Examining In Situ Acoustic Conditions for Enhanced Occupant Satisfaction in Contemporary Offices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data Collection and Analysis Methods
2.1. Field Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
2.2.1. Workstation Acoustic Quality Measurements versus User Satisfaction
2.2.2. Technical Attributes of Building Systems versus User Satisfaction
- Bigger workstations can increase user satisfaction (p ≤ 0.001);
- higher partition height can increase user satisfaction by 0.68 points compared to low or medium height partition (p ≤ 0.05);
- multiple partition sides result in increased user satisfaction (p ≤ 0.01);
- lower distributed noise can increase user satisfaction (p ≤ 0.01).
2.2.3. Technical Attributes of Building Systems versus Workstation Acoustic Quality Measurements
- Workstations with 3.5 to 4 sides revealed an average of 6.56 dB lower Noise Criteria (NC) level than those without partitions (p ≤ 0.05).
- Floors with less than 2% of the workstations near distributed noise sources showed, on average, 9.87 dB lower Noise Criteria (NC) level than floors with more than 40% of the workstations near distributed noise sources (p ≤ 0.01). This would suggest that printer/copier and kitchen amenities be removed from circulation and empty workstations to reduce noise.
2.2.4. The Combination of Technical Attributes of Building Systems and Workstation IEQ Measurements versus User Satisfaction
- The occupants who have bigger workstations showed higher satisfaction (p ≤ 0.01).
- Partition sides result in increased user satisfaction (p ≤ 0.01).
- Less distributed noise (less than 2% of distributed noise) can increase user satisfaction (p ≤ 0.01).
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Bigger Workstation Leads to Greater Satisfaction
3.2. More Partition Sides Contribute to Increased Acoustic Satisfaction
3.3. Higher Partitions Lead to Higher Acoustic Satisfaction and Lower Noise Criteria
3.4. Management of Distributed Noise Sources Increases Acoustic Satisfaction
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Selected Technical Attributes of Building Systems: Acoustic Quality
Appendix B
References
- Jensen, K.; Arens, E.; Zagreus, L. Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assessed by occupant surveys. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Beijing, China, 4–9 September 2005; pp. 2401–2405. [Google Scholar]
- Jahncke, H.; Hygge, S.; Halin, N.; Green, A.M.; Dimberg, K. Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.; Hua, Y.; Srivastava, V.; Yang, X. GSA WP 20•20 Environmental Quality Report: Kluczynski Federal Building; US General Services Administration: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007.
- Danielsson, B.C.; Bodin, L. Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 636–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gathercole, S.E.; Baddeley, A.D. Phonological working memory: A critical building block for reading development and vocabulary acquisition? Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 1993, 8, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, D.M.; Macken, W.J. Auditory Babble and Cognitive Efficiency: Role of Number of Voices and Their Location. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 1995, 1, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banbury, S.P.; Macken, W.J.; Tremblay, S.; Jones, D.M. Auditory distraction and short-term memory: Phenomena and practical implications. Hum. Factors 2001, 43, 12–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, J.S. The acoustical design of conventional open plan offices. Can. Acoust. 2003, 31, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
- Kjellberg, A.; Landström, U. Noise in the office: Part I—Guidelines for the practitioner. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1994, 14, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kjellberg, A.; Landström, U. Noise in the office: Part II—The scientific basis (knowledge base) for the guide. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1994, 14, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayr, U.; Cirillo, E.; Fato, I.; Martellotta, F. A new approach to assessing the performance of noise indices in buildings. Appl. Acoust. 2003, 64, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, S.K. Performance of noise indices in air-conditioned landscaped office buildings. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1997, 102, 1657–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASHRAE. Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings; ASHRAE: Atlanta, GA, US, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Navai, M.; Veitch, J.A. Acoustic Satisfaction in Open-Plan Offices: Review and Recommendations, Research Report RR-151; Institute for Research in Construction: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A.; Helenius, R.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V. Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices-Longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1423–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loewen, L.J.; Suedfeld, P. Cognitive and Arousal Effects of Masking Office Noise. Environ. Behav. 1992, 24, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, G.W.; Johnson, D. Stress and open-office noise. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 779–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Virjonen, P.; Keränen, J.; Hongisto, V. Determination of Acoustical Conditions in Open-Plan Offices: Proposal for New Measurement Method and Target Values. Acta Acust United Acust. 2009, 95, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enmarker, I. The effects of meaningful irrelevant speech and road traffic noise on teachers’ attention, episodic and semantic memory. Scand. J. Psychol. 2004, 45, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stansfeld, S.A.; Berglund, B.; Clark, C.; Lopez-Barrio, I.; Fischer, P.; Öhrström, E.; Haines, M.M.; Head, J.; Hygge, S.; Van Kamp, I.; et al. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: A cross-national study. Lancet 2005, 365, 1942–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blomkvist, V.; Eriksen, C.A.; Theorell, T.; Ulrich, R.; Rasmanis, G. Acoustics and psychosocial environment in intensive coronary care. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 62, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kryter, K.D. Predicting auditory and nonauditory system effects of noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1985, 77, S19–S20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banbury, S.; Berry, D.C. Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. Br. J. Psychol. 1998, 89, 499–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellermeier, W.; Hellbrück, J. Is level irrelevant in “irrelevant speech”? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1998, 24, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waye, K.P.; Rylander, R.; Benton, S.; Leventhall, H.G. Effects on performance and work quality due to low frequency ventilation noise. J. Sound Vib. 1997, 205, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jaakkola, J.J.K.; Heinonen, O.P. Shared office space and the risk of the common cold. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 1995, 11, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hygge, S. Classroom experiments on the effects of different noise sources and sound levels on long-term recall and recognition in children. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2003, 17, 895–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romm, J.J.; Browning, W.D. Greening the Building and the Bottom Line: Increasing Productivity Through Energy-Efficient Design; Rocky Mountain Institute: Snowmass, CO, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Bodin Danielsson, C. Differences in perception of noise and privacy in different office types. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123, 2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, B.; Gan, W.S.; Shi, D.Y.; Nishimura, M.; Elliott, S. Ten questions concerning active noise control in the built environment. Build. Environ. 2021, 200, 107928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A. Post-Occupancy Evaluation and IEQ Measurements from 64 Office Buildings: Critical Factors and Thresholds for User Satisfaction on Thermal Quality. Buildings 2018, 8, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.; Wang, T.H. Critical factors and thresholds for user satisfaction on air quality in office environments. Build. Environ. 2019, 164, 106310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.; Wang, T.H. Strategies to achieve optimum visual quality for maximum occupant satisfaction: Field study findings in office buildings. Build. Environ. 2021, 195, 107458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gramez, A.; Boubenider, F. Acoustic comfort evaluation for a conference room: A case study. Appl. Acoust. 2017, 118, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J. Post-occupancy Evaluation for Energy Conservation, Superior IEQ & Increased Occupant Satisfaction. In Proceedings of the IFMA’s World Work 2013 Conference and Expo, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2–4 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Loftness, V.; Hartkopf, V.; Aziz, A.; Choi, J.H.; Park, J. Critical Frameworks for Building Evaluation: User Satisfaction, Environmental Measurements and the Technical Attributes of Building Systems (POE + M). In Building Performance Evaluation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 29–48. [Google Scholar]
- Kjær, B. Class 1 Sound Level Meter and Analyzer Type 2250-L. Available online: https://www.bksv.com/en/instruments/handheld/sound-level-meters/2250-series/type-2250-l (accessed on 22 June 2022).
