Okoyeh, I. I. and Ezezue, A. M. (2026) Assessment of noise levels in architectural design studios in universities in South-East Nigeria. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 44(3), pp. 704-719. ISSN 2398-4708
Abstract
Purpose – This study assessed noise pollution in architectural design studios in five government-owned universities in South-East Nigeria by evaluating their current noise levels and their potential implications for students learning and health outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – A survey and quasi-experimental research designs involving questionnaire administration, sound level measurements and physical observations were used. Copies of the questionnaire were administered to 352 students, selected through stratified and random sampling techniques. Noise levels were measured using sound level meters across 84 logging stations, with readings compared to the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommended noise limit of 55 dB(A) for educational environments. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including one-way ANOVA and Duncan Multiple Range tests, were used to analyse the data. Findings – Results revealed that around 73.5% of respondents experienced noise pollution, with a mean noise level of 76.21 dB, significantly higher than WHO's guidelines. Significant variations were found in noise levels between the universities, with University of Nigeria Enugu Campus having the lowest mean noise levels (68.88 dB) and Alex Ekwueme University having the highest (81.29 dB). Similarly, the noise levels varied significantly within the studios, with 100-level studios recording the highest noise levels (82.74 dB) and M.Sc. studios the lowest (65.56 dB). Research limitations/implications – This research utilized data collected from architectural studios in five universities in South-East Nigeria for the analysis. Although this did not affect the research findings, further study is recommended to cover the entire noise management sub-systems in each university and also, all universities in the study area. Since the research utilized baseline data, predictions of the noise level differentials in other building types in the university and future noise density scenario of the campus cannot be predicted. Practical implications – This research provides an empirical assessment of noise levels in architectural design studios in universities in South-East Nigeria. It improves the understanding on noise level of compliance to WHO guidelines and offers insight into how noise impacts students' learning, concentration and health. Originality/value – To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first study that provides valuable insight on noise levels and the degree of compliance or contravention to the WHO guidelines on noise in educational settings in architectural design studios in universities in South-East Nigeria.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural studios; health effects; noise; noise levels; noise pollution; South-East Nigeria; university environment |
| Index terms: | statistics, sampling, Nigeria, research design, density, architectural design, studio, questionnaire, methodology, variation, survey, compliance, noise pollution |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, mathematical modelling, data collection methods, environmental health, design practice, contractual condition, analytical methods, construction type, research methods, Geography, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here