IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Parameters and indicators used in Indoor
Indoor environmental factors affecting the Environmental Quality (IEQ) studies: a
review
productivity of workers in office buildings Muriel Diaz, Maria Beatriz Piderit and
Shady Attia

- Optimizing Indoor Environmental Quality in

To cite this article: Fengxuan Liu et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1101 022001 hot arid climates
Dalia Wagdi, Khaled Tarabieh and Phillipa
Grant

- The need for understanding the indoor

environmental factors and its effects on
View the article online for updates and enhancements. occupants through an integrated analysis
Philomena M. Bluyssen

This content was downloaded from IP address 119.12.194.137 on 07/12/2022 at 13:11

World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

Indoor environmental factors affecting the productivity of

workers in office buildings

Fengxuan Liu1, Alice Chang-Richards1, Kevin I-Kai Wang2, Kim Natasha Dirks1
1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, the
University of Auckland
2.Department of Electrical, Computer, and Software Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, the University of Auckland

fliu104@aucklanduni.ac.nz

Abstract. Poor indoor environmental quality (IEQ) has been found to contribute significantly to
productivity losses, with the extent of the contribution differing according to the type of office
work in which workers are engaged. However, few studies focus specifically on the occupants
of university office buildings where the work being undertaken involves a significant amount of
academic research that is expected to require high levels of concentration, insight, creativity, and
consistency than is needed in many other types of work. To develop a preliminary understanding
of the IEQ factors affecting the productivity of people working in university office buildings, a
pilot questionnaire was administered to postgraduate students to validate the IEQ factors that
have been found to impact on productivity. To date, twelve postgraduate students from three
different office buildings in The University of Auckland completed the questionnaire. The results
showed that noise, temperature, air quality, and lighting were the factors most reported on with
respect to effects on work productivity. The adopted IEQ factors in this questionnaire instrument
is reliable. The findings from this study will help advance understanding of the IEQ factors
affecting the productivity of workers in university office buildings, and provide insights for
architects, building owners, office managers, and office users to help prevent or mitigate negative
impacts on productivity by managing the IEQ conditions in workplaces. Future research will
involve the analysis of data from staff as well as students to identify any possible differences
that might exist between the two groups of workers engaged in academic research.

1. Introduction
Inadequate indoor environmental quality (IEQ) has been linked to problems in concentration, decreased
work motivation, and poor work performance amongst office workers [1], and indirectly resulting in
economic losses through reductions in productivity. Presenteeism, in other words attending work but
with reduced performance due to illness or other problems, is one important measure of health-related
workplace productivity loss [2]. Within the building environment sector in the UK, productivity
decreases from presenteeism lead to a loss of £15 billion per year [1]. In addition, productivity losses
from presenteeism account for nearly half of staff costs, and over 45% of an organization’s costs [3]. As
a result of the introduction of legislation incorporating wellbeing into the building environment [4] and
the carbon budget in NZ housing [5], significant emphasis in research into building environments in
New Zealand has been on the housing sector, rather than on the workplace. According to the Building

