In a world of blockchain, machine learning and climate change, indoor air quality (IAQ) isn’t exactly the sexiest research topic in the world. Yet poor IAQ can negatively affect short term cognitive performance prior to users becoming aware of the declining air quality. This is a big problem in a temperate nation of naturally ventilated buildings and is becoming of increasing salience to policymakers and public health officials. My research directly addresses human and behavioural considerations in IAQ, including the design of situated technology to visualise IAQ such that occupants themselves can better manage their indoor environments through behavioural adaptations. Through this research, I gained a reputation as the “social science indoor air quality guy”.
Perhaps because of this relatively niche area of interest, I had been on the radar of Public Policy Southampton, who facilitate a range of air quality-related collaborations between the University of Southampton and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Together we pitched a proposal for collaboration to DEFRA during a visit to their offices in London, suggesting a summer secondment for myself. DEFRA were interested in identifying means for improving IAQ through behavioural (rather than physical engineered solutions).
Once the secondment had been negotiated between myself, DEFRA, Public Policy Southampton and my Head of School, an initial challenge was scoping for the project. DEFRA were interested in a range of issues around IAQ involving solid fuel burning in homes, IAQ in classrooms and offices and effects on productivity and behavioural adaptations possible in each of these settings. The challenge was ensuring a scope of works which would address and value-add to one or more of DEFRA’s priority areas, fell within my own expertise, was exhaustive and of sufficiently high academic rigour and would be possible for a single researcher at 33% FTE over a short three-moth secondment. The agreed deliverable was a two-part report (and executive summary) synthesising both the evidence on health effects of poor indoor air quality and the evidence on behaviour change interventions aimed at improving air quality awareness and potential occupant actions.
Once the scope had been agreed, preparing and delivering the two-part report was quite manageable with a healthy dose conscientious self-discipline, working long hours during excellent weather, while the rest of the country took their summer vacations. The end-result was a systematic review of appropriate literature, facilitating the collation of pragmatic recommendations for behavioural adaptations for office occupants to improve IAQ. We presented the final report to DEFRA in a presentation at their London offices in November 2018, and have since received commendation on the work from DEFRA, who in a letter expressed they were: “…impressed with the way that you adapted the subject matter of your field of enquiry to increase the value of your work to us” within the timeframes. “Within Defra, the work has been very useful in helping us develop our thinking on personal exposure to poor air quality and how the actions the public can take can and should differ according to local environments” (Corinne Wilkins, Principal Research Officer, Air Quality, DEFRA).
The recognition that the research was of use to DEFRA was rewarding. The focus on evidence-based and actionable recommendations required by governments is a breath of fresh air compared to chasing sometimes obscure knowledge gaps in academic research. DEFRA and I have discussed potential future work in broadening the scope of the initial investigation from office environments into successful behavioural interventions in the domestic sphere.