A Comparative Field Study of Indoor Environment Quality and Work Productivity between Job Types in a Research Institute in Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Occupant Database
2.2. Physical Measurements
2.3. Qualitative Evaluation
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Results of Quantitative Measurements
- (1)
- For the office layout, there was a significant difference between the research and administrative groups. Each item is a parameter closely related to the personal space of occupants in the office. Area per person was calculated using the formula “room area/seat number”, whereas storage volume per person was determined using the formula “total volume of cabinets/seat number” [29]. For the office layout, the difference in area per person was not significant, but storage volume per person exhibited a significant difference (p < 0.001). In the target building, the average area per person and storage volume per person of the research group were 16.9 m2 and 1.4 m3, respectively, which were relatively higher than those of the administrative group (14.8 m2 and 0.8 m3, respectively). This finding indicates that the average personal space of occupants in the research group was considerably larger than that in the administrative group.
- (2)
- For the thermal environment, there was no significant difference in indoor humidity between administrators and researchers. However, indoor temperature was significantly different between administrators and researchers (p < 0.01). According to EN 16798-1:2019 [51], the recommended temperature range is 19–25 °C, and the recommended humidity range is 25–60% for office buildings. This confirmed that the relative humidity of the target building was lower than the recommended range. For temperature, the recommended range was satisfied in most of the rooms but was not met on the fourth floor, which belonged to the research group. In addition, the average temperature of the research group (25.0 °C) was 1.1 °C higher than that of the administrative group (23.9 °C). Therefore, on average, the physical environment of the administrative group was better than that of the research group.
- (3)
- For the air quality item, there was no significant difference in CO2 concentration between the research and administrative groups. According to the recommendation by BS EN standard 15251:2007, CO2 concentration in offices must be less than 800 ppm [48]. According to the data, CO2 concentration in several sections where the administrative group worked exceeded the recommended range. In addition, the average CO2 concentrations of the research and administrative groups were 586.0 and 676.5 ppm, respectively. This indicates that the research group had a better environment than the administrative group in terms of air quality.
- (4)
- For the lighting environment item, there was no significant difference between the administrative and research groups. The average illuminance of the administrative group (1048.0 lx) was higher than that of the research group (927.8 lx). According to BS EN standard 12464-1:2011, the recommended illuminance for offices is 500 lx or higher [42]. Therefore, the recommended illuminance in the target building was satisfied for both the administrative and research groups. However, the lighting intensity of the administrative group was higher than that of the research group.
- (5)
- Acoustic environment was not included in this study.
3.2. Results of Qualitative Evaluation
3.2.1. Evaluation of IEQ Aspects and their Impacts on Work Productivity
3.2.2. Evaluation of Sub-Factors of IEQ Aspects
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The IEQ items with statistically significant differences between the research group and the administrative group in the research building were the layout and thermal comfort. The two items showed significant differences in both quantitative and qualitative evaluations. In addition, in the total productivity item that evaluated the relationship between overall work environment and work productivity, the administrative group was associated with lighting environment and layout items, and the research group was associated with layout, lighting environment, thermal comfort, and sound environment.