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ), over the last ten years, there has been insufficient
consideration of the office environment, and the subsequent effects on employee productivity. This
limitation is even more significant in light of a need to incorporate productivity into the design and
operation of office buildings [6] and a trend towards more open-plan office space, a design that has
become popular due to the flexibility and collaboration that it encourages [7].
There is now a wealth of evidence that demonstrates a connection between the quality of the
workplace environment and employee productivity [6, 8-10]. The majority of studies carried out linking
the office environment with productivity have focused on IEQ [11], especially thermal comfort [12],
visual quality [13], and acoustic quality [14]. These factors work together to affect an employee’s ability
to concentrate and to be productive. For example, with neurobehavioral tests in an artificial climate
chamber, Wu, Hou, Shen and Lian [9] found that productivity losses caused by 1–2 °C increases in
temperature could be compensated for by fresh air at high temperature. In order to develop a
comprehensive understanding of the effects on employee productivity, some suggest that personal
characteristics should also be included in the analysis, as productivity may vary according to age and
gender [15, 16], and personality [17].
Research into indoor environments has tended to be segmented by specialism such as by building
type [18], office layout [11], and working roles [8]. One consideration in building or office design is the
workplace characteristics of the users, as they can be expected to have different requirements based on
the nature of the work in which workers are engaged. For example, Kang, Ou and Mak [11] found that
occupants working in university open-plan research offices were more easily affected by the acoustic
environment than others working in open-plan offices. It is therefore vital that productivity benefits from
indoor environment improvements are based on a clear understanding of the IEQ factors that directly
affect the occupants.
Academic research work is expected to require higher levels of concentration, insight, creativity,
inspiration and consistency than is needed in many other types of work [11]. Therefore, it could be
expected that research students and academics engaged in research work could have different
preferences with respect to the nature of indoor environments and the factors influencing their ability to
concentrate and to be productive. Although previous research has identified a wealth of factors affecting
the productivity of office workers, few have focused on those engaged in academic research specifically
within a university office building setting [8]. In response to these questions, the main contribution of
this article is the validation of factors affecting the productivity of people working in university office
buildings on the basis of a pilot questionnaire administered to postgraduate students engaged in research.
Findings from this article provide insights for architects, building owners, office managers, and office
users to help prevent and mitigate the negative impact of adverse IEQ on productivity, and advance
understanding of indoor environmental factors affecting productivity.

2. Literature review
From a methodological perspective, a variety of scholarly work investigating the IEQ factors in relation
to occupants’ health, wellbeing and productivity are based on post occupation evaluation (POE) tools
[19], such as BUS (Building Use Studies) Methodology [16, 20], CBE (Centre for the Built
Environmental) Berkeley Survey [21, 22], Cost-Effective Open-Plan Environments (COPE) research
[23], and BOSSA (Building Occupants Survey System Australia) [24]. Building on the IEQ related
elements in these POE tools and findings from previous literature [8, 11, 25, 26], this article focuses on
the five IEQ aspects which affect the productivity of office workers, namely 1) thermal comfort [12, 27,
28], 2) indoor air quality [29, 30], 3) lighting [31, 32], 4) noise and acoustics [14, 33, 34], and 5) office
layout [16, 35].

2.1. Thermal comfort

Engineers (ASHRAE) [36], thermal comfort is described as the condition of mind which expresses
satisfaction with the thermal environment. It is a subjective cognitive process of comfort evaluation
towards several interacting environmental parameters including temperature, humidity, and airspeed

2
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

under a specific activity level and clothing level [37, 38]. This judgement of comfort could vary
depending on demographic characteristics and season [12, 39]. In addition, some research indicates that
people have different thermal environmental preferences depending on the specific task they are
undertaking [40]. The World Health Organization (WHO) working group on the indoor environment
proposed an indoor temperature range of between 18 °C and 24 °C as a safe and well-balanced
temperature range to protect the health of general occupants [41]. The temperature range deemed to be
suitable for office productivity is close to this temperature range recommended by WHO. For example,
occupant performance was found to decrease by 2% per 1 °C increase in temperature within the
temperature range of 25 °C - 30 °C [42].

2.2. Indoor air quality

Indoor air quality (IAQ) is a measure of the quality of the air of an indoor space which is affected by the
outdoor climate, ventilation rate, and emissions from the buildings, furniture, and occupants in the
indoor environment [1, 11]. The commonly-used physical measures of IAQ include the level
ventilation/air freshness, the concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur
dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter [18]. In addition, unpleasant
odors might be detrimental to an occupant’s performance by slowing their information processing speed
[43], or distracting them from their tasks [44]. Increasing the ventilation rate and lowering the
concentration of pollutants in workspaces are two of the main methods of improving the IAQ, resulting
in productivity gains [45].

