Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Public Health Engineering For Built Environment

Insight In The Relation Between The Objective And Subjective Office Environment

7Y900 Health & Comfort Tercan , M.E. 0629316

2007-Netherlands

Table of Contents
Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results
3.1. Indoor Air Quality 3.2. Indoor Contaminants 3.3 Cleaning and Maintenance 3.4.Contaminant Source Control 3.5.Communication 3.6.Air Delivery Systems 3.7. Outdoor Air Supply Rate 3.8 .What is meant by thermal comfort? 3.9. What temperature should an office be? 3.10. What humidity level and air velocity should an office be? 3.11.Are there any standards on office temperatures? 3.12 What temperature is 'right' for various activities? 3.13 Why Satisfaction is Important

4. Discussions and Conclusions 5. References

Abstract

The office environment is a combination of lighting, temperature, humidity and air quality. The office can be a healthy and comfortable place to work if the correct combination of some elements is maintained like temperature,air conditioning,humidity etc The changing need for office property is being influenced heavily by the universal adoption of information and communications technology:

the vast array of mains and signal cables needs to be managed extra heat from the equipment needs to be controlled or removed new health and safety risks include electrical hazards, sitting positions, eyestrain, lack of breaks and RSI information security needs to be considered amongst other security needs constantly changing businesses and processes demand flexible accommodation.

Older buildings (and older furniture) are increasingly difficult to use effectively, and costs of adaptation are being driven higher and higher. Organisations are seeking to escape from long leases on older buildings, either moving into newly built offices or entering into agreements to strip and refurbish, or in the extreme demolish and rebuild As a consequence there has been an increase in demand for modern, flexible space on short-term leases, fuelling the success of the business centre sector. The very best modern buildings incorporate zoned temperature and air quality control, natural lighting and good sound insulation. Unfortunately this all comes at a price that many employers are not prepared to pay. Most people end up working in office environments that are sub-standard in some way. After considering these results we realized that existing risks of the office spaeces in the modern business world are unavoidable.Continiously increasing problems also attracts both employees and emplyoers. While employees were getting unproductiveness employers were having decreasing in their profits by this way.Its clear that offices that design suitable for their aims and usage are necessary for every society.

1.Introduction
Over the lifespan of a typical office building, it is estimated that 82% of all costs are those associated with office employees (mainly salaries and benefits), with the remaining cost being for the construction, maintenance and operation of the building (Brill, Weidemann & BOSTI Associates, 2001). It is also estimated that almost half of the European population is employed in office buildings (Giuliano, 1982; Christie, 1985) and similar estimations have been made in relation to employees from industrialised nations in general (Bloom, 1986). As every day, people have to work in a physical environment that affects their ability and desire to work (Goodrich, 1982; p.355), and given the proportionally small cost of changing the physical office space, it makes considerable sense to ensure that offices are designed to facilitate the comfort and satisfaction of Office occupants. The concept of open-plan office design evolved from burolandschaft, more commonly known as office landscaping, a design movement that developed in Germany in the 1960s (Hedge, 1986; Burgess, Lai, Eisner & Taylor, 1989). Although varying in form, this type of office design is characterised by modular furniture and moveable partitions which partially screen office occupants from co-workers occupying the same office space. This is in contrast to the conventional office design in which full height internal walls and doors provide separate, private office spaces. The proposed benefits of the open-plan office have been summarised by numerous researchers (eg. Oldham & Brass, 1979; Sundstrom, Herbert and Brown, 1982; Hedge, 1982; 1986; Cangelosi & Lemoine, 1988; Burgess et al, 1989; Jackson, Klein & Wogalter, 1997). In brief, the open-plan office is argued to be beneficial in providing flexibility which organisations can utilise in response to changes in organisational size and structure. Such designs also allow higher occupant density, thereby providing space and cost savings. Finally, advocates of the open-plan office claim that these designs enhance communication between occupants, which in turn promotes morale and organisational effectiveness. These potential benefits are still persuasive in the modern office context and are reflected in the continued popularity of open-plan office designs. However, despite enthusiastic support for open-plan offices, research suggests some problems associated with this type of office design. The most commonly stated disadvantage of open-plan offices is their lack of visual and acoustical privacy, coupled with an increase in distractions and interruptions ,for example, found that employees working in an open-plan computer office often reported being annoyed by distracting sounds such as conversation, computer and printer beeping, the arrival and departure of other people, keyboard typing and ventilation systems. A number of searchs have demonstrated a lack of privacy in open-plan as compared to conventional enclosed offices (eg. Brookes, 1972; 1978; Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Sundstrom, Burt & Kamp, 1980; Hedge, 1982; Sundstrom, Herbert et al, 1982; Zalesny & Farace, 1987; Block & Stokes, 1989). Sundstrom, Herbert et al (1982) for example, found a decrease in satisfaction with privacy after employees moved from closed to open offices. Similarly, Carlopio & Gardner found that employees working in enclosed offices reported more communication privacy than did those working in either open-plan or completely open office environments. Boyce (1974) noted that lack of privacy remained a major complaint one year after moving from closed to open offices. 4

