Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction with workspace environments in 600 office buildings

Parkinson, T; Schiavon, S; Kim, J and Betti, G (2023) Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction with workspace environments in 600 office buildings. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 17-35. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

Previously unpublished data from over 600 office buildings in the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) Occupant Survey database are used to perform a systematic analysis of dissatisfaction in contemporary workspaces. A total of 81% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with at least one aspect of their workspace, and 67% with more than one. Acoustics were the most common source of dissatisfaction, particularly related to people talking, speech privacy, and phones. Other challenges included a perceived lack of control over the temperature and insufficient space, along with other associated problems of densely populated offices. The analysis shows that context matters when understanding occupant dissatisfaction. Occupants of open-plan offices with low or no partitions were almost twice as likely to complain about their workspace than someone in a private, enclosed office. Being near a window decreased the likelihood of dissatisfaction compared with those who were not near a window. There was a clear relationship between self-perceived performance and satisfaction with the indoor environment. Dissatisfaction profiles found that acoustics, space, and privacy-related items co-occur for many occupants dissatisfied with more than one workspace aspect.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: dissatisfaction; indoor environmental quality; occupants; offices; open plan; post-occupancy evaluation; privacy; satisfaction; workplace; workspace design
Index terms: post-occupancy evaluation, workspace, database, indoor environment, office building, occupant survey, open plan, satisfaction, window, built environment, indoor environmental quality, privacy
Subjects: environmental science, project delivery, evaluation methods, data collection methods, construction type, data management, professional ethics, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental health, management, architectural elements, design concepts
Topics: Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Quality Management
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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