2.3. Lighting
Lighting is another important factor that affects an occupant’s overall comfort and productivity. Natural
and artificial lighting are two important lighting sources [11]. In addition, the light emitted from work
screens might also be an important factor affecting office workers considering they mainly conduct their
work with the use of computers [46]. Inadequate lighting quality can induce eye fatigue, distraction [47],
tiredness, motivational problems, stress [48], and result in poor performance at work. In an experimental
study among 16 females exposed to different levels of natural lighting, Kaida, Takahashi and Otsuka
[49] found that even a brief (30 min) exposure to natural bright light was beneficial from the point of
view of pleasantness. Additionally, occupants are likely to express an increased perception of
spaciousness with improved satisfaction towards lighting quality [8]. The optimum lighting condition
might differ according to the type of office activity being undertaken. For example, Sun, Lian and Lan
[32] exemplified that the appropriate lighting level and color for participants’ perception, learning and
memory function were different from those for thinking and executive functions.

2.4. Noise and acoustics

Noise is defined as undesired sound [48] which can interrupt activities and concentration, increase
annoyance, hinder work performance, and result in adverse mental health impacts, including headaches
and tiredness [34, 50, 51]. The main internal noise sources in an office environment include speech noise
(conversation, phone calls, laughter), background noise (mainly noise from air-conditioning systems or
machines), and movement noise (keyboards typing, closing doors, human activity, and walking steps)
[11, 50]. Amongst these noise sources, speech was found to be the most annoying noise source in open-
plan offices, due to the interference with other verbal activities such as reading and information
processing [52, 53]. The clearer the conversation, the better the speech intelligibility and the worse the
speech privacy [54]. Laboratory tests showed that occupants reported more disturbance with ascending
speech intelligibility [53, 54].

2.5. Office layout

Office layout refers to the arrangement and boundaries of workspaces, which determines the types of
office whether a traditional cellular office (private office and shared room office), an open-plan office,
or combi and flexibility offices [55, 56]. The characteristics in the office layout, such as the amount of

3
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

space, the level of comfort provided by the furniture, the adjustability of equipment, and the level of
privacy provided are commonly considered in the assessment of an occupants’ satisfaction level with
their office layout [11, 26]. Literature demonstrates that workplace productivity gains can only be
achieved when the office layout matches work patterns, work processes, and the complexity of the work
tasks being undertaken [55].
After a thorough review of the existing literature and POE tools with respect to the IEQ factors
affecting the productivity of office workers, the selection of the IEQ factors and its corresponding sub-
factors adopted in the questionnaire for this research were shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Excerpt IEQ factors from the survey questionnaire

Questionnaire items Likert scale

Age group, gender, ethnicity, living time in NZ,

Participants’
role at the university, office buildings, and
information
office types.
Indoor Temperature in your office 1-Does not affect me at all
elements Air quality 2-Mostly does not affect me
3-Somewhat does not affect me
Lighting 4-Neutral
Be able to see the natural view 5-Somewhat affects me
Greenness inside of the office 6-Mostly affects me
7-Significantly affects me
Interior decoration of the office
Visual privacy
Noise level
Sound-proof of your own office
The set-up of your workstation
Storage space
Cleanness of your office
Availability of common rooms for breaks or
taking a rest
Availability of work-related meeting rooms
Number of the lifts in the building

3. Methodology
A qualitative pilot study on the basis of a questionnaire survey was conducted among postgraduate
students at The University of Auckland to validate the IEQ factors affecting the productivity of people
working in university office buildings. A pilot study is commonly a small-scale version of a trail done
in preparation for a main study [57]. It can be used to pre-test a research instrument, such as a
questionnaire or an interview, that is intended to be used in the main study, for evaluating the feasibility
of research methodologies including participants recruitment, data collection, and data analysis [58, 59].
This pilot study was intended to validate the IEQ factors complied from previous literature and inform
the survey design for the formal larger study by gaining the subjective perceptions of students and staff
in the university office buildings.
A preliminary literature review was carried out in February 2021 to identify the most relevant articles
concerning IEQ and workplace productivity. The search terms used were “(Productivity OR
Performance) AND (Office OR Workplace)”, the most relevant and commonly used terms based on
previous literature [1, 60]. The literature search was conducted using the Web of Science (WoS) for its
extensive coverage of high-quality inter-disciplinary literature [61]. The search was conducted in the
field of ‘paper title, abstract, and keywords’ and the results refined by selecting articles published after
2007 when the number of publications on this topic showed an obvious increase. Only journal articles

