16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perceived Indoor Environment and Occupants’ Comfort in European “Modern” Office Buildings: The OFFICAIR Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Indoor environmental conditions (thermal, noise, light, and indoor air quality) may affect workers’ comfort, and consequently their health and well-being, as well as their productivity. This study aimed to assess the relations between perceived indoor environment and occupants’ comfort, and to examine the modifying effects of both personal and building characteristics. Within the framework of the European project OFFICAIR, a questionnaire survey was administered to 7441 workers in 167 “modern” office buildings in eight European countries (Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain). Occupants assessed indoor environmental quality (IEQ) using both crude IEQ items (satisfaction with thermal comfort, noise, light, and indoor air quality), and detailed items related to indoor environmental parameters (e.g., too hot/cold temperature, humid/dry air, noise inside/outside, natural/artificial light, odor) of their office environment. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relations between perceived IEQ and occupants’ comfort. The highest association with occupants’ overall comfort was found for “noise”, followed by “air quality”, “light” and “thermal” satisfaction. Analysis of detailed parameters revealed that “noise inside the buildings” was highly associated with occupants’ overall comfort. “Layout of the offices” was the next parameter highly associated with overall comfort. The relations between IEQ and comfort differed by personal characteristics (gender, age, and the Effort Reward Imbalance index), and building characteristics (office type and building’s location). Workplace design should take into account both occupant and the building characteristics in order to provide healthier and more comfortable conditions to their occupants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design.

              The article examines which subjectively evaluated indoor environmental parameters and building features mostly affect occupants' satisfaction in mainly US office buildings. The study analyzed data from a web-based survey administered to 52,980 occupants in 351 office buildings over 10 years by the Center for the Built Environment. The survey uses 7-point ordered scale questions pertaining to satisfaction with indoor environmental parameters, workspace, and building features. The average building occupant was satisfied with his/her workspace and building. Proportional odds ordinal logistic regression shows that satisfaction with all 15 parameters listed in the survey contributed significantly to overall workspace satisfaction. The most important parameters were satisfaction with amount of space (odds ratio OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.55-1.59), noise level (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.25-1.29), and visual privacy (OR 1.26, 95% CI: 1.24-1.28). Satisfaction with amount of space was ranked to be most important for workspace satisfaction, regardless of age group (below 30, 31-50 or over 50 years old), gender, type of office (single or shared offices, or cubicles), distance of workspace from a window (within 4.6 m or further), or satisfaction level with workspace (satisfied or dissatisfied). Satisfaction with amount of space was not related to the gross amount of space available per person.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                25 April 2016
                May 2016
                : 13
                : 5
                : 444
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of West Macedonia, Sialvera & Bakola Str., Kozani 50100, Greece; dsaraga@ 123456ipta.demokritos.gr (D.E.S.); sanidimi@ 123456gmail.com (S.D.); bartzis@ 123456uowm.gr (J.G.B.)
                [2 ]Environmental Research Laboratory, INRASTES, National Center for Scientific Research “DEMOKRITOS”, Aghia Paraskevi Attikis, Athens 15310, Greece
                [3 ]CSTB-Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, University of Paris-Est, 84 Avenue Jean Jaurès, Marne-La-Vallée 77447, France; Corinne.MANDIN@ 123456cstb.fr
                [4 ]Chair Indoor Environment, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft 2628 GA, The Netherlands; celine.roda@ 123456gmail.com (C.R.); P.M.Bluyssen@ 123456tudelft.nl (P.M.B.)
                [5 ]Occupational and Environmental Health Unit, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences “L. Sacco”, University of Milan, Via G.B. Grassi 74, Milan IT-20157, Italy; serena.fossati@ 123456unimi.it (S.F.); Paolo.carrer@ 123456unimi.it (P.C.)
                [6 ]The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Delft 49 2600 AA, The Netherlands; yvonne.dekluizenaar@ 123456tno.nl
                [7 ]Cooperative Research Centre for Environmental Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest H-1117, Hungary; vigami72@ 123456yahoo.es (V.G.M.); tamas.szigeti@ 123456yahoo.com (T.S.)
                [8 ]Department of Health Protection, National Institute for Health and Welfare, POB 95, Kuopio 70701, Finland; otto.hanninen@ 123456thl.fi
                [9 ]Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Management, INEGI, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, Porto 4200-465, Portugal; eof@ 123456fe.up.pt
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: isakellaris@ 123456me.com ; Tel.: +30-210-650-3719
                Article
                ijerph-13-00444
                10.3390/ijerph13050444
                4881069
                27120608
                473082bb-22f0-4304-b5e3-d6cc7b08d556
                © 2016 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 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 January 2016
                : 19 April 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                comfort,indoor air,indoor environmental quality,layout,light,noise,office buildings,open-plan office spaces,perception,thermal comfort

                Comments

                Comment on this article