focuses on the planning, design, construction, and operations processes themselves, discussing what we can do to better account for the relevant ultimate design features of a given project and determine their most appropriate proximate manifestations.
...codes and standards help drive the standardization of materials, systems, building configurations, construction methodologies, and operational procedures, increasing the uniformity within the building/construction industry among manufacturers, designers, buildings, and building owners.
Moving to the level of the group, as I discussed in the second essay, norms (that include formal building codes and standards) “…help create common experiences and expectations among group members, binding them together. As a result, they help suppress within-group selection among group members that can disrupt the cohesiveness of groups, ensuring that between group forces dominate.”26 Specifically, codes and standards help drive the standardization of materials, systems, building configurations, construction methodologies, and operational procedures, increasing the uniformity within the building/construction industry among manufacturers, designers, buildings, and building owners. Such industrywide standardization provides a unifying force at the level of the community, state, and nationstate to help each level operate more efficiently. In this case building codes help ensure that unity and other group level ultimate needs of Cooperation and Competition, discussed in the last essay, are met, increasing their respective fitness levels.
In the case of the Wilder Bock building, the normalized expectations and potential design solutions available through a) the uniformity provided via similarities in codes and standards, b) widely available building materials and equipment, and c) a common building/construction intellectual tradition, set the stage for an affordable solution meeting the ultimate design needs in question. The functional integration provided through the different design professionals, contractors, manufacturers, code officials, and other key stakeholders contributing their own parts to the final solution, enhanced by the uniformity just mentioned, further ensures a successful outcome to a complex problem. And by successfully meeting the occupant and owner needs, public trust in the overall system of code development, design/construction, and oversight from code officials is maintained, contributing to a strong group identity and ensuring that the economic and political stability offered by a well-functioning building/construction industry continues. Tragedies that unfortunately occur, such as the Station nightclub fire, Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, and the Oakland Ghost Ship fire (sometimes exacerbated by the political weakening of code adoption and enforcement), undermine this trust, even if the eventual outcome is a stronger set of building codes, Constructing Our Niches: The Application of Evolutionary Theory to the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry 42 evolution-institute.org better design, and more effective enforcement. Such tragedies may also result in a loss of code enforcement flexibility, negatively impacting the ability to meet other ultimate needs. The successful outcome for the Wilder Block building came about because of local code officials’ flexibility in finding a solution they deemed provided an equivalent level of safety. A less flexible interpretation could have required replacing the original doors and transoms, negatively impacting the building’s historic nature. A loss of local history removes some of the common bonds that tie a community together, negatively impacting its group identity and uniformity, and ultimately its relative fitness.
This doesn’t mean that the uniformity within the building/construction industry contributed to by codes and standards results in limited to no competition among designers, contractors, etc. But if there is generally sufficient work for everyone (i.e., the local environment is capable of supporting the current population), the competition for individual projects typically doesn’t include extensive efforts to put the competition out of business. Codes and standards, code enforcement (i.e., low-cost monitoring), maintaining professional reputations (i.e., Graduated sanctions) and the legal ramifications (i.e., Graduated sanctions) also restrict the actions potentially taken by design firms and contractors to increase their profit margins at the expense of the final project’s quality and safety. More cut-throat competition is an indication that within group selection is rivaling or dominating between group selection forces, contributing to instability at the community or larger social level. As already alluded to, code consistency, or more specifically the potentially associated inflexibility, can unintentionally contribute to instability. It can lead to (or at least contribute to) misalignments of local level proximate manifestations with ultimate needs. There may not be enough flexibility built into a code or standard to begin with to allow adequate adaptation to local conditions or local code officials may adopt a generally inflexible approach. I’ve already discussed the benefit of code interpretive flexibility in the case of the Wilder Block building. And standards, while not necessarily having the regulatory requirements of codes, are sometimes applied by designers in an inflexible manner, or at least without fully understanding the context in which they were developed. This too can lead to misalignments of ultimate needs with proximate manifestations of the physical environment.
In the fourth essay, I mentioned how BranchPattern’s post-occupancy evaluations of pre-K – 16+ campus environments found thermal discomfort to be a too-common occurrence, particularly for students. One of the reasons for this is design solutions often don’t adequately account “… for how variation in demographics (age, gender, clothing, etc.) impacts thermal comfort.” ASHRAE Standard 55 and ISO 7730 Standard for “Ergonomics of the thermal environment” are both standards used to help maximize thermal comfort in the built environment. But as pointed out in a report by the Committee to Review and Assess the Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Schools,83 both are based on experimental studies of adults, not children (or young adults).
