Woo, J; Rajagopalan, P; Francis, M and Garnawat, P (2021) An indoor environmental quality assessment of office spaces at an urban Australian university. Building Research & Information, 49(8), pp. 842-858. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a comprehensive indoor environmental quality (IEQ) evaluation conducted in seven office buildings at an Australian university. A mix of objective and subjective assessments was carried out and a total of 519 staff participated in the survey from various non-academic departments. Three types of buildings were included in this study: 'Heritage listed' (c.1880–1890s), 'Conventional' (c.1960–1980s) and 'Modern' (post 2000) office buildings. Although the measured IEQ conditions were relatively good with no significant fluctuation across the selected buildings, the discrepancy between objective IEQ data and subjective occupant evaluations was noted. The Modern building type designed with fully double-glazed façades showed the highest levels of overall comfort and satisfaction and perceived productivity, whereas the Conventional building type constructed during the late 20th-century period, notable for deep floor plates, had the lowest. The heritage listed type buildings had lower window to wall ratios, yet displayed improved occupant satisfaction across all IEQ areas over the conventional type buildings. The results support that building renovation and regular maintenance can improve occupant comfort and satisfaction within offices. The findings could be useful for property managers looking for strategies to improve the performance of their building stock.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | indoor environmental quality; non-academic staff; open-plan OFFICE; perceived productivity; university building |
| Index terms: | occupant satisfaction, survey, comfort, indoor environmental quality, office space, strategy, manager, productivity, office building, building renovation, window-to-wall ratio, building stock, satisfaction |
| Subjects: | energy efficiency, construction type, occupational health and safety management, data collection methods, practitioner, user-centered design, management, project delivery, asset management, environmental health |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Project Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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