From mould and indoor air quality to green facades and post-occupancy evaluation, researchers at the University of Sydney are transforming how buildings support human health.
We spend up to 90% of our lives indoors, yet most buildings are still not designed or assessed with human health as a primary outcome.
At the University of Sydney’s School of Architecture, Design and Planning, researchers are tackling a critical but often overlooked question: ‘How can buildings actively improve wellbeing, rather than harm it?’
Through research into architectural science, they are bridging design, engineering and data to better understand how buildings perform in the real world, and how they can be improved.
We still treat indoor environmental quality as secondary to structural or energy performance
School of Architecture, Design and Planning
Indoor environments play a powerful role in shaping respiratory health, cognitive performance and overall wellbeing, but many of the most significant risks remain overlooked.
For Dr Arianna Brambilla, the issue lies in how we prioritise building performance.
“We still treat indoor environmental quality as secondary to structural or energy performance,” she says. “The most overlooked risks sit at the intersection of moisture, air quality, and thermal comfort.”
When ventilation and moisture are poorly managed, buildings can create the conditions for mould growth, indoor pollutants and persistent thermal discomfort, factors linked to respiratory illness and broader health impacts.
These risks are not evenly distributed.
“The cumulative effect of poor indoor conditions is often felt most strongly by vulnerable populations, young children, the elderly, and people with pre-existing conditions, who are least able to modify their environments,” says Brambilla.
Thermal comfort adds another critical dimension. According to Dr Thomas Parkinson, temperature is far more than a technical setting.
“Temperature isn’t just a parameter, it’s a social determinant of health,” he says. “Sustained discomfort, particularly in homes, can disrupt sleep, recovery and overall wellbeing.”
Together, these insights point to a clear shift: building performance is not just a technical issue, it’s a public health issue.
Even when buildings meet design standards, they don’t always deliver healthy or comfortable environments in practice.
Brambilla’s research highlights a persistent gap between design intent and lived experience.
“Buildings can comply with all relevant standards and still develop moisture problems, poor air quality or thermal discomfort,” she explains. “It’s not just a failure of standards, it’s a failure to close the loop between design, construction and performance.”
A key reason for this is that buildings are designed based on assumptions, about climate, occupancy and behaviour that rarely reflect reality.
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is helping to bridge this gap.
At the IEQ Lab, Parkinson and his team combine environmental monitoring with large-scale occupant surveys to understand how buildings actually perform.
“Energy ratings measure what a building consumes, they don’t measure what it delivers to people,” he says. “Thermal satisfaction remains one of the most persistent sources of complaint, even in buildings operating exactly as designed.”
By capturing both quantitative data and human feedback, POE reveals where buildings fall short, and provides actionable insights for improvement.
“The most useful insights combine numbers with narrative,” Parkinson adds. “They give design teams something they can act on.”
Moving from design to reality highlights the importance of post-occupancy evaluation in understanding actual building performance and translating user experiences into better design decisions for healthier buildings and healthier lives.
Dr Ozgur Gocer’s research also emphasises the role of post-occupancy evaluation in connecting environmental performance with lived experience.
“Performance outcomes are shaped not only at the design stage, but throughout construction and operation,” she says. “Involving end users through post-occupancy evaluation ensures that environmental performance is aligned with lived experience, not just technical targets.”
We’re rethinking building skins as ‘prod-active’ systems, capable of generating energy, capturing carbon, and even supporting urban agriculture
School of Architecture, Design and Planning
Beyond internal conditions, the building envelope itself is emerging as a powerful tool for improving health and environmental performance.
For Dr Gocer, facades should be understood not as static surfaces, but as active systems.
“Building facades are environmental filters,” she says. “They regulate the exchange between indoor and outdoor environments, shaping daylight, air, heat and pollution in ways that directly influence occupant wellbeing.”
Green facades and living wall systems are gaining global attention as part of this shift.
When designed and integrated effectively, they can:
But their success depends on more than design intent.
“Their effectiveness is highly dependent on design quality, maintenance strategies, and integration with building systems,” Gocer notes.
For Dr Eugenia Gasparri, this evolution is part of a broader transformation in how we think about building skins.
“Much like human skin, facades operate as multi-layered systems that both protect and mediate the relationship between indoor and outdoor environments,” she says.
Her research is pushing this further, toward facades that don’t just perform but actively contribute to environmental regeneration.
“We’re rethinking building skins as ‘prod-active’ systems, capable of generating energy, capturing carbon, and even supporting urban agriculture,” she explains.
From solar-integrated facades to microalgae systems and vertical food production, this work signals a future where buildings become active participants in environmental and human health.
As the built environment faces increasing pressure to reduce emissions and resource use, architectural science is also driving innovation in materials and construction systems.
Gasparri’s work in industrialised timber construction highlights the potential for more efficient, low-carbon building practices.
“Timber is a renewable material that stores carbon,” she says. “When combined with industrialised production, it enables greater precision, reduced waste and faster delivery.”
At the same time, her research into circular design is reshaping how buildings are conceived across their lifecycle.
“Façades are complex systems with components that often have shorter lifespans than the building itself,” she explains. “Designing for disassembly, reuse and material recovery is essential to creating sustainable material flows.”
This lifecycle thinking is critical not just for sustainability, but for long-term performance and resilience.
Across all four researchers, a common theme emerges: the need to connect research, industry and policy to drive meaningful change.
For Brambilla, the opportunity lies in treating buildings as a form of preventative health infrastructure.
“It is far more cost-effective to invest in understanding and preventing indoor health risks than to manage their consequences after the fact,” she says.
Parkinson’s work is already informing international standards and industry practices, while Gocer’s research highlights the importance of collaboration across design, construction and operation.
“Performance outcomes are shaped across the entire building lifecycle,” Gocer says. “Continuous feedback between stakeholders is essential.”
Gasparri agrees, emphasising the importance of co-creation.
“The most impactful partnerships bring academia, industry and manufacturers together from the outset,” she says. “That’s how we bridge the gap between research and scalable implementation.”
As the built environment faces growing challenges, from climate change to public health, the need for evidence-based, industry-connected innovation has never been greater.
At the University of Sydney, architectural science is providing the tools, data and frameworks to design buildings that don’t just meet standards, but actively support human health and environmental sustainability.
We already have partnerships with companies like Mitsubishi Electric and Velux, to find out more about partnering with us submit an enquiry here.