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the metabolic rate estimation methods and predefined clothing insulation values recommended for use by these standards to model thermal comfort during design don’t adequately address a) younger physiologies, b) the variation in clothing insulation values between adults and students, and c) the wide variation of clothing insulation values among students. Yet many designers and modelers use these methods and values in education environments without attempting to adjust for the varying ultimate needs of students. This results in a greater thermal discomfort among students, negatively Constructing Our Niches: The Application of Evolutionary Theory to the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry 43 evolution-institute.org impacting their ability to learn (at least compared to an environment better capable of meeting their thermal needs).
One disadvantage of codes and standards is that they’re only updated every 3+ years, delaying updates that could improve the alignment of people’s ultimate needs and their proximate environments.
One disadvantage of codes and standards is that they’re only updated every 3+ years, delaying updates that could improve the alignment of people’s ultimate needs and their proximate environments. This is compounded by the fact that for a variety of reasons ranging from inertia to implementation and construction cost implications, the versions of model codes adopted by municipalities are often one or more cycles out of date. Sustainability is often negatively impacted because the only real driver in many locations is relative to the requirements for energy performance mandated by the local building energy code. If it’s several cycles out of date, then the current best practices with regards to energy performance aren’t mandated and associated utility savings and emissions reductions aren’t obtained.
Certification systems, such as LEED, BREEAM, and the WELL Building Standard, provide municipalities and building owners the option of exceeding out of date code requirements or of even going beyond current model codes. However, unless aspects of these certification systems have been mandated and/or incentivized in some manner by municipalities, utilities, or other relevant organizations, their use is sometimes limited. They have an associated certification cost and can also add varying amounts to the costs associated with design, construction, and operations, though the percentages are often comparatively small. Providing the associated return on investments from utility savings, quantified occupant productivity and health benefits, increased rental rates, and other operational benefits can help make the decision-making process more prosocial and longer-term in nature, but not always. And certification systems suffer from the same potential update cycle limitations as codes and standards.
Stretch codes, though, if adopted, provide municipalities the ability to establish a vision and set of goals for energy efficiency (or other aspects of sustainability, health/wellness, etc.) looking forward ten to twenty years as opposed to being tied to the 3+ year cycle of updates. This also gives the market time to react to and accommodate any needed new practices and technologies. Businesses, universities, school districts, etc., can all see what will be required of their existing, or potentially renovated or new buildings, for years down the road. And because such codes are typically performance or outcomes-based (as opposed to prescriptive-based), they have greater flexibility in adopting new technologies, methodologies, or understandings of relevant ultimate needs as they develop over time. Stretch codes, when properly implemented, help facilitate longer-term assessments of costs and benefits, as well as the environmental and societal impacts beyond the individual building or project. At the level of the community, state or nation, they have even greater potential than non-stretch codes at minimizing within-group selection forces that can overly disrupt unity, cohesiveness and group identity.e.g. 26
The next essay represents the culmination of the series. It focuses on the planning, design, construction, and operations processes themselves, discussing what we can do to better account for the relevant ultimate design features of a given project and determine their most appropriate proximate manifestations.
Sources:
1. Dunnell, R.C. (1980). Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 3 (1980), pp. 35-99.
2. Leonard, R. D. (2001). Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 65-97. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
3. Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
4. Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene. New ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
5. Dunnell, R.C. (1989). Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 35-49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
6. Dunnell, R.C. (1995). What is it that Actually Evolves? In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by P. A. Teltser, pp. 33-50. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
7. Leonard, R. D., and G. T. Jones (1987). Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:199-219.
8. O’Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman (2000a). Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Press, New York.
9. Harmon, M. J. (2005). Centralization, Cultural Transmission, and “The Game of Life and Death” in Northern Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
10. Sober, E. and D. S. Wilson (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London
11. Wilson, D. S. (1998). Hunting, Sharing, and Multilevel Selection. Current Anthropology 39(1):73-97.
12. Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
13. Harmon, M. J. (2008). The “Game of Life and Death” Within the Casas Grandes Region of Northern Mexico. In Touching the Past: Ritual, Religion, and Trade of Casas Grandes, BYU Museum of Peoples and Cultures Popular Series No. 5, edited by G. Nielsen-Grimm and P. Stavast. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
14. Harmon, M. J., T. L. VanPool, R. D. Leonard, C. S. VanPool, and L. A. Salter (2006). Reconstructing the Flow of Information Across Time and Space: A Phylogenetic Analysis of Ceramic Traditions from Prehispanic Western and Northern Mexico and the Southwestern United States. In Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic Methods in Anthropology and Prehistory, edited by C. P. Lipo, M. J. O’Brien, S. Shennan, and M. Collard. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick and London.