4
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

published in first quartile (Q1) and second quartile (Q2) ranked journals (according to Scimago Journal
Rank (SJR)) were included. Articles identifying the relationships between IEQ factors and productivity
were reviewed to establish a firm base for the research findings. In addition, a snowballing approach
was followed in Google Scholar to identify any relevant articles not identified in the previous review
steps by looking at the bibliographies included in the downloaded papers. A list of IEQ factors affecting
the productivity of workers in office buildings (as in the literature review) was then derived from the
identified literature.
Building on the IEQ related elements that were compiled from the literature and POE tools, a
questionnaire survey was developed. The survey consists of five parts including demographics,
satisfaction levels about the office environment, perceptions about the importance of IEQ factors with
respect to comfort, perceptions with regard to the extent to which IEQ factors affect productivity, and
open-ended questions about improvements in the workplace environment. With respect to the IEQ
factors presented in the questionnaire, 15 elements were finalized referring to other published
questionnaire questions [10, 17, 18, 25]. Additional attention was given to the question sequence, the
formulation, the wording, as well as the layout. The questions used in this article included demographic
information (age group, gender, located building, and office layout) regarding the respondents, and their
perceptions of how the presented IEQ factors affect their productivity. The demographic information
was asked by single-choice questions, and the respondents were asked to estimate how the IEQ factors
affected their productivity using a seven-point scale (where a 1 signifies does not affect their
productivity at all, a 2 mostly does not affect their productivity, a 3 somewhat does not affect their
productivity, a 4 signifies neutral, and greater than 4 an increasingly impacting on productivity). The
seven-point scale has been shown to give a more precise reflection of an informant’s true evaluation and
reach the upper limits of the scale’s reliability [62].
The pilot study was aimed at postgraduate students who had been allocated workspaces in one of
The University of Auckland buildings (405, 901, 906). As occupants who spend much of their time in
the office, postgraduate students are able to provide a comprehensive insight in the workplace conditions
in university buildings. These buildings were chosen due to their large capacity with respect to the
number of workers they house. In addition, the buildings might form the basis of a comparative analysis
of the building operation system considering they were built in different years. Participants were
recruited through e-mail invitations and in person. Submission of the completed questionnaire was
regarded as consent to participate in the pilot study. Participants were informed that their participation
was voluntary, and that they were free to skip any of the questions they wanted. The study was approved
by the University of Auckland Human Participation Committee, Reference Number UAHPEC22572.
Data from the questionnaires were collected and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for
descriptive analysis. A Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was performed to measure internal consistency
of the 15 IEQ elements in the questionnaire and a Cronbach’s alpha value higher than 0.7 suggests the
items have relatively high internal consistency [63]. Then, descriptive statistics of the level of effects on
productivity across the age, gender, and office layout cohorts were calculated based on Likert scale
scores. A sample consisting of twelve respondents answered the questionnaire survey, and the response
rate was 70.59 % (12/17). The sample size of twelve is considered as acceptable, as suggested by Isaac
and Michael [64] and Hill and Hamilton [65] that sample sizes of ten to 30 were sufficient for pilots in
survey research. In addition, Julious [66] recommended a sample size of twelve per group for clinical
trial when there was no prior information to base a sample size on.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Demographic information

The respondents indicated that most of the questions in the questionnaire are clear, and they answered
all of the questions on how they perceive each of the IEQ factors affecting their productivity. Table 2
presents the demographic information associated with the respondents participating in this pilot study.
The ages of the respondents were between 20-39, which is expected given the education degree in which

5
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

the students are enrolled. There were also more respondents (7/12) in offices shared with more than 10
people, and fewer (5/12) occupied a workspace in an open-plan area. This is consistent with the trend
towards open-plan designs found in colleges and universities [11].
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of respondents, N = 12

Classification No. of respondents Percentage

Age 20-29 5 41.67%
30-39 7 58.33%
Gender Female 4 33.33%
Male 8 66.67%
Buildings B405 7 58.33%
B901 2 16.67%
B906 3 25.00%
Office layout Shared (>10) 7 58.33%
Open-plan 5 41.67%