Acoustical privacy appears to be a particular problem for open-plan offices, and Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn & Brill (1994), for example, found that phones ringing, face-to-face conversations and phone conversations were the most distracting noises for open-plan office occupants. Noise may be a more intrusive factor than other ambient conditions (Jackson et al, 1997) and speech in particular has been shown to be distracting, especially when employees are engaged in complex processing tasks (eg. Young & Berry, 1979; Jackson et al, 1997). Privacy and distractions are important considerations as they affect employees ability to concentrate on quiet, focussed work, an activity in which office occupants spend an estimated 48-64% of their time at work (Brill et al, 2001). Speech and office noise can disrupt performance on some and perceived privacy and distractions have also been shown to be related to environmental and job satisfaction In addition to privacy considerations, research suggests that the proposed communication benefits arising from open-plan office designs are not always realised. One of the purposes behind open-plan environments is that the layout is planned so that people who work together are near each other for efficient communication (Sundstrom, Herbert et al, 1982; p.380). Researchers have also argued that increased opportunities for communication facilitate the formation of social relationships, which in turn affect employee morale and satisfaction . However, although Allen & Gerstberger (1973) reported greater ease of communication after employees moved from closed to open office environments, other research has suggested that open-plan offices negatively influence communication (eg. Oldham & Brass, 1979). In Becker, Gield, Gaylin & Sayers (1983) study, for example, faculty staff and students at a community college reported difficulties in interacting with each other effectively when staff members were based in open-plan as compared to closed offices. Some research has also suggested that employees may experience less favourable ambient conditions in open-plan offices. Open-plan office occupants in Hedges (1982) study reported dissatisfaction with ambient conditions, particularly those relating to air quality and thermal comfort. In a telephone survey conducted by Woods, Drewry & Morey (1987), employees working in open-plan offices were 1.5 times more likely to report poor air quality and to believe this negatively affected their productivity as compared to employees in closed offices. Such problems are likely to be related, at least in part, to employees inability to control ambient conditions and to the variability of conditions within the open-plan work space. Furthermore, Hedge (1982) provides anecdotal evidence that, because of a lack of storage space in openplan cubicles, occupants stored items on ventilation diffusers, thereby restricting airflow. However, despite the potential problems that have been associated with open-plan offices, it seems likely that this type of office design will remain popular in future years. Thus, it is important to determine whether there are design characteristics that may minimise the potential detriments to occupant satisfaction. Previous research has suggested that workstation density and enclosure are two factors that could influence occupant reactions to open-plan office environments.

Workstation density can be measured in terms of the number of occupants sharing an open-plan office, the distance from one occupant to another, the area of each workstation or the area of the floorplate per person. Although Szilagyi & Holland (1980) found that increased density lead to improved friendship opportunities, information exchange and work satisfaction, the majority of research concerning density has indicated adverse occupant reactions as density . Increased workstation area, for example, has been associated with increased environmental satisfaction and with perceived distractions (ONeill, 1994). Similarly, Oldham (1988) found that employees moving from an open office to a similar, but lower density, open Office experienced greater task privacy, communication privacy and environmental satisfaction, and reduced perceived crowding. In addition, occupants working in more crowded work areas were more likely to be dissatisfied with air quality (Woods et al, 1987). Workstation enclosure can be measured by the number of partitions surrounding a workstation or the height of those partitions. In general, studies show that the number of enclosed sides is positively related to occupant perceptions of privacy and environmental and job satisfaction. However, although studies comparing offices with full height walls, partitions and no partitions indicate greater privacy, communication and satisfaction as enclosure height increases (eg. Sundstrom, Herbert et al, 1982; Oldham, 1988), few researchs have compared the more subtle effects of open-plan office partitions of different heights (ONeill, 1994). Of those researchs which have been undertaken, ONeill & Carayon (1993) reported that average partition height was positively related to perceived privacy, and Brill et al (1984) found that partition height was positively related to ratings of communication, privacy and job performance. ONeill (1994), by contrast, did not find partition height to influence communication, distractions, privacy or satisfaction. In addition to these occupant reactions, ONeill (1992; p.891) notes that the degree of enclosure may influence the circulation of air within the work space and to some extent the ability to control the thermal environment (such as shutting a door to reduce drafts). In his own comparison study of open, openplan and enclosed offices, this researcher found that enclosure predicted satisfaction with temperature, although it was not significantly related to satisfaction with air quality. In addition to the workstations characteristics observate before, we also examined the influence of having an external window in the workstation. Access to a window is clearly preferred by most people Office occupants express a preference for natural rather than artificial light and in addition to being a source of illumination, windows provide a view to the outside world .The accessibility of a view, particularly one of nature has been suggested as an important buffer to occupational stress and is also related to occupant satisfaction. Open-plan office environments offer the potential to improve daylight penetration, but little work has been conducted to investigate the relationship between windows and occupant satisfaction in such contexts. In the current research, I aimed to examine the relationship between workstation characteristics (workstation area, Windows etc) on environmental satisfaction measures (satisfaction with privacy, ventilation and lighting, and overall environmental satisfaction).