- (2)
- Among the surveyed IEQ items, the statistically significant layout and thermal comfort were consistent with the results of quantitative and qualitative analysis. In the quantitative measurement results for the target building, the layout environment was more positive for researchers than for administrators, and the thermal comfort was more positive for administrators than for researchers. In addition, the qualitative data showed that researchers were more satisfied with the layout than administrators, while administrators were more satisfied with the thermal comfort than researchers. This echoes the results of previous studies that the more comfortable the space arrangement and thermal comfort are, the better the satisfaction and work productivity of the residents. Therefore, as a result of this study, if the difference between IEQ items between groups is statistically significant, it is inferred that there is a possibility that the quantitative and qualitative evaluation results may be the same.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Klepeis, N.E.; Nelson, W.C.; Ott, W.R.; Robinson, J.P.; Tsang, A.M.; Switzer, P.; Behar, J.V.; Hern, S.C.; Engelmann, W.H. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2001, 11, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mendell, M.J.; Fisk, W.J.; Kreiss, K.; Levin, H.; Alexander, D.; Cain, W.S.; Girman, J.R.; Hines, C.J.; Jensen, P.A.; Milton, D.K.; et al. Improving the health of workers in indoor environments: Priority research needs for a national occupational research agenda. Am. J. Public Health 2002, 92, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Katafygiotou, M.; Mazroei, A.; Kaushik, A.; Elsarrag, E. Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Mazroei, A.; Katafygiotou, M.; Elsarrag, E. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 369–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frontczak, M.; Schiavon, S.; Goins, J.; Arens, E.; Zhang, H.; Wargocki, P. Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air 2012, 22, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Leaman, A.; Bordass, B. Productivity in Buildings: The ‘killer’ variables. In Creating the Productive Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; pp. 181–208. [Google Scholar]
- Mawson, A. The Workplace and Its Impact on Productivity; Advanced Workplace Associates: London, UK, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Roelofsen, P. The impact of office environments on employee performance: The design of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement. J. Facil. Manag. 2002, 1, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Der Voordt, T.J.M. Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. J. Corp. Real Estate 2004, 6, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CABE. Design Council. The Impact of Office Design on Business Performance; Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment and the British Council for Offices: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Clements-Croome, D. Creating the Productive Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Fisk, W.J.; Spengler, J.D.; Samet, J.M.; McCarthy, J.F. Estimates of potential nationwide productivity and health benefits from better indoor environments: An update. In Indoor Air Quality Handbook 4; Spengler, J.D., McCarthy, J.F., Samet, J.M., Eds.; McGraw-Hill Professional: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Clements-Croome, D. Creative and productive workplaces: A review. Intell. Build. Int. 2015, 7, 164–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheeler, G.; Almeida, A. These four walls: The real British office. In Creating the Productive Workplace; Clements-Croome, D., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; pp. 357–377. [Google Scholar]
- Wyon, D.P. The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air 2004, 14 (Suppl. 7), 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oseland, N.; Bartlett, P. Improving Office Productivity: A Guide for Business and Facilities Managers; Longman: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Tse, W.L.; So, A. The importance of human productivity to air-conditioning control in office environments. HVAC&R Res. 2007, 13, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Mazroei, A.; Elsarrag, E.; Mishra, S. Occupant productivity and indoor environment quality: A case of GSAS. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 476–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; de Dear, R.; Cândido, C.; Zhang, H.; Arens, E. Gender differences in office occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ). Build. Environ. 2013, 70, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, J.; Aziz, A.; Loftness, V. Investigation on the impacts of different genders and ages on satisfaction with thermal environments in office buildings. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 1529–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S.; Ou, D.; Mak, C.M. The impact of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in university open-plan research offices. Build. Environ. 2017, 124, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboulfotouh, A.K.; Tolba, O.; Ezzeldin, S. The impact of workspace location and indoor environmental quality on employees’ satisfaction within office buildings: A case study in Cairo. Indoor Built Environ. 