Roskams, M J and Haynes, B P (2021) Testing the relationship between objective indoor environment quality and subjective experiences of comfort. Building Research & Information, 49(4), pp. 387-398. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
At present, workplace researchers lack a suitable methodology for combining objective indoor environmental quality (IEQ) data with repeated subjective assessments of comfort in real offices. To address this gap, we conducted a study at two office sites. Four IEQ parameters (carbon dioxide, temperature, humidity, and illuminance) were continuously monitored at each site, and brief environmental comfort surveys were sent to employees' smartphones four times per day across the study period. In total, 45 employees across the two sites completed 536 surveys. The findings confirm that the repeated sampling approach is a more appropriate method for measuring comfort than a questionnaire delivered at one time only. Adherence to recommended temperatures reduced the risk of thermal discomfort, however this effect was weak and other predicted associations between the physical environment and environmental comfort were not supported. The results also showed a strong association between environmental comfort and self-rated productivity, such that employees rated themselves as most productive when they were satisfied with noise levels, temperature, air quality, and lighting within the office. Overall, the results highlight that it is critically important to consider strategies for optimising occupant comfort, although this is unlikely to be achieved through adherence to environmental comfort boundaries alone.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | facilities management; indoor environmental quality; technological innovation; technology management |
| Index terms: | technology management, survey, carbon dioxide, strategy, questionnaire, methodology, boundaries, facilities management, illuminance, discomfort, indoor environment, productivity, indoor environmental quality, sampling, comfort, technological innovation, air quality, humidity, testing |
| Subjects: | management, health risk and incident analysis, research methods, occupational health and safety management, building performance, environmental health, data collection methods, climate science, innovation studies, professional practice, innovation and technology management, property law, environmental science |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| 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