2.Methodology
For my assignment I chose the Vertigo building in TU/e campus .It has really interesting past with his renovation in the campus.Building has too many different office types and working areas then it makes the building more attractive from various ways.And also atriums and fully closed areas at the ground levels are important to research on it. Eindhoven Universitys Bouwkunde Faculty has a new building .With radical renovation of the old chemistry building.The completion of the Architecture ,Building and Planning facultys new premises is for several reasons a milestone in the history of the TU/e .The event marks the begining of the end of the idea that informed the old campus set-up which envisaged technology education as lofty,but also rather unworldly activities.The fact is that the new building dubbed Vertigo following a call to come up with a name is the first major contribution to a new masterplan for the university which is intended to convey the social position of applied science education.As such the milestone is also an interim report and a harbinger of yet more changes to come in. .Like small working places,in first design the dubious decision had been taken to insert mezzanine floors at the some point in the 5.1metre high spaces so as to be able to stack the offices,when in fact the space is inadequate for this.Next they had to heed the call for still more offices to be fitted into design so that as well as being awfully low.

Pic.1 Vertigo 7.08 Typical Office

Pic.2Vertigo 7th floor with two narrow floor around the atrium

The former chemistry building containe a lot of big laborotories.It was these that accounted for the exceptional height of the spaces and depth of the floors. After determining main problems at the selected floors and selected working areas and contacting by facility manager study will insight the in the characteristics of the building by using the HOPE checklist. After want all emplyoyees to complete HOPE questions they are gonna be tabled by graphs and other presentation ways.Also combination of CO2 lighting, temperature, humidity and air quality is important for this research.

1. What Information Do I Gather? After made a contact with a facility manager I chose the 7th floor to work on it. Before starting to work at the interior of the building I determine other issues. Where is the building situated? Are there any nearby potential sources of outdoor air pollution that might influence the indoor environment like Direct access from basement or roof car park ,busy road,power plant for the building Because these problems also couse too many problems for workers in the building.As we know noise and air pollution problems cause chronic stres and too many people dont understand that what is the reason about. Some of the other important questions asked from Hope list ; Total treated floor area Total number of occupants in building Type of glazing generally in the building Has there been any major water leakage or flooding in the last year? Is there a suspended ceiling? If in a radon-affected area, is there proper construction of foundation and ventilation (control of pressure difference), or other measures to control ingress of radon? 2. How Do I Analyze the Information that I Gather? The nature of my question determines the method of analysis - Descriptive questions call for descriptive methods - Correlational questions call for me to make correlations How modifications and materials work with each other in the same time.if there will be a problem with something is it possibel to change it with another one that wont cause problems for human life in the building. If there will be noise problems about exterior sources how will they block it while storing everything not damaged.?

By collecting datas with given schedules and by put them to the graphs and tables it makes everything more clear and readeble. HOPE lists and other schedules were prepared by specialist for Works like this.By using this schedules we can answer usual questions ,issues in our work are. The graph should show enough data points over the range considered to obtain the complete picture. In theobservatins I never answer questions such as, How many data points should I take? because I believe that everyone should be able to decide for themselves when there is enough data. Clearly two points are not enough for most undergraduate experiments, a hundred is time consuming and unnecessary.

3.Results

(Data collection and presented in tables / graphs, and text)

Vertigos open-plan office has been popular among design professionals since the late 1960's. This office design tends to produce higher occupant density than is typically found in traditional enclosed offices, a factor that has the potential to influence environmental satisfaction. Many of the causes of poor indoor air quality and thermal conditions are similar for all types of offices at the floors of the building, (Allen & Gerstberger 1973 ) However, openplan offices tend to be more densely populated than individual enclosed offices, a situation which can influence the amount of heat and contaminants produced in the space. It is important, therefore, that these factors be taken into account when applying standards and recommendations to the design of open-plan offices. The results includes ideas that can be used to increase occupant satisfaction and comfort, and reduce physical symptoms. The prevention of more serious health conditions (e.g., asthma, cancer, hyper-sensitivity) is not addressed. If there is reason to believe that serious health concerns are related to the air quality or thermal conditions in the office, an investigation by medical and indoor environment specialists should be carried out.

3.1.Indoor Air Quality To achieve good IAQ, many factors must be considered in the offices . These include the type and amount of contaminants in the space, the quality and quantity of the outdoor air supply, the movement of air and contaminants within the space, and the cleanliness of the office space and ventilation system.

