From Trillions in Assets to the "Halo Effect": The Finance of Air Quality & The Psychology of Perception
In this week’s double feature on Air Quality Matters, we traverse the macro and the micro of the built environment. First, we dive into the high-stakes world of global real estate finance to understand how air quality is moving from a "nice-to-have" policy to a performance metric that drives investment. Then, in our One Take segment, we shift gears to the human mind, exploring why we systematically misperceive the air we breathe in our own homes.
The Main Event: Bridging Building Science and Unsentimental Finance with GRESB
It is difficult to overstate the influence of the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB). It covers trillions of dollars in assets and fundamentally shapes how pension funds and major investors view risk and performance in the built environment.
In this episode, I sit down with Parag Cameron-Rastogi (Rastogi) , Director of Real Asset Analytics at GRESB . What makes this conversation unique is Parag’s background; he isn't a traditional finance professional but a building physicist operating within the world of investment. This intersection offers a fascinating window into how the "unsentimental" world of finance is beginning to value things like climate risk, energy efficiency, and increasingly, indoor air quality.
From Intentions to Performance
A central theme of our discussion is the significant philosophical and practical shift GRESB is undertaking: moving from disclosure-based assessments to performance-based metrics.
For years, the industry relied on "intentions"—asking asset managers if they had a policy for air quality or a strategy for well-being. While necessary, this approach has limits. Parag explains how the industry is now pivoting toward measured performance. However, this transition is fraught with challenges, particularly regarding data coverage.
We discuss the "binary nature" of current data availability. The industry is currently seeing a bimodal distribution: assets either have 95-100% data coverage (usually high-end, prime real estate), or they have near-zero coverage. There is almost no middle ground. Parag offers deep insights into why this "fat tail" of real estate—the warehouses, the older offices, the residential blocks—struggles to bridge this gap and what it means for the validity of benchmarking.
The Nuance of Relative Benchmarking
One of the most compelling parts of the conversation revolves around how we define "good" performance. In building science, we often look for absolute thresholds (e.g., WHO limits for PM2.5). However, the financial world thrives on relative benchmarking.
Parag breaks down why investors are less interested in whether a building hits a specific theoretical number and more interested in how it performs relative to its peers in a specific region or sector. This raises difficult questions for the air quality sector:
How do you benchmark air quality in New Delhi versus London?
Is it fair to penalize a building for high indoor particulate matter if the outdoor air is toxic?
How do we create a scoring system that rewards improvement in difficult environments rather than just rewarding buildings that exist in clean climates?
Why Listen?
This episode is a must-listen for anyone trying to understand the economic drivers behind healthy buildings. Parag provides a rare look under the hood of how asset values are calculated. He challenges the "fluffy" reputation of health metrics, arguing that finance is actually the perfect vehicle for operationalizing air quality data—provided we can translate it into the language of risk.
You will hear a candid discussion on the limitations of current data, the "spreadsheet fatigue" plaguing the industry, and the future of AI in categorizing building performance. It is a masterclass in how to make the technical realities of building physics matter to the people writing the checks.
One Take: Why We Ignore the Invisible
In this week’s One Take, we step away from the economics and look at the psychology of the occupant. I review a fascinating paper titled "Why do we misperceive air pollution? A scoping review of key judgmental biases," published in Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health.
If you have ever wondered why showing a tenant a sensor reading doesn't always lead to a behavioral change, this segment is for you. The paper systematically dismantles the "deficit model"—the assumption that people just need more data to act. Instead, it identifies six specific cognitive biases that cause us to ignore poor air quality, even when the evidence is right in front of us.
We explore concepts like:
The Home Halo Effect: The deep-seated psychological need to view our home as a sanctuary, leading us to irrationally reject evidence that it might be unhealthy.
Habituation: The mechanism behind "nose blindness" and why our sensory capacity is a terrible alarm system for danger.
The Exclusion Effect: How financial stress and the cost of living crisis literally "crowd out" our ability to perceive air quality risks.
This brief overview suggests that to be effective, engineers and housing officers need to be part psychologists. Understanding these heuristics is crucial for anyone trying to communicate risk or improve ventilation strategies in residential settings.
Why do we misperceive air pollution? A scoping review of key judgmental biases
The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with
The One Take Podcast in Partnership with
SafeTraces and Inbiot
Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website.
If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.