2022, 31, 2094–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escuyer, S.; Fontoynont, M. Lighting controls: A field study of office workers’ reactions. Lighting Res. Technol. 2001, 33, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catalina, T.; Ghita, S.A.; Popescu, L.L.; Popescu, R. Survey and measurements of indoor environmental quality in urban/rural schools located in Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulaiman, M.A.; Wan Yusoff, W.Z.; Pawi, S.; Wan Kamarudin, W.N. Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of higher education institutions (HEIs): A user perception survey. J. Clean Energy Technol. 2013, 1, 318–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahyuddin, N.; Law, J.B. Indoor environmental quality assessment in a learning space: University of Malaya’s main library. J. Surv. Constr. Prop. 2019, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willems, S.; Saelens, D.; Heylighen, A. Discrepancies between predicted and actual indoor environmental (dis) comfort: The role of hospitalized patients’ adaptation strategies. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 50, 792–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, Y.; Yu, J.; Lin, B.; Wang, Z.; Huang, Y. Impact of individual IEQ factors on passengers’ overall satisfaction in Chinese airport terminals. Build. Environ. 2017, 112, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, H.; Ou, D. A comparative field study of indoor environmental quality in two types of open-plan offices: Open-plan administrative offices and open-plan research offices. Build. Environ. 2019, 148, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassanain, M.A. Post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of student housing facilities. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2007, 3, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulaiman, M.A.; Wan Yusoff, W.Z.; Wan Kamarudin, W.N. Evaluation of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) on dense academic building: Case studies Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2013, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, L.; Yuan, J.; Fleck, B. Indoor environmental quality evaluation of lecture classrooms in an institutional building in a cold climate. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jowkar, M.; Rijal, H.B.; Montazami, A.; Brusey, J.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A. The influence of acclimatization, age and gender-related differences on thermal perception in university buildings: Case studies in Scotland and England. Build. Environ. 2020, 179, 106933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiavon, S.; Altomonte, S. Influence of factors unrelated to environmental quality on occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Build. Environ. 2014, 77, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadick, A.-M.; Kpamma, Z.E.; Agyefi-Mensah, S. Impact of indoor environmental quality on job satisfaction and self-reported productivity of university employees in a tropical African climate. Build. Environ. 2020, 181, 107102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, Q.; MaloneBeach, E.E. Assessing staff satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in assisted living facilities. J. Inter. Des. 2017, 42, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Egbu, C.O.; Zawawi, E.M.; Karim, S.B.; Woon, C.J. Occupants’ satisfaction toward building environmental quality: Structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albuainain, N.; Sweis, G.; Albalkhy, W.; Sweis, R.; Lafhaj, Z. Factors affecting occupants’ satisfaction in governmental buildings: The case of the Kingdom of Bahrain. Buildings 2021, 11, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.C.; Mui, K.W.; Wong, L.T.; Chan, W.Y.; Lee, E.W.M.; Cheung, C.T. Student learning performance and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in air-conditioned university teaching rooms. Build. Environ. 2012, 49, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pivac, N.; Nižetić, S.; Zanki, V. Occupant behavior and thermal comfort field analysis in typical educational research institution: A case study. Therm. Sci. 2018, 22 (Suppl. 3), 785–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, L.T.; Parkinson, T.; Schiavon, S. Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE’s occupant surveys. Build. Cities 2021, 2, 166–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standard, ASHRAE 55; Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers: Shiga, Japan, 1992; Volume 145.
- Liang, H.-H.; Chen, C.; Hwang, R.-L.; Shih, W.-M.; Lo, S.-C.; Liao, H.-Y. Satisfaction of occupants toward indoor environment quality of certified green office buildings in Taiwan. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carton, Q.; Kolarik, J.; Breesch, H. Analysis of occupant satisfaction with IEQ in residential buildings. In Proceedings of the 2022: CLIMA 2022 The 14th REHVA HVAC World Congress, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 22–25 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, J.H.; Moon, J. Impacts of human and spatial factors on user satisfaction in office environments. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, R.M.; de Freitas, V.P. IEQ assessment of classrooms with an optimized demand controlled ventilation system. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 3132–3137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EN 12464; European Committee for Standardization. Light and Lighting—Lighting of Work Places—Part 1: Indoor Work Places. BSI Standard Publication: London, UK, 2011; p. 10.