3.2.Indoor Contaminants Contaminants in the office space can arise from many sources. For example, outdoor contaminants from vehicles and factories,laborotories, such as carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, can enter the building through the ventilation system, doorways or infiltration through walls. Building materials and office furnishings contain chemicals, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOCs), that are continuously being released into the indoor air. Office equipment, such as printers and photocopiers, can create ozone, and also emit VOCs. Dust and moisture can accumulate in ventilation systems and office spaces, providing a habitat for microbial contaminants. In the vertigo (7th floor) Office occupants themselves can also be a source of contaminants, which can include the by-products of breathing and perspiring, personal hygiene products (such as perfume and deodorants), and dust and animal dander carried into work on clothing. All of the above contaminants can make the air feel dusty and stale, produce unpleasant odours, and lead to occupant dissatisfaction and discomfort.

3.3Cleaning and Maintenance Contaminants can accumulate in the office space and in the ventilation system itself. Regular and thorough cleaning of the space and the ventilation system equipment reduces the accumulation of dust, VOCs and microbes, and also improves occupant satisfaction and reduces physical symptoms.2 However, because some cleaning processes temporarily distribute dust into the air, and many cleaning products contain VOCs themselves, these activities should be undertaken when the offices are not occupied. 3.4.Contaminant Source Control The best way to improve IAQ is to prevent contaminants from entering the office space in the first place. For example, careful selection of materials and products can reduce the quantity of VOCs emitted, particularly when new materials are introduced into the office space. Figure 2 provides one example of how VOC concentrations can be reduced when low-VOC-emitting products rather than typical products are chosen.8 High-efficiency air filters should be used in the ventilation system, to prevent outdoor contaminants from entering the office space. 3.5.Communication Indoor air quality can be a sensitive issue for occupants, managers and building operators. One way to avoid conflicts is to develop a clear and responsive complaints procedure. This way, concerns can be promptly addressed, clear feedback given, and IAQ problems solved quickly.

10

3.6.Air Delivery Systems Air supply diffusers and return air grilles should be positioned and operated so that air is evenly delivered to all parts of the office space, and contaminants effectively removed or diluted. Air delivery systems used in Europe include traditional (mixing), displacement and personal (local) systems. Most European open-plan offices use a traditional system. As long as this type of system is properly designed and operated, it can produce good IAQ. Researchers found that workstation size, panel height, and supply diffuser location had little effect on how well a traditional system controlled contaminant concentration in an openplan office space However, occupants in workstations with high panels tend to be less satisfied with ventilation.2 This is likely to be a psychological effect rather than a function of the physical environment that is, there is an occupant perception that high panels impede acceptable airflow. For this reason, panels higher than 1.68 m (66") should be avoided. 3.7.Outdoor Air Supply Rate Office spaces need to be ventilated with sufficient outdoor air to dilute contaminants and provide occupants with oxygen for breathing. For many years, Standards recommended a minimum outdoor air supply rate of 10 litres per second per person (L/s.p), but recently this rate was reduced to 8.5 L/s.p.4 This reduction can lead to energy savings, but the effect on occupants is unclear because research to compare these two rates has yet to be conducted. However, research suggests that outdoor air supply rates below 10 L/s.p may lead to occupant discomfort and dissatisfaction, increased physical symptoms, absenteeism, and reduced task performance. Recommendations of 8.5 L/s.p should be treated as an absolute minimum outdoor air supply rate; a rate of 10 L/s.p is preferable for IAQ purposes. Achieving adequate ventilation in the occupied space also depends on appropriate operation of the ventilation system. Special steps should be taken where possible, such as increasing the ventilation rate or isolating the area when renovating office spaces or installing new materials and furnishings, as materials typically emit the most VOCs when new.6 As outdoor air supply rates are determined on a per person basis, it is important to establish an appropriate outdoor air supply based on the occupancy of the open-plan office, and to revise this appropriately following any changes in occupant density.

11

Satisfaction with the environment contributes to organizational success. The solid lines represent findings from the COPE project; the dotted lines represent findings from other research. (Source COPE Project)

3.8.What is meant by thermal comfort? To have "thermal comfort" means that a person wearing a normal amount of clothing feels neither too cold nor too warm. Thermal comfort is important both for one's wellbeing and for productivity. It can be achieved only when the air temperature, humidity and air movement are within the specified range often referred to as the "comfort zone". Where air movement is virtually absent and when relative humidity can be kept at about 50%, the ambient temperature becomes the most critical factor for maintaining thermal comfort indoors. However, temperature preferences vary greatly among individuals and there is no one temperature that can satisfy everyone. Nevertheless, an office which is too warm makes its occupants feel tired; on the other hand, one that is too cold causes the occupants' attention to drift, making them restless and easily distracted. Workers begin worrying about how to get warm again. Maintaining constant thermal conditions in the offices is important. Even minor deviation from comfort may be stressful and affect performance and safety. Workers already under stress are less tolerant of uncomfortable conditions. 3.9.What temperature should an office be? A general recommendation is that the temperature be held constant in the range of 21-23C (69-73F). In summertime when outdoor temperatures are higher it is advisable to keep air-conditioned offices slightly warmer to minimize the temperature discrepancy between indoors and outdoors.