15. Lipo, C. P., M. J. O’Brien, S. Shennan, and M. Collard, editors (2006). Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic Methods in Anthropology and Prehistory. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick and London.
16. Mace, R., C. J. Holden and S. Shennan, editors (2005). The Evolution of Cultural Diversity: A Phylogenetic Approach. Left Coast Press, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA
17. O’Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman (2000b). Evolutionary Archaeology: Reconstructing and Explaining Historical Lineages. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 126-142. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
18. O’Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., and R. Lee Lyman (2001). Cladistics is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenetics: Palaeoindian Points from the Southwestern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1115-1136
19. Moe, K. 2010. Thermally Active Surfaces in Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, Hudson, NY.
20. Brager, G., H. Zhang, and E. Arens. 2015. Evolving opportunities for providing thermal comfort. Building Research and Information, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1–14. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015.993536. www.escholarship.org/uc/item/77c0q85j.
21. Cheung, S. S., J. K. W. Lee and J. Oksa. 2016. Thermal Stress, Human Performance, and Physical Employment Standards. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 41(6): S148-S164. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0518.
22. Hanna, E. G. and P. W. Tait. 2015. Limitations to Thermoregulation and Acclimatization Challenge Human Adaptation to Global Warming. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12(7): 8034-8074. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515708/.
23. Lucas, R. A., Y. Epstein, and T. Kjellstrom. 2014. Excessive Occupational Heat Exposure: A Significant Ergonomic Challenge and Health Risk for Current and Future Workers. Extreme Physiology & Medicine. 3:14. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107471/.
24. Mishra, A. K., M. G. L. C. Loomans, J. L. M. Hensen. 2016. Thermal Comfort of Heterogeneous and Dynamic Indoor Conditions – An Overview. Building and Environment 109(15): 82-100. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132316303560#bib4.
25. Xiang, J., P. BI, D. Pisaniello, and A. Hansen. 2014. Health Impacts of Workplace Heat Exposure: An Epidemiological Review. Industrial Health 52(2): 91-101. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4202759/.
26. Wilson, D.S. 2015. Does Altruism Exist? Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27. Wilson, D.S. 2017. Reaching a New Plateau for the Acceptance of Multilevel Selection. This View of Life, September 22, 2017. Retrieved from https://evolution-institute.org/focus-article/reaching-anew-plateau-for-the-acceptance-of-multilevel-selection/?source=tvol.
28. Horr, Y. A., M. Arif, A. Kaushik, A. Mazroei, M. Katafygiotou, and E. Elsarrag. 2016. Occupant Productivity and Office Indoor Environment Auality: A Review of the Literature. Building and Environment 105: 1-21.
29. Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman. 2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California‟s Sustainable Building Task Force. Report developed for the California Sustainable Building Task Force.
30. Seppanen, O., W. J. Fisk, and Q. H. Lei. 2006. Effect of temperature on task performance in office environment. Report LBNL-60946. Helsinki University of Technology, 1-9
31. Cashman, S. 2017. The Moral History of Air-Conditioning. The Atlantic. Aug. 9, 2017. Accessed Aug 18, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/the-moralhistory-of-air-conditioning/536364/
32. Ingels, M. 1952. Willis Haviland Carrier, Father of Air Conditioning. Country Life Press, Garden City, NY.
33. Basile, S. 2014. Cool: How Air Conditioning Changed Everything. Fordham University Press, NY.
34. Addington, M. 1995. Reclaiming the Boundary. Proceedings of the 83rd ACSA Annual Meeting, 460-464.
35. Ali, M. and P. Armstrong. 2010. Sustainability and the Tall Building: Recent Developments and Future Trends. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Chicago, IL.
36. Wood, A. and R. Salib. 2013. Guide to Natural Ventilation in High Rise Office Buildings. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.
37. Beamish, T. D. and N. W. Biggart. 2010. Mesoeconomics: Business Cycles, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Crisis in Commercial Building Markets. In M. Lounsbury, P. M. Hirsh (Ed.), Markets on Trial: The Economic Sociology of the U.S. Financial Crisis: Part B, pp. 245-282, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK.