- EN 15251; Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN): Paris, France, 2007.
- Janssen, J. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. ASHRAE J. 1989, 31, 40–48. [Google Scholar]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN16798–16791; Energy performance of buildings—Ventilation for buildings—Part 1: Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics—Module M1-6. BSI Standard Publication: London, UK, 2019.
- Frontczak, M. Human Comfort and Self-Estimated Performance in Relation to indoor Environmental Parameters and Building Features; Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, A.; Gossauer, E.; Moosmann, C.; Gropp, T.; Leonhart, R. Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field studies in German low energy office buildings. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 758–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, L.; Wargocki, P.; Lian, Z. Quantitative measurement of productivity loss due to thermal discomfort. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 1057–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haneda, M.; Nishihara, N.; Nakamura, S.; Uchida, S.; Tanabe, S. A field measurement of thermal environment in COOL BIZ office and the evaluation on productivity by a questionnaire survey. Nihon Kenchiku Gakkai Kankyokei Ronbunshu 2009, 74, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamaludin, A.A.; Keumala, N.; Ariffin, A.R.M.; Hussein, H. Satisfaction and perception of residents towards bioclimatic design strategies: Residential college buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2014, 23, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyce, P.R.; Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R.; Jones, C.C.; Heerwagen, J.; Myer, M.; Hunter, C.M. Lighting quality and office work: Two field simulation experiments. Lighting Res. Technol. 2006, 38, 191–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andargie, M.S.; Azar, E. An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor office environmental factors on occupants’ comfort and working conditions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 46, 101447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type | Administrator | Researcher | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Floor | 1F | 2F | 3F | Total (N) | Total (%) | 4F | 5F | Total (N) | Total (%) | |
Number of occupants who responded to survey | 18 | 14 | 13 | 45 | 100.0 | 21 | 32 | 53 | 100.0 | |
Sex | Male | 8 | 6 | 9 | 23 | 51.1 | 16 | 13 | 29 | 54.7 |
Female | 10 | 8 | 4 | 22 | 48.9 | 5 | 19 | 24 | 45.3 | |
Age | Under 30 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2.2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3.8 |
31 to under 50 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 37 | 82.2 | 13 | 23 | 36 | 67.9 | |
Over 50 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 15.6 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 28.3 | |
Working experience | Under 3 months | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4.4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5.7 |
More than 3 months and less than 1 year | 10 | 6 | 5 | 21 | 46.7 | 13 | 6 | 19 | 35.8 | |
Over 1 year | 7 | 8 | 7 | 22 | 48.9 | 7 | 24 | 31 | 58.5 | |
Weekly working hours | Under 10 h | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4.4 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 9.4 |
11 h to under 30 h | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.9 | |
Over 30 h | 16 | 13 | 12 | 41 | 91.1 | 19 | 28 | 47 | 88.7 |
Equipment | Measurement Parameter | Accuracy | Measurement Time |
---|---|---|---|
Data Logger (UX100-011A) | Air temperature | ±0.21 °C from 0 to 50 °C | 10 min (at each point) |
Relative humidity | ±2.5% from 10% to 90% | ||
Data Logger (MX1102A) | Air temperature | ±0.21 °C from 0 to 50 °C | |
Relative humidity | ±2% from 20% to 80% | ||
CO2 concentration | ±50 ppm ±5% reading at 25 °C, less than 90% RH | ||
USB Connectable Loggers (TR-74Ui-S) | Air temperature | ±0.3 °C at 10 to 40 °C | |
Relative humidity | ±2.5% at 15 to 35 °C, 30% to 80% | ||
Illuminance | ±5% at 25 °C, 50% RH |
Items | Questionnaire Items | Survey Questions |
---|---|---|
Layout | Amount of space | How satisfied are you with the amount of space in your workspace? |
How improved is your productivity with the amount of space in your workspace? | ||
Visual privacy | How satisfied are you with the visual privacy in your workspace? | |
How improved is your productivity with visual privacy in your workspace? | ||
Ease of interaction | How satisfied are you with the ease of interaction in your workspace? | |
How improved is your productivity with the ease of interaction in your workspace? | ||
Thermal productivity | Thermal comfort level | How satisfied are you with the thermal comfort level in your workspace? |
How improved is your productivity with the thermal comfort level in your workspace? | ||
Air quality | Air quality level | How satisfied are you with the air quality level in your workspace? |
How improved is your productivity with the air quality level in your workspace? | ||
Lighting environment | Lighting level | How satisfied are you with the lighting level in your workspace? |