12

3.10.What humidity level and air velocity should an office be? When relative humidity is kept at about 50%, office workers have fewer respiratory problems (specifically in the winter) and generally feel better. Higher humidity makes the office feel "stuffy". More important, it can contribute to the development of bacterial and fungal growth (especially in sealed buildings). Humidity lower then 50% causes discomfort by drying out the mucous membranes, contributing to skin rashes. Dry conditions cause electrostatic charge on both office equipment and their users. Air velocities below 0.25 metres/second (or about 50 feet/minute) does not create any significant distraction even in tasks requiring sustained attention.

3.11.Are there any standards on office temperatures? The CSA Standard CAN/CSA Z412-00 - "Office Ergonomics" gives acceptable ranges of temperature and relative humidity for offices in the world. The recommended temperature ranges have been found to meet the needs of at least 80% of individuals. Some people may will feel uncomfortable even if these values are met. Additional measures may be required.

Table 1 Measured Temperature / Humidity Ranges for Comfort in the Floor Conditions Relative Humidity If 30%, then If 60%, then If 30%, then If 60%, then Acceptable Operating Temperatures C Summer (light clothing) Winter (warm clothing) 24.5 - 28 23 - 25.5 20.5 - 25.5 20 - 24 F 76 - 82 74 - 78 69 - 78 68 - 75

13

Table 2 shows measured (and even acceptable) temperatures ranges for relative humidity levels of 30% and 60%in the 7th floor Table 2 Examples of acceptable operative temperature ranges based on comfort zone diagrams Conditions Acceptable operative temperatures C Summer (clothing insulation = 0.5 clo) Relative humidity 30% Relative humidity 60% Winter (clothing insulation = 1.0 clo) Relative humidity 30% Relative humidity 60% 20.5 - 25.5 20 - 24 69 - 78 68 - 75 24.5 - 28 23 - 25.5 76 - 82 74 - 78 F

3.12In general, what temperature is 'right' for various activities? Table 3 summarizes some typical responses to various temperatures. Table 3 Temperature F 78 75 72 70 64 C 25 24 22 21 18 Optimal for bathing, showering. Sleep is disturbed People feel warm, lethargic and sleepy. Optimal for unclothed people. Most comfortable year-round indoor temperature for sedentary people. Optimum for performance of mental work. Physically inactive people begin to shiver. Active people are comfortable.

14

3.13Why Satisfaction is Important Offices are provided to enable employees to work in support of organizational goals. It follows that employers must ensure that these offices are well designed and conducive to employee comfort and satisfaction in order to maximize performance in pursuit of those goals. Satisfying employee needs is not an extraneous or frivolous concern; indeed, research at researcjes and elsewhere indicates clearly that open-plan office design influences the attitudes and actions of employees in ways that have important financial consequences for the organization.

15

4.Discussions and Conclusions

In the interior Vertigo has too many kinds of working space and it means that there is too many problems about and solutions about these office environments. Until quite recently ,it would have been quite out of the questions to create the kind of workspaces on these floors that are now to be found there: Dutch building regulations decreed that work spaces had to be close to the outer walls so as to protect users from having to work in dark and airless places deep within a building.This was why all office buildings in Nederlands look the same and have much the same double-loaded corridor profile.In other parts of the world where people were not so bothered about working under artificial light and in air conditioned spaces,other building types were able to evolve,such as skyscrapers with their deep space .In the Nederlands it was only the widespread ntroduction of the computers with their need for subdued light rather than a place at the window that bropught about a relaxation of this regulation. Several other issues suggest that the relationship between outdoor ventilation rates and occupant responses may be more complex than is sometimes considered. For example, as noted by Godish & Spengler (1996; p.140), The ability of general ventilation to reduce contaminant levels can be compromised by inadequate mixing of supply air in occupied spaces. Contaminant removal efficiency may differ between spaces or within a space, due to ventilation strategies, air flow patterns and room characteristics (eg. Teijonsalo, Jaakkola & Seppanen, 1996; Haghighat, Zhang, & Shaw, 1996). Thus, reported outdoor ventilation rates may not adequately reflect the actual ventilation conditions in some parts of a building or room. In addition, the ability of outdoor ventilation rates to remove contaminants is related to the nature and sources of pollutants present in the building under study (Godish & Spengler, 1996; Seppanen et al, 1999). Thus, a given outdoor ventilation rate may be sufficient to ensure favourable occupant responses in low polluting environments, but may be insufficient in high pollution load conditions. Current European standards for outdoor ventilation rates in office spaces are set with the assumption that there are no unusual sources of pollution present in the building. Despite this fact, the reviewed studies varied considerably in the information provided about pollution loads. Whilst it is acknowledged that a comprehensive analyses of building contaminants may be time consuming and costly, some indication of the presence of any unusual pollution sources would be useful in interpreting results. This issue may be particularly important where pollution loads are likely to vary between buildings or zones (Mendell, 1993). A further consideration is the fact that pollutant concentrations are also affected by the quality of the supply air. This is determined in part by recirculation rates, but will also be affected by the pollutants present in outdoor air, the location of the outdoor air intake relative to outdoor pollution sources and the ability of ventilation systems to filter out contaminants (Seppanen et al, 1999).