4.2. Descriptive analysis

The Cronbach’s alpha reliability test yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76, suggesting the adopted IEQ
elements in the survey have relatively high internal consistency. A preliminary analysis of the results
indicates that most of the factors presented in the questionnaire have exerted an impact on respondents’
productivity. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of perceived effects of each IEQ factor on productivity
based on the respondents’ answers. All of the respondents reported that temperature, air quality, lighting,
and noise affected their ability to be productive, and a majority reported that noise and temperature
affected their productivity the most. This is consistent with the result of previous findings [11, 15, 25]
which indicate that temperature, air quality, light, and noise play a key role in determining occupants'
levels of productivity at work.
All of the respondents also perceived that factors including workstation set-up and the level of sound-
proofing of the office have affected their productivity, but that the perceived effects from these are less
obvious than those from noise, temperature, air quality, and lighting. There is mixed evidence regarding
the perceived effects of factors including visual privacy, cleanness, natural views, interior decoration,
and meeting rooms on productivity. Most respondents perceived that visual privacy (9/12) and cleanness
(10/12) impact on their productivity, while one respondent reported that they sensed no effects from
visual privacy or cleanness. The mean rating scales of the rest of the factors were found to be close to
the neutral line, which might indicate that the importance of these factors varies amongst postgraduate
students. Another possible implication is that the respondents have different levels of satisfaction with
respect to these factors for the different workplace conditions in each office building. These will be
explored further in the main study.
Most respondents (10/12) reported neutral scores with respect to the effect of greenness inside of the
office on productivity. This is consistent with previous literature which indicated that the presence of
green plants did not contribute to enhanced work efficiency, despite a decrease in stress level [67]. There
is also inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of the number of lifts in the office building. Over half
of the respondents (7/12) indicated that the number of lifts does not affect their productivity. One of the
respondents explained that it might be annoying to have to wait for a lift, but this would have no lasting
impact once sitting down and starting work. There were also two respondents who commented that they
found it difficult to rate the impact of the availability of common rooms and meeting rooms, and the
number of lifts on their productivity. Only one respondent reported that their availability of common
rooms (e.g. daily using of common rooms) mostly did not affect their ability to be productive.

6
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

Figure 1. Perceived effects on productivity for different IEQ factors

1. “ × ” represents mean value;

2. Where 1 means “Does not affect me at all”, 2 means “Mostly does not affect me”, 3 means “Somewhat does not
affect me”, 4 means “Neutral”, 5 means “Somewhat affects me”, 6 means “Mostly affects me”, and 7 means
“Significantly affects me”.

4.3. Comparison of IEQs effects on productivity

The descriptive analysis showed that the perceived effects of factors on productivity differs between
individuals. This could be due to demographic factors including age, gender, and personality, or office
characteristics such as office layout, as suggested in previous literature [11, 25, 34]. To explore the
differences in the effects of these factors on the productivity of postgraduates in this pilot study, further
comparative analysis was conducted. The distribution of age, gender, and office layout differences in
the perceived effects of each IEQ factor on productivity are illustrated in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure
4, respectively.

Figure 2. Age differences on perceived productivity effects from IEQ factors

7
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

Figure 3. Gender differences on perceived productivity effects from IEQ factors

Figure 4. Office layout differences on perceived productivity effects from IEQ factors
As shown in Figure 2, the respondents in each age group were inclined to perceive temperature, air
quality, lighting, and noise as affecting their productivity. Respondents in the 30-39 year age group in
particular were found to perceive slightly less effects of air quality, sound-proofing and lighting on their
productivity. This might be because postgraduate students in this age groups have different requirements
for lighting and acoustic conditions. For example, Kang, Ou and Mak [11] indicated that occupants aged
between 24 to 35 years old were more sensitive to the lighting and noise conditions in university open
plan research offices, compared to those under 24 years old.
With respect to the gender differences shown in Figure 3, it seems that male respondents are more
inclined to perceive temperature, air quality, lighting, and soundproofing as affecting their productivity
compared with females. This is consistent with previous findings suggesting that men perceive the
effects of IEQ more than women [25]. Respondents in the male group might also attach more value to
the availability of meeting and common rooms. Most males (7/8) perceived the availability of meeting
and common rooms as having an effect on their productivity, while only around half of females
perceived effects resulting from these two factors. Females perceived a higher level of effect as a result
of the quality of interior decoration. Female respondents either reported the interior decoration as having
an effect on their productivity or feeling neutral, while three male respondents (3/7) reported it as having
no effect on their productivity.
Respondents in open-plan office spaces indicate similar perceptions with respect to the effects of
each IEQ factor on their productivity as those in an enclosed office room shared with more than 10
people. In particular, the respondents of this pilot study reported a higher level of effect from noise and