How improved is your productivity with the lighting level in your workspace? | ||
Visual comfort | How satisfied are you with the visual comfort in your workspace? | |
How improved is your productivity with the visual comfort in your workspace? | ||
Acoustic environment | Noise level | How satisfied are you with the noise level in your workspace? |
How improved is your productivity with the noise level in your workspace? | ||
Sound privacy | How satisfied are you with the sound privacy in your workspace? | |
How improved is your productivity with the sound privacy in your workspace? | ||
Total productivity | Perceived work productivity level | How much has overall work productivity improved through the overall environmental conditions of the workspace? |
Classification | Administrator | Researcher | Z b | p-Value c | R d-Value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1F a | 2F | 3F | Mean | 4F | 5F | Mean | ||||
Temperature (°C) | 23.7 | 23.3 | 24.8 | 23.9 | 25.7 | 24.2 | 25.0 | −2.681 | 0.007 * | 19–25 [51] |
Humidity (%) | 18.4 | 19.5 | 18.5 | 18.8 | 17.0 | 18.2 | 17.6 | −1.566 | 0.117 | 25–60 [51] |
Ev (lx) | 927.0 | 1035.0 | 1182.0 | 1048.0 | 806.5 | 1049.0 | 927.8 | −0.655 | 0.513 | ≥500 [47] |
CO2 (ppm) | 645.0 | 750.0 | 634.5 | 676.5 | 594.0 | 578.0 | 586.0 | −1.549 | 0.121 | ≤800 [48] |
APP (m2) | 12.8 | 14.0 | 17.6 | 14.8 | 18.3 | 15.5 | 16.9 | −0.577 | 0.564 | - |
SVPP (m3) | 0.8 | 1.4 | −6.403 | 0.000 ** | - |
Administrator | Researcher | |
---|---|---|
Layout | 4.52 | 5.15 |
Thermal comfort | 4.71 | 3.77 |
Air quality | 4.02 | 3.97 |
Lighting environment | 5.10 | 5.11 |
Acoustic environment | 3.60 | 3.58 |
M a (Administrator) | M (Researcher) | U b | Z | p-Value c | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Layout | 39.21 | 55.48 | 745.500 | −2.757 | 0.006 * |
Thermal comfort | 59.90 | 43.46 | 741.500 | −2.808 | 0.005 * |
Air quality | 43.11 | 53.21 | 886.000 | −1.736 | 0.083 |
Lighting environment | 45.50 | 51.82 | 972.000 | −1.091 | 0.275 |
Acoustic environment | 48.08 | 50.32 | 1065.000 | −0.379 | 0.705 |
Administrator | Researcher | |
---|---|---|
Total productivity | 4.79 | 5.08 |
Layout | 3.99 | 4.62 |
Thermal comfort | 4.58 | 3.89 |
Air quality | 4.14 | 3.91 |
Lighting environment | 4.87 | 4.71 |
Acoustic environment | 3.71 | 3.73 |
M (Administrator) | M (Researcher) | U | Z | p-Value a | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total productivity | 45.29 | 51.94 | 964.500 | −1.147 | 0.251 |
Layout | 41.74 | 54.01 | 836.500 | −2.136 | 0.033 * |
Thermal comfort | 57.83 | 44.66 | 816.000 | −2.252 | 0.024 * |
Air quality | 46.67 | 51.15 | 1014.000 | −0.770 | 0.441 |
Lighting environment | 45.19 | 52.00 | 961.000 | −1.193 | 0.233 |
Acoustic environment | 51.81 | 48.16 | 1033.000 | −0.623 | 0.533 |
Layout | Thermal Comfort | Air Quality | Lighting Environment | Acoustic Environment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Productivity (Administrator) | 0.370 * | 0.251 | 0.326 | 0.444 ** | 0.319 |
Productivity (Researcher) | 0.507 *** | 0.325 * | 0.160 | 0.387 ** | 0.319 * |
Items | M (Administrator) | M (Researcher) | U | Z | p-Value a | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Layout | Amount of space | 39.79 | 55.14 | 766.500 | −2.658 | 0.008 ** |
Visual privacy | 40.46 | 54.75 | 790.500 | −2.443 | 0.015 * | |
Ease of interaction | 47.25 | 50.81 | 1035.000 | −0.625 | 0.532 | |
Thermal comfort | Thermal comfort | 59.90 | 43.46 | 741.500 | −2.808 | 0.005 ** |
Air quality | Air quality | 43.11 | 53.21 | 886.000 | −1.736 | 0.083 |
Lighting environment | Lighting | 47.42 | 50.71 | 1041.000 | −0.581 | 0.561 |
Visual comfort | 44.15 | 52.60 | 923.500 | −1.482 | 0.138 | |
Acoustic environment | Noise level | 45.97 | 51.55 | 989.000 | −0.952 | 0.341 |
Sound privacy | 50.24 | 49.07 | 1089.500 | −0.199 | 0.842 |
Key IEQ Aspects | Evaluation Results Based on Quantitative Measurements | Evaluation Results Based on Qualitative Evaluation | Evaluation Results Based on Qualitative Assessment of Productivity | Is Qualitative Evaluation Consistent with Quantitative Results? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Layout | Researchers better than Administrators | Researchers better than Administrators | Researchers better than Administrators | YES |
Thermal comfort | Administrators better than Researchers (Temperature) | Administrators better than Researchers | Administrators better than Researchers | YES |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, G.-B.; Lee, S.-M.; Lee, S.-E.; Jeong, J.-W.; Lee, J.-W. A Comparative Field Study of Indoor Environment Quality and Work Productivity between Job Types in a Research Institute in Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114332
Lee G-B, Lee S-M, Lee S-E, Jeong J-W, Lee J-W. A Comparative Field Study of Indoor Environment Quality and Work Productivity between Job Types in a Research Institute in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):14332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114332
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Gyu-Bae, Seung-Min Lee, Seung-Eon Lee, Jae-Weon Jeong, and Jong-Won Lee. 2022. "A Comparative Field Study of Indoor Environment Quality and Work Productivity between Job Types in a Research Institute in Korea" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 14332. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114332