16

The ventilation system itself may constitute a source of pollution, and has been shown to be a source of VOCs (Molhave & Throsen, 1991) and a potential site for bacteria and fungi, particularly in ventilation systems which incorporate airconditioning (Sverdrup & Nyman, 1990; Morey, 1988). As such, regular maintenance and cleaning of ventilation systems has been argued to be important to occupant responses (eg. Burge, Jones & Robertson, 1990; Bluyssen, 1993), and studies investigating the impact of outdoor ventilation rates should determine the potential for ventilation system pollution to affect results. Wargocki et als (2000) study is particularly useful in this respect, since this study was conducted using a ventilation system argued to minimise the confounding potential of pollution from this source. Overall, as Godish & Spengler (1996; p.142) noted, the relationship between building ventilation conditions and air quality is relatively complex. As such, the use of general ventilation to mitigate building-related health complaints should be tempered by an understanding of the various factors than may limit its effectiveness and that it is not a generic solution to indoor air quality problems. In my opinion modifications in the building is the main problem for employees in the building,Ventilation ,heating system ,water and heat insulations are one of the main excuse of the problems.By the way all modifications have material sources and this materials effects on human breathing system ,nervous system etc. In past years some building materials are forbidden for healtcare like asbestos.Its important to know did they use any materials before these materials made forbidden.. This feeling is also echoed in an addendum to the latest ASHRAE ventilation standard, which states that; compliance with the standard will not necessarily result in acceptable indoor air quality for a variety of reasons. The comfort and health effects of indoor environments are very complex and not fully understood. It is not possible at this time to create a standard that will provide acceptable indoor air for all occupants under all circumstances. (ASHRAE 1999; p.1) However, although outdoor ventilation rates should not be relied upon as the only mechanism to ensure adequate indoor air quality, the current review does confirm that outdoor ventilation rates do make an important contribution to occupant satisfaction. Our review suggests that applying a minimum outdoor ventilation rate at the current standards, is likely to avoid serious detriments to occupant satisfaction, provided that this level of ventilation is achieved locally and maintained over time. As might be expected, occupants with workstations that incorporated a window were more satisfied with lighting. However, we also found that these occupants were less satisfied with ventilation, as compared to occupants in windowless workstations. The windows in the study sample were sealed; therefore, this finding is probably the result of temperature variations arising from increased draught during the winter and increased heat gain during the summer. I found that those occupants with a lower minimum partition height were more satisfied with overall environmental satisfaction. The mechanisms behind this finding are less obvious; however workstations containing at least one lower height partition might provide occupants with an improved sense of space, and may also improve

17

ambient conditions (through, for example, better air flow or access to overhead lighting). However, although the above findings were statistically significant, I found that the overall amount of variance in occupant satisfaction that could be explained by workstation characteristics was relatively small (between 4 and 14%). One reason for this may be the largely favourable workstation characteristics found in the literature. For example, although workstation area ranged from 12.5 to 30 m2 , the average workstation area was 20m2. Therefore, in many cases, workstation area might have been too large to influence occupant responses greatly. In addition, whilst minimum partition height varied from 0 to 2.5m, the majority of workstations had a minimum partition height of 2.3m, and this restricted range is likely to have influenced my results. Previously researchs on open-plan offices has often compared open and closed environments, in which the characteristics of spaces differ more dramatically It is likely that the effects of workstation variations within open-plan environments are more subtle and more difficult to detect. Such considerations suggest that future work should attempt to include a wider ranges of workstation characteristics, either through the use of a greater number of different buildings or through examining the effects of changes in workstation characteristics over time (as is currently planned for the postrenovation phase of the COPE field study). An alternative argument is that different measures of workstation characteristics might better explain differences in occupant environmental satisfaction. For example, in previously studies(Boubekri & Haghighat, 1993) researchers have used alternative measures of enclosure, such as average partition height or number of partitions. Similarly, the effects of workstation area might differ from density measures that take into account the position of workstations relative to each other, such as the distance from one occupant to the next, the number of employees within a specified radius of the target occupant, or area on the floorplate per person. Workstation characteristics not featured in my current study, for example the amount of storage space or location on the floorplate relative to exhaust outlets, might also be related to occupant environmental satisfaction. Future work could, therefore, benefit from the inclusion of alternative measures of workstation characteristics. A number of researchers have highlighted the potentially complex relationships between the physical office environment, occupants perceptions of those environments and their reactions towards them. This complexity is highlighted in a study by ONeill & Carayon (1993). Here, perceived enclosure accounted for 43% of the variance in satisfaction with privacy, whereas physical enclosure (measured as workstation area and average partition height) accounted for only 8%; suggesting that perceptions of enclosure were formed from more than simply the physical characteristics of workstations.It has been argued, for example, that occupant responses to office environmentare influenced by personal and organisational s factors. Job complexity has previously been related to occupant satisfaction, with occupants preferring more privacy when completing more complex tasks (ie. Hedge, 1982; Sundstrom, Town et al, 1982; Block & Stokes, 1989; Fried, Slowik, Ben-David & Tiegs, 2001). This is likely to be because complex tasks require more focused concentration, and so more private environments provide a buffer against distractions and interruptions. Related to job complexity, job level has also been associated with