8
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

temperature. One possible reason might be related to the nature of the office layouts. Several studies
have attributed the root cause of poor acoustic environments to open-plan office designs [34, 68].
Specifically, respondents in shared offices are inclined to perceive the effects of soundproofing. A
majority (5/7) rated sound-proofing as affecting their productivity, and the rest (2/7) reported sound-
proofing significantly affecting their productivity. Less than half of the respondents (2/5) in the open-
plan office perceived the same extent of effects. This is interesting given that they perceive similar
effects of noise on their productivity.

5. Conclusion
This work presents an effort to validate the IEQ factors affecting the productivity of people working in
university office buildings. A questionnaire-based pilot study was conducted among postgraduate
students enrolled at The University of Auckland. The results from twelve respondents showed that noise,
temperature, air quality, and lighting were the factors most reported as affecting work productivity. The
results suggest that most of the factors included in the questionnaire are clear and explicit, except factors
such as the number of lifts, and the availability of meeting and common rooms. Findings from the pilot
study will inform the survey design, with some questions modified according to the respondents'
comments. It will help advance understanding of the IEQ factors affecting the productivity of workers
in university office buildings, and offer insights for architects, building owners, office managers and
office users on optimizing productivity from the perspective of demographic and building
characteristics. Future research will involve the analysis of data from staff as well as students to identify
any possible differences that might exist between the two groups of workers engaged in academic
research.

Acknowledgement
The first author of this paper is funded by a joint Doctoral Scholarship between the China Scholarship
Council and the University of Auckland

References
[1] Al Horr Y, Arif M, Kaushik A, Mazroei A, Katafygiotou M and Elsarrag E 2016 Occupant
productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature Build Environ
105 369-89
[2] Lui J N M and Johnston J M 2019 Working while sick: validation of the multidimensional
presenteeism exposures and productivity survey for nurses (MPEPS-N) BMC Health Serv Res
19 542
[3] Collins J J, Baase C M, Sharda C E, Ozminkowski R J, Nicholson S, Billotti G M, Turpin R S,
Olson M and Berger M L 2005 The assessment of chronic health conditions on work
performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers J Occup Environ Med 47 547-
57
[4] Nuth M 2020 Wellbeing and our buildings. In: Build 181: Building healthy homes for all, (New
Zealand: BRANZ) pp 38-9
[5] Dowdell D 2020 Cutting carbon is a material issue. In: Build 176: Building materials, (New
Zealand: BRANZ) pp 67-8
[6] Shan X, Melina A N and Yang E-H 2018 Impact of indoor environmental quality on students'
wellbeing and performance in educational building through life cycle costing perspective J
Clean Prod 204 298-309
[7] Węziak-Białowolska D, Dong Z and McNeely E 2018 Turning the Mirror on the Architects: A
Study of the Open-Plan Office and Work Behaviors at an Architectural Company Front.
Psychol. 9 2178
[8] Sadick A-M, Kpamma Z E and Agyefi-Mensah S 2020 Impact of indoor environmental quality
on job satisfaction and self-reported productivity of university employees in a tropical African
climate Build Environ 181 107102