- Newsham, G.R. Cost-Effective Open-Plan Environments (COPE): Developing a Design Tool for Cost-Effective Office Design; NRC Publications Archive: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000; p. 35. [Google Scholar]
Indices | Goal | Acoustic Quality Indicator | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Noise level | Measure background noise levels and spectrums in each location | Acoustic comfort and satisfaction | [6,14,16,17,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] |
Acoustic privacy | Support speech privacy—the reduction in conversation clarity from adjacent offices | Speech privacy satisfaction | [2,15,16,17,18] |
Personal control | Personal control of noise level to support work productivity and comfort | Ability to control unwanted noise and interruptions | [28,29,30] |
Indices | Assessment Guidelines | Sources | |
---|---|---|---|
Acoustic Quality Assessment | Ideal Leq dB (A) | 30 (private office) | [10,11,12] |
35 (open-plan office) | |||
Maximum Leq dB (A) | ≤35 (private office) | ||
≤40 (open-plan office without sound masking) | |||
≤35 (open-plan office with sound masking) | |||
Room Criteria (RC) | 25 to 35 (private offices) | ||
Noise Criteria (NC) | |||
Balanced Noise Criteria (NCB) | ≤40 (open-plan offices) | ||
Quality Assessment Index (QAI) | ≤5 | [10] |
Level 1—Basic Performance Method | Level 2—Intermediate Performance Method | Level 3—Advanced Performance Method | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Objectives | • Simple evaluation of background noise | • General assessment of speech communication issues (e.g., speech, listening conditions) | • Accurate assessment of speech privacy, speech communication, and isolation from intruding noise | |||||
• Comparison of sound quality by room use | • Special purpose room uses | |||||||
Evaluation | • Occupant survey | • Occupant survey | • Occupant survey | |||||
• Background noise | • Background noise | • Background noise | ||||||
• Reverberation times | • Reverberation times | |||||||
Metrics | • A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq in dBA) | • Room Criterion (RC) | • Speech privacy: Privacy Index (PI) | |||||
• Noise Criterion (NC) | • Speech intelligibility: Speech Transmission Index (STI) | |||||||
• Balanced Noise Criterion (NCB) | • Acoustic separation: Noise Isolation Class (NIC) | |||||||
Instrumentation | • Occupant survey | • Occupant survey | • Occupant survey | |||||
• A handheld Type 1 portable sound meter | • A handheld Type 1 portable sound meter | • A handheld Type 1 portable sound meter | ||||||
• Sound source, amplifier | • Sound source, amplifier | |||||||
Test Condition | • Conducted with the room vacated by its normal occupants | • Conducted with the room vacated by its normal occupants | • Conducted with the room vacated by its normal occupants | |||||
• All non-HVAC-related sound-producing equipment (computers, radios, etc.) should be turned off during the measurements | • All non-HVAC-related sound-producing equipment (computers, radios, etc.) should be turned off during the measurements | • All non-HVAC-related sound-producing equipment (computers, radios, etc.) should be turned off during the measurements | ||||||
Recommended Levels | • A-weighted sound level | • RC/NC/NCB | • Speech privacy | |||||
Office buildings | Ideal Leq (dBA) | Max. Leq (dBA) | Office buildings | Ideal Leq (dBA) | Max. Leq (dBA) | Privacy Index (PI) | ||
Private offices | 30 | 40 | Private offices | 25–35 | 40 | Confidential speech privacy | 100–95% | |
Conference room | 30 | 40 | Conference room | 25–35 | 40 | Non-intrusive (normal, open-plan office) speech privacy | 95–80% | |
Teleconference room | 25 | 30 | Teleconference room | ≤25 | 30 | Poor speech privacy | 80–60% | |
Open-plan office | 35 | 45 | Open-plan office | ≤40 | 45 | Complete lack of privacy | <60% | |
Open-plan office | 35 | 40 | Open-plan office | ≤35 | 40 | • Speech intelligibility | ||