18

occupant satisfaction (eg. Johnson, 1970; Hedge, 1982; Carlopio & Gardner, 1992; 1995). Here, managers are typically found to be more sensitive to privacy and disturbances, primarily because higher level jobs are assumed to be more complex and demanding. Other factors, such as organisational tenure, experience of alternative office environments, abilities to screen out distracting stimuli, and personal needs for privacy, have also been associated with occupant satisfaction (eg. Hedge, 1982; Oldham, 1988; Block & Stokes, 1989; Jackson et al, 1997; Fried et al, 2001). In addition, as noted by both Sundstrom (1987) and Marans & Spreckelmeyer (1982), occupant responses are also likely to be affected by how an individuals own workstation compares to those of their co-workers, and to the workstation they feel they deserve to have. characteristics and occupant environmental satisfaction might also interact with the relative importance that occupants place on environmental features. Sundstrom (1987), for example, argues for a weakest link approach, in which the aspect of the environment that the occupant is least satisfied with becomes the most important in determining environmental satisfaction. In the current study, I found that occupants in larger workstations and occupants in windowed workstations tended to rate access to a window as more important than did occupants in smaller workstations and windowless workstations respectively. This latter finding is in contrast to previous research, which has suggested that occupants in windowless workstations tend to rate the importance of having a window higher than occupants in windowed workstations (Boubekri & Haghighat, 1993). Thus, whilst others have argued that occupants rate aspects of the environment as more important if they do not currently have them, our findings suggest that occupants might underplay the importance of features they do not have (particularly if it is unlikely that they will obtain them in the future). Clearly, more work is needed to determine the role of occupants importance rankings, particularly in relating these ratings to occupant satisfaction. Finally, I note that little work has been undertaken on the mediating role of physical ambient conditions on the relationship between workstation characteristics and occupant satisfaction. It can be argued that workstation characteristics affect ambient conditions, such as illuminance, temperature and noise levels, which in turn affect occupant satisfaction. As such, stronger relationships might be evident between ambient conditions and occupant satisfaction than were found here for workstation characteristics. This notion may be particularly important if the same workstation characteristic is positively related to one ambient condition but negatively related to another ambient condition. Some work has been conducted on the relationship between workstation characteristics and ambient conditions. Bauman et al (1992), for example, conducted environmental chamber experiments and concluded that variations in partition height produced only small differences in overall thermal and ventilation performance. ODonnell & Nguyen (1990), by comparison, argue that partition height influences air velocity. Other work has suggested that partition height and the provision of a gap at the bottom of the partition does not affect air distribution or mean age of air, but does affect contaminant removal efficiency (eg. Haghighat, Huo, Zhang & Shaw, 1996). Haghighat et al (1996) also noted that the workstation nearest to the return grill tended to have the worst contaminant concentrations, because pollutants from other sources in the space were being drawn towards the return grill. Furthermore,

19

Haghighat (1994) found that the layout of workstations in an open office space affected airflow patterns, and could therefore influence contaminant removal. In relation to acoustical parameters, researchers have also noted the role of partition height and partition construction in determining speech privacy (eg. Moreland, 1988). There is a clear need for the extension of work of this kind, to link workstation characteristics, ambient conditions and occupant environmental satisfaction together. In this study, I found significant, albeit small, relationships between workstation Characteristics relation between the objective and subjective office environment and occupant environmental satisfaction. These findings provide a promising base from which to further explore these relationships. Potential directions for the future include obtaining data on a broader variation of workstation characteristics (either from additional buildings or from the same buildings over time), examining alternative workstation measures, investigating the role of job category in more depth, relating occupant importance rankings to occupant satisfaction, and analysing the relationships between workstation characteristics,

