**1. Introduction**

A safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment is necessary for the full enjoyment of a vast range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and development. At the same time, the exercise of human rights, including the rights to information, participation and remedy, is vital to the protection of the environment [1]. Based on these values, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council has developed a framework of principles on human rights that addresses the right to a healthy environment and looks forward to the next steps in the evolving relationship between human rights and the environment.

Based on recent World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, 22% of the global burden of disease is due to the environment [2]. Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease, are collectively responsible for almost 70% of all deaths worldwide [3]. Within NCDs, air quality is a risk factor for several of the world's leading causes of death, including heart disease, pneumonia, stroke, diabetes and lung cancer [4], as well as impaired mental health [5]. Indoor air risk includes different kinds of gas pollutants, including volatile organic compound (VOC) and the radioactive gas radon [6]. Several studies show that long-term exposure to road traffic noise and ambient air pollution is associated with increased cardiovascular risk factors [7]. Air pollutant concentration is increased in urban built environments, making air pollution from human activities the largest environmental health risk in Europe [8]. The exposure to environmental factors plays an important role in the prevalence of NCDs and is even more

problematic in the current pandemic period [9]. The review of the main epidemiological studies that evaluate the respiratory effects of indoor air pollutants show the consistent short-term and long-term effects on asthma, chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in indoor settings with poor air quality [10].

On the other side, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3 and 11 also emphasize the importance of living in a safe and healthy environment [10]. SDG 3*—Good health and wellbeing—*endeavors to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being at all ages as essential to sustainable development, while SDG 11— *Sustainable cities and communities—*advocates the future in which cities provide opportunities for all, with access to basic services, energy, housing, transportation and more.

Safe Community movement (SC) and Healthy City program (HC) are two major initiatives encouraged by the WHO to promote safety and health in communities [11]. After merging similar safety and health promotion topics, Tabrizia et al. [11] reviewed their relevancy and determined perfect matches which are reflected in risk-groups' health and safety, child safety, disaster preparedness and response, home and buildings' safety and health, and healthy and safe urban planning and design. In addition, relative matches were seen within traffic safety, violence prevention, work safety, safe public places, water safety, school safety, tobacco-free environment, mental well-being, addiction and substance abuse prevention, physical environmental quality and social support. Air quality is recognized only within the Healthy City program.

Based on this study, Tabrizia et al. [11] developed the Safe and Health Promoting Community (SHPC) model comprising seven values and 14 main dimensions to improve safety and health in the community. Two of these deal with the outdoor and indoor environment and air quality: healthy and safe environment (healthy waste, clean air, healthy food, safe waste management and access to sewage system) [5] and healthy and safe urban planning (safe urban furniture, safe public places, safe leisure places and safe home) [10]. It is important to mention that public empowerment and participation are concepts that are highly focused on new theories of safety and health promotion, where health is seen as a political choice. It is about the kind of society we want to live in [12].

Even though the basic function of a building is to shelter occupants from outdoor elements and provide a healthy, comfortable environment for productive activity, according to Lozano Patino and Siegel [13], conditions in social housing units are usually substandard. This generally associates with higher exposure to indoor pollutants and, ultimately, negative health effects. The authors [13] acknowledge the significance of this problem considering that social housing populations are generally more vulnerable due to age and/or socioeconomic status. Therefore, it is important to research the indoor air quality (IAQ) in these environments, especially because several studies found correlations between poor housing conditions and negative health outcomes [14–17].

Considering that people in urban areas spend up to 90% of their time indoors [18] and there are specific sources of pollutants indoors in relation to the environment [19,20], there is a clear need to pay special attention to indoor air. Considering this, problems of indoor air pollution are increasingly recognized as important risk factors for human health, requiring different management approaches from those used for outdoor air pollution [21].

Accordingly, by presenting an extreme example of bad IAQ in "smelly buildings" in Belgrade, Serbia, the purpose of this paper is to look at this specific and extreme case of indoor air pollution from an aspect of IAQ and facilities management (FM) in order to define recommendations for future prevention of these and similar situations. In accordance with this objective, the paper is structured as follows. The first part of the paper deals with the comparative analysis of the activities and services of FM and phases of critical building design control in achieving IAQ, as observed from the aspect of the linear model of the construction process. A brief overview of the context of public construction and the social housing complex in Serbia is presented in the second part of the paper to clarify the circumstances under which they were built. The third part of the paper includes a case study of "smelly buildings" in the Dr Ivan Ribar settlement in Belgrade, using the chronological course of events to indicate critical phases of the process. The final discussion part of the paper seeks to point out the need for the presence of FM during the entire construction process, in order to prevent certain situations that result in deterioration of IAQ.