38. Johnson, C. E. and R. Kennedy. 2006. House in a Box: Prefabricated Housing in the Jackson Purchase Cultural Landscape Region, 1900 to 1960. Kentucky Heritage Council. June, 2006.
39. Lu, J. 2015. An Investigation of Workplace Characteristics Influencing Knowledge Worker’s Sense of Belonging and Organizational Outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
40. Rassia, S. Th. 2017. Workplace Environmental Design in Architecture for Public Health: Impacts on Occupant Space Use and Physical Activity. Springer Briefs in Public Health. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-53444-2_2.
41. Boehm, C. 1996. Emergency Decisions, Cultural-Selection Mechanics, and Group Selection. Current Anthropology 37:763-793 [CB].
42. Boehm, C. 1997a. Egalitarian Behavior and the Evolution of Political Intelligence. In Machiavellian Intelligence 2, edited by D. Byrne and A. Whiten. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [CB].
43. Boehm, C. 1997b The Impact of the Human Egalitarian Syndrome on Darwinian Selection Mechanics. American Naturalist 150:100-121.
44. Harmon, M. J. 2000. Tracing the Styles of Electric Lighting: An “Illuminating” Look at the Cultural Transmission Versus Independent Innovation Associated with Electric Lighting. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Chacmool Conference, Calgary, Canada.
45. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
46. Wilson, D.S., R.A. Kauffman, Jr, M.S. Purdy MS. 2011. A Program for At-Risk High School Students Informed by Evolutionary Science. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27826. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027826
47. Wilson, D. S., E. Ostrom, E., and M.E. Cox. 2013. Generalizing the Core Design Principles for the Efficacy of Groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90, S21–S32.
48. Allen, J. G., P. MacNaughton, U. Satish, S. Santanam, J. Vallarino, and J. D. Spengler. 2015. Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments. Environmental Health Perspective 124(6): 805-812. Retrieved from http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/124/6/ehp.1510037.alt.pdf.
49. Halpern, D., King, D., Vlaev, I. & Hallsworth, M. 2010. Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. Report by the Institute for Government for the Cabinet Office, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/mindspace.
50. Henrich, J. 2016. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton & Oxford, Princeton University Press
51. Brown, G. R., Dickins, T. E., Sear, R. & Laland, K. N. 2011. Evolutionary Accounts of Human Behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366: 313–324.
52. Ajis, A. M., Y. Matsumoto and N. Ryusuke 2012. A Fundamental Study of Workplace Communication: Determinants of the Amount of F2F Communication and Its Impact to Workplace Spatial Settings. 2012 IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications Proceedings, pp 227 – 232.
53. Ong, L. D. and A. Tay. 2015. The Effects of Co-Workers’ Social Undermining Behaviour on Employees’ Work Behaviours. 2015 GAI Istanbul International Academic Conference Proceedings, Istanbul, Turkey.
54. Brunia, S. and A. Hartjes-Gosselink 2009. Personalization in non-territorial offices: a study of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 11 (3): 169-182.
55. Kim, J., C. Candido, L. Thomas, and R. de Dear 2016. Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health.
Building and Environment 103: 203-214.
56. Volker, L., and T. J. van der Voordt 2005. “An Integral Tool for the Diagnostic Evaluation of Non-territorial Offices.” In Designing Social Innovation, Planning, Building, Evaluating, edited by B.
Martens, and A.G. Keul, pp. 241–250. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
57. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-07442-4. Retrieved from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674074422&content=reviews.
58. Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green llc. Retrieved from https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/reports/14- patterns/#biophilia-in-context.
59. Heschong Mahone Group. (2003b). Windows and offices: A study of office worker performance and the indoor environment. Prepared for the California Energy Commission: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2003publications/CEC-500-2003-082/CEC500-2003-082-A-09.PDF.
60. Heschong Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship Between Daylight and Human Performance. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric and the California Board for Energy Efficiency Third Party Program. Retrieved from http://h-m-g.com/downloads/ Daylighting/schoolc.pdf.
61. Heschong Mahone Group. (2003a). Windows and classrooms: a study of student performance and the indoor environment. Prepared for the California Energy Commission: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2003publications/CEC-500-2003-082/CEC500-2003-082-A-07.PDF.
62. Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421.
63. Wargocki, P. and Seppänen, O., editors. (2006). Indoor Climate and Productivity in Offices, Guidebook No. 6. Rehva (Federation of European Heating and Air-Conditioning Associations), Brussels, Belgium.