20

References
Allen, E. C., & Gerstberger, P. G. (1973). A field experiment to improve communications in a product engineering department: The nonterritorial office. Human Factors, 15(5), 487-498. Banbury, S., & Berry, D. C. (1998). Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 499-517. Bauman, F. S., Faulkner, P. E., Arens, E. A., Fisk, W. J., Johnston, L. P., McNeel, P. J., Pih, D., & Zhang,H. (1992). Air movement, ventilation, and comfort in a partitioned office space. ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia, 756-780. Becker, F. D., Gield, B., Gaylin, K., & Sayer, S. (1983). Office design in a community college: Effect on work and communication patterns. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 699-726. Block, L. K., & Stokes, G. S. (1989). Performance and satisfaction in private versus nonprivate work settings. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 277-297. Bloom, D. E. (1986). Women and work. American Demographics, 15, 25-30. Boubekri, M., & Haghighat, F. (1993). Windows and environmental satisfaction: A survey study of an office building. Indoor Environment, 2, 164-172. Boyce, P. R. (1974). Users assessments of a landscaped office. Journal of Architectural Research, 3(3), 44- 62. Brill, M., Margulis, Konar & BOSTI (1984). Using Office Design to Increase Productivity (Vol. 1). Buffalo, NY: Workplace Design and Productivity Inc. Brill, M., Weidemann, S., & BOSTI Associates. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International. Brookes, M. J. (1972). Office landscape: Does it work? Applied ergonomics, 3(4), 224-236. Brookes, M. J. (1978). Changes in employee attitudes and work practices in an office landscape. In A. Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; The office environment: Space planning and affective behavior pg 66,84,146 Burgess, Lai, Eisner & Taylor, 1989 Environmental Satisfaction in Open-Plan Environments: 2 ,pg350 Friedmann, C. Zimring & E. Zube (eds.), Environmental Design Evaluation (pp. 3545). London: Plenum Press.

21

Brookes, M. J., & Kaplan, A. (1972). The office environment: Space planning and affective behavior. Human Factors, 14, 373-391. Burgess, M. A., Lai, J. C. S., Eisner, M., & Taylor, E. (1989). Speech privacy in openplan offices post occupancy. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia: Ergonomics, Technology, & Productivity, 26-29 November (pp. 351-354). Fortutide Valley, Australia: Ergonomics Society of Australia. Dean, L. M., Pugh, W. M., & Gunderson, E. K. E. (1975). Spatial and perceptual components of crowding: Effects on health and satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 7, 225-236. Fried, Y., Slowik, L. H., Ben-David, H. A. & Tiegs, R. B. (2001). Exploring the relationship between workspace density and employee attitudinal reactions: An integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 359372. Giuliano, V. E. (1982). The mechanization of office work. Scientific American, 247(3), 149-164. Goodrich, R. (1982). Seven office evaluations: A review. Environment and Behavior, 14(3), 353-378. Marans, R. W., & Speckelmeyer, K. F. (1982). Evaluating open and conventional office design. Environment and Behavior, 14(3), 333-351. Markus, T. A. (1967). The function of windows: A reappraisal. Building Science, 2, 97-121. Mital, A., McGlothlin, J. D., & Faard, H. F. (1992). Noise in multiple-workstation openplan computer rooms: Measurements and annoyance. Journal of Human Ergology, 21, 69-82. Oldham, G. R., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Relationships between office characteristics and employee reactions: A study of the physical environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 542-556. Oldham & Brass, 1979; Sundstrom Desgnng Effectve Study Envronments pg 114-115 O'Neill, M. J. (1992). Effects of workspace design and environmental control on office workers' perceptions of air quality. Proceedings Of The Human Factors Society, 36th Annual Meeting, Atlanta GA. Part 2 (pp. 890-894). Santa Monica, CA: The Human Factors Society. O'Neill, M. J. (1994). Work space adjustability, storage, and enclosure as

22

Sundstrom, Herbert et al, 1982; Prvacy In The Work Place: The Impact Of Buldng Desgn p.380 Sundstrom, Herbert et al, 1982; Traditional versus Open Offices: A Comparison of Sociotechnical, Social Relations, and Symbolic Meaning Perspectives pg 85,93 Veitch, J. A, Farley, K. M. J., & Newsham, G. R. (2002). Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 1. Methods and scale validation (Internal Report No. IRCIR-844). Ottawa, ON: National Research Council Canada, Institute for Research in Construction. Wells, B. W. P. (1965). Subjective responses to the lighting installation in a modern office building and their design implications. Building Science, 1, 57-68. Woods, J. E., Drewry, G. M., & Morey, P. R. (1987). Office worker perceptions of indoor air quality effects on discomfort and performance. Proceedings of Indoor Air '87. The Fourth International Conference On Indoor Air Quality and Climate (pp. 464468). Young, H., & Berry, G. (1979). The impact of environment on the productivity Young & Berry, 1979 Lifetime measurements of Environment pg 250

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ( Institue for Research in Construction ) http://ww.ashrae.com

23