9
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

[9] Wu J, Hou Z, Shen J and Lian Z 2020 Quantitative effect on work performance considering
interactions among multiple indoor environmental factors Build Environ 185 107286
[10] Franke M and Nadler C 2021 Towards a holistic approach for assessing the impact of IEQ on
satisfaction, health, and productivity BRI 49 417-44
[11] Kang S, Ou D and Mak C M 2017 The impact of indoor environmental quality on work
productivity in university open-plan research offices Build Environ 124 78-89
[12] Kaushik A, Arif M, Tumula P and Ebohon O J 2020 Effect of thermal comfort on occupant
productivity in office buildings: Response surface analysis Build Environ 180 107021
[13] Boubekri M, Lee J, MacNaughton P, Woo M, Schuyler L, Tinianov B A-O and Satish U 2020
The Impact of Optimized Daylight and Views on the Sleep Duration and Cognitive
Performance of Office Workers Int J Environ Res Public Health 17 3219
[14] Lou H and Ou D 2020 The effects of speech intelligibility on English scientific literature reading
in Chinese open-plan offices J. Acoust Soc Am 147 EL1
[15] Andargie M S and Azar E 2019 An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor office
environmental factors on occupants’ comfort and working conditions Sustain. Cities Soc. 46
101447
[16] Khoshbakht M, Rasheed E O and Baird G 2021 Office Distractions and the Productivity of
Building Users: The Effect of Workgroup Sizes and Demographic Characteristics Buildings
11
[17] Kallio J, Vildjiounaite E, Koivusaari J, Räsänen P, Similä H, Kyllönen V, Muuraiskangas S,
Ronkainen J, Rehu J and Vehmas K 2020 Assessment of perceived indoor environmental
quality, stress and productivity based on environmental sensor data and personality
categorization Build Environ 175 106787
[18] Elnaklah R, Fosas D and Natarajan S 2020 Indoor environment quality and work performance in
“green” office buildings in the Middle East Build Simul 13 1043-62
[19] Tekce I, Ergen E and Artan D 2020 Structural Equation Model of Occupant Satisfaction for
Evaluating the Performance of Office Buildings Arab J Sci Eng 45 8759-84
[20] Parkinson A T, Reid R, McKerrow H and Wright D 2018 Evaluating positivist theories of
occupant satisfaction: a statistical analysis BRI 46 430-43
[21] Graham L and Parkinson T 2021 Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE’s occupant surveys
Buildings & Cities 2 166-84
[22] Zagreus L, Huizenga C, Arens E and Lehrer D 2004 Listening to the occupants: a Web-based
indoor environmental quality survey Indoor air 14 65-74
[23] Veitch J A, Charles K E, Farley K M J and Newsham G R 2007 A model of satisfaction with
open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings J Environ Psychol 27 177-89
[24] Candido C, Kim J, de Dear R and Thomas L 2016 BOSSA: a multidimensional post-occupancy
evaluation tool BRI 44 214-28
[25] Chen C-F, Yilmaz S, Pisello A L, De Simone M, Kim A, Hong T, Bandurski K, Bavaresco M V,
Liu P-L and Zhu Y 2020 The impacts of building characteristics, social psychological and
cultural factors on indoor environment quality productivity belief Build Environ 185 107189
[26] Lou H and Ou D 2019 A comparative field study of indoor environmental quality in two types of
open-plan offices: Open-plan administrative offices and open-plan research offices Build
Environ 148 394-404
[27] Geng Y, Ji W, Lin B and Zhu Y 2017 The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ
perception and productivity Build Environ 121 158-67
[28] Wang X, Li D, Menassa C C and Kamat V R 2019 Investigating the effect of indoor thermal
environment on occupants’ mental workload and task performance using
electroencephalogram Build Environ 158 120-32
[29] Abdullah A H, Lee Y Y, Aminudin E and Lee Y H 2019 Indoor Air Quality Assessment For a
Multistorey University Office Building in Malaysia J. Green Build 14 93-109

10
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

[30] Wyon D P 2004 The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity Indoor air 14
92-101
[31] Zhang R, Campanella C, Aristizabal S, Jamrozik A, Zhao J, Porter P, Ly S and Bauer B A 2020
Impacts of Dynamic LED Lighting on the Well-Being and Experience of Office Occupants
Int J Environ Res Public Health 17 7217
[32] Sun C, Lian Z and Lan L 2019 Work performance in relation to lighting environment in office
buildings Indoor Built Environ 28 1064-82
[33] Haapakangas A, Hongisto V and Liebl A 2020 The relation between the intelligibility of irrelevant
speech and cognitive performance-