Corridors and lobbies | 40 | 50 | Corridors and lobbies | 40–45 | 50 | Speech Transmission Index (STI) | ||
Excellent | 1.0–0.75 | |||||||
Good | 0.75–0.60 | |||||||
Fair | 0.60–0.45 | |||||||
Poor | <0.45 |
NEAT IEQ Measurements | TABS Technical Attributes of Building Systems | COPE User Satisfaction Survey | |
---|---|---|---|
Acoustic Quality Assessment |
|
| Q. Amount of background noise * Q.Frequency of distractions from other people * Q. Amount of noise from other people’s conversations Q. Level of acoustic privacy for conversations in your work area 7-point Likert Scale: Very Dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Somewhat Dissatisfied/Neutral/Somewhat Satisfied/Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
Age | Female | Male | Total |
---|---|---|---|
20–29 | 116 | 132 | 248 (24%) |
30–39 | 158 | 136 | 294 (28%) |
40–49 | 124 | 120 | 244 (23%) |
50–59 | 107 | 98 | 205 (19%) |
60+ | 15 | 26 | 41 (4%) |
Unidentified | 11 | 7 | 19 (2%) |
Total | 531 (51%) | 519 (49%) | 1050 |
Model | Objective | Diagram |
---|---|---|
Model 1 | Correlation test between workstation acoustic quality measurements (NEAT) and user satisfaction (COPE) | |
Model 2 | Correlation test between technical attributes of building systems (TABS) and user satisfaction (COPE) | |
Model 3 | Correlation test between technical attributes of building systems (TABS) and workstation acoustic quality measurements (NEAT) | |
Model 4 | Correlation test between the combination of technical attributes of building systems (TABS) and workstation acoustic quality measurements (NEAT) and user satisfaction (COPE) |
Acoustic Quality | Code | Variables | Coefficient | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
NEAT | C-1 | Female–Male | −0.27 | 0.425 |
C-2 | Perimeter–Core | −0.27 | 0.443 | |
C-3 | Open–Closed | 1.14 | 0.009 ** | |
NA-1 | Sound Level | 0.027 | 0.157 | |
NA-2 | Room Criteria | 0.136 | 0.975 | |
NA-3 | Noise Criteria | −0.114 | 0.67 | |
NA-4 | Balanced Noise Criteria | −0.136 | 0.583 |
Acoustic Quality | Code | Variables | Coefficient | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
TABS | C-1 | Female–Male | −0.27 | 0.305 |
C-2 | Perimeter–Core | −0.27 | 0.035 * | |
C-3 | Open–Closed | 1.14 | 0.001 *** | |
TA-1 | Ceiling quality | |||
TA-1-1 | Hard surface vs. Floating acoustic elements | 0.34 | 0.683 | |
TA-1-2 | Hard surface vs. Acoustic plaster | 0.25 | 0.602 | |
TA-1-3 | Hard surface vs. Metal or wood slats w/ fiber glass | 0.14 | 0.697 | |
TA-2 | Floor quality | |||
TA-2-1 | Hard surface vs. Carpet in circulation areas | 0.47 | 0.072 | |
TA-2-2 | Hard surface vs. Thin carpet | 0.43 | 0.16 | |
TA-2-3 | Hard surface vs. Thick carpet w/padding | 0.07 | 0.865 | |
TA-3 | Size of workstation | |||
TA-3-1 | <36 sqft vs. <50 sqft | 0.007 | 0.991 | |
TA-3-2 | <36 sqft vs. <64 sqft | 1.85 | 0.001 *** | |
TA-3-3 | <36 sqft vs. <100 sqft | 0.79 | 0.045 * | |
TA-3-4 | <36 sqft vs. <120 sqft | 1.03 | 0.062 | |
TA-4 | Partition height: Low (≤120 cm) vs. high (>120) | 0.68 | 0.033 * | |
TA-5 | Partition sides | |||
TA-5-1 | None vs. 1 side | 0.42 | 0.237 | |
TA-5-2 | None vs. 2–3 sides | 0.8 | 0.004 ** | |
TA-5-3 | None vs. 3.5 to 4 sides | 0.62 | 0.067 | |
TA-6 | Distributed noise | |||
TA-6-1 | >40% vs. 10–40% | 0.45 | 0.195 | |
TA-6-2 | >40% vs. 2–10% | 0.6 | 0.057 | |
TA-6-3 | >40% vs. <2% | 1.02 | 0.003 ** | |
TA-7 | Sound masking | 0.44 | 0.372 |
Acoustic Quality | Code | Variables | Coefficient | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
TABS | C-1 | Female–Male | 0.28 | 0.911 |
C-2 | Perimeter–Core | −0.32 | 0.917 | |
C-3 | Open–Closed | −4.09 | 0.238 | |
TA-1 | Ceiling quality | |||
TA-1-1 | Hard surface vs. Floating acoustic elements | −10.9 | 0.273 | |
TA-1-2 | Hard surface vs. Acoustic plaster | −4.55 | 0.329 | |
TA-1-3 | Hard surface vs. Metal or wood slats w/fiber glass | −0.81 | 0.909 | |
TA-2 | Floor quality | |||