64. Brager, G. and Baker, L. (2009). Occupant Satisfaction in Mixed Mode Buildings. Building Research and Information, 37(4), 369-380.
65. Elzeyadi, I. M. K. (2012). Quantifying the Impacts of Green Schools on People and Planet. Research presented at the USGBC Greenbuild Conference & Expo, San Francisco, November 2012:48-60. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/resources/quantifying-impacts-green-schoolspeople-and-planet.
66. Wigö, H. (2005). Technique and Human Perception of Intermittent Air Velocity Variation. KTH Research School, Centre for Built Environment.
67. Milton, D. K., Glencross, P. M., & Walters, M. D. (2000). Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidification, and occupant complaints. Indoor air, 10(4), 212-221.
68. MacNaughton, P., Pegues, J., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Spengler, J. and Allen, J. (2015). Economic, Environmental and Health Implications of Enhanced Ventilation in Office Buildings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 14709-14722. Retrieved from http://www. mdpi.com/journal/ijerph.
69. Sykes, D. M. (2004). Productivity: How Acoustics Affect Workers’ Performance In Offices & Open Areas. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from Office Sound Masking Solutions, by Speech Privacy Systems.
70. Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: Measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 44-52.
71. Lee, S. Y. and Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 323–333.
72. Nishihara, N., Nishikawa, M., Haneda, M. and Tanabe, S. (2006). Productivity with Task and Ambient Lighting System Evaluated by Fatigue and Task Performance. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006 (pp. 249-252) Lisbon, Portugal.
73. Wohlers, C. and Hertel, G. (2016). Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2016.1188220.
74. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
75. Inamizu, N. (2013). Positive Effect of Non-territorial Office On Privacy: Allen’s Experiment Secret. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 12, 111–121.
76. Royal, M. and Agnew, T. (2011). The Enemy of Engagement: Put an End to Workplace Frustration- -and Get the Most from Your Employees. AMACOM, New York, NY.
77. Stoelhorst, J. W., and Richerson, P. J. (2013). A naturalistic theory of economic organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90S, S45-S56.
78. Turchin, P., Whitehouse, H., Francois, P., Slingerland, E. and Collard, M. (2012). A Historical Database of Sociocultural Evolution. Cliodynamics, 3, 271–293.
79. Lipo, C. P. and Madsen, M. E. (1995). The Evolutionary Biology of Ourselves: Unit Requirements and Organizational Change in United States History. Manuscript in possession of the author.
80. Michod, R. E. (1999). Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
81. Wilson, D. S., Lieberman, J., Berch, D. B., Biglan, A., Bjorklund, D. F., Ellis, B. J., Embry, D. D., Geary, D. C. & Gray, P. (2009). Learning from mother nature about teaching our children: Ten simple truths about childhood education from an evolutionary perspective. Retrieved from https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Ten-Truths-Revision.pdf.
82. Hoefferle, J., Jr. (2006). Fire & Building Safety Code Compliance for Historic Buildings: A Field Guide, 2nd Edition. University of Vermont Graduate Program in Historic Preservation in Cooperation with the Vermont Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Safety. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/histpres/307/LifeSafetyFieldGuide.pdf.
83. National Research Council. (2007). Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning. Committee to Review and Assess the Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Schools, National Research Council of the National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11756/green-schools-attributes-for-health-and-learning.
84. Harmon, M. 2012. Creating Environments that Promote Efficiency and Sustainability: Anthropological Applications in the Building/Construction Industry. Proceedings from the 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, pp 7-75 - 7-87. Retrieved from http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/start.htm.
85. Harmon, M. J. 2016. If We Say That Nature Is Priceless, Do We End up in Effect Treating It as Valueless? Evonomics, July 18, 2016. Retrieved from http://evonomics.com/if-we-say-nature-is-priceless/.
86. Harmon, M. 2011a. The Commissioning Agent as Anthropologist – Part 1. The Checklist: The Quarterly Newsletter of the Building Commissioning Association, Second Quarter., pp. 8-10. Retrieved from http://www.bcxa.org/wp-content/pdf/Checklist-Q2-2011.pdf.
87. Harmon, M. 2011b. The Commissioning Agent as Anthropologist – Part 2. The Checklist: The Quarterly Newsletter of the Building Commissioning Association, Third Quarter., pp. 8-11, 16-17. Retrieved from http://www.bcxa.org/wp-content/pdf/Checklist-Q3-2011.pdf