TA-2-1 | Hard surface vs. Carpet in circulation areas | −0.51 | 0.915 | |
TA-2-2 | Hard surface vs. Thin carpet | 5.7 | 0.486 | |
TA-2-3 | Hard surface vs. Thick carpet w/padding | −7.38 | 0.283 | |
TA-3 | Size of workstation | |||
TA-3-1 | <36 sqft vs. <50 sqft | 8.37 | 0.33 | |
TA-3-2 | <36 sqft vs. <64 sqft | 1.09 | 0.909 | |
TA-3-3 | <36 sqft vs. <100 sqft | 1.47 | 0.671 | |
TA-3-4 | <36 sqft vs. <120 sqft | 1.24 | 0.955 | |
TA-4 | Partition height: Low (≤120 cm) vs. high (>120) | −2.87 | 0.452 | |
TA-5 | Partition sides | |||
TA-5-1 | None vs. 1 side | −3.78 | 0.593 | |
TA-5-2 | None vs. 2–3 sides | −6.87 | 0.247 | |
TA-5-3 | None vs. 3.5 to 4 sides | −6.56 | 0.038 * | |
TA-6 | Distributed noise | |||
TA-6-1 | >40% vs. 10–40% | 4.42 | 0.326 | |
TA-6-2 | >40% vs. 2–10% | 4.7 | 0.367 | |
TA-6-3 | >40% vs. <2% | −9.87 | 0.005 ** | |
TA-7 | Sound masking | −4.06 | 0.776 |
Acoustic Quality | Code | Variables | Coefficient | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
TABS + NEAT | C-1 | Female–Male | −0.44 | 0.517 |
C-2 | Perimeter–Core | −1.38 | 0.127 | |
C-3 | Open–Closed | 1.89 | 0.066 | |
TA-1 | Ceiling quality | |||
TA-1-1 | Hard surface vs. Floating acoustic elements | 3.22 | 0.427 | |
TA-1-2 | Hard surface vs. Acoustic plaster | −0.35 | 0.894 | |
TA-1-3 | Hard surface vs. Metal or wood slats w/fiber glass | 0.02 | 0.992 | |
TA-2 | Floor quality | |||
TA-2-1 | Hard surface vs. Carpet in circulation areas | 1.2 | 0.581 | |
TA-2-2 | Hard surface vs. Thin carpet | 1.46 | 0.544 | |
TA-2-3 | Hard surface vs. Thick carpet w/padding | 1.84 | 0.49 | |
TA-3 | Size of workstation | |||
TA-3-1 | < 36 sqft vs. < 50 sqft | 0.27 | 0.779 | |
TA-3-2 | < 36 sqft vs. < 64 sqft | 1.8 | 0.064 | |
TA-3-3 | < 36 sqft vs. < 100 sqft | 1.28 | 0.05 * | |
TA-3-4 | < 36 sqft vs. < 120 sqft | 1.59 | 0.007 ** | |
TA-4 | Partition height: Low (≤120 cm) vs. high (>120) | 0.57 | 0.765 * | |
TA-5 | Partition sides | |||
TA-5-1 | None vs. 1 side | 1.82 | 0.412 | |
TA-5-2 | None vs. 2–3 sides | 1.97 | 0.207 | |
TA-5-3 | None vs. 3.5 to 4 sides | 0.1 | 0.07 | |
TA-6 | Distributed noise | |||
TA-6-1 | >40% vs. 10–40% | 0.62 | 0.263 | |
TA-6-2 | >40% vs. 2–10% | 1.27 | 0.099 | |
TA-6-3 | >40% vs. <2% | 2.05 | 0.004 ** | |
TA-7 | Sound masking | 0.37 | 0.905 | |
NA-1 | Sound level | 0.045 | 0.275 | |
NA-2 | Room Criteria | 0.031 | 0.915 | |
NA-3 | Noise Criteria | 0.59 | 0.1 | |
NA-4 | Balanced Noise Criteria | −0.56 | 0.297 |
Size of Workstation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
≤3.3 m2 (36 ft2) | 4.5 m2 (50 ft2) | 6 m2 (64 ft2) | 9.5 m2 (100 ft2) | ≥ 12 m2 (120 ft2) |
n = 42 (7%) | n = 227 (40%) | n = 167 (29%) | n = 114 (20%) | n = 20 (4%) |
Number of Partition Side(s) | |||
---|---|---|---|
No partition | 1 side | 2–3 sides | 3.5 to 4 sides |
n = 75 (23%) | n = 153 (27%) | n = 205 (37%) | n = 126 (13%) |
Partition Height | |
---|---|
Low or medium height partition | High partition |
Height ≤ 120 cm (48 inch) | Height > 120 cm (48 inch) |
n = 270 (55%) | n = 223 (45%) |
Distributed Noise Level | |||
---|---|---|---|
>40% distributed noise | 10–40% distributed noise | 2–10% distributed noise | <2% distributed noise |
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
Park, J.; Loftness, V.; Wang, T.-H. Examining In Situ Acoustic Conditions for Enhanced Occupant Satisfaction in Contemporary Offices. Buildings 2022, 12, 1305. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091305
Park J, Loftness V, Wang T-H. Examining In Situ Acoustic Conditions for Enhanced Occupant Satisfaction in Contemporary Offices. Buildings. 2022; 12(9):1305. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091305
Chicago/Turabian StylePark, Jihyun, Vivian Loftness, and Tsung-Hsien Wang. 2022. "Examining In Situ Acoustic Conditions for Enhanced Occupant Satisfaction in Contemporary Offices" Buildings 12, no. 9: 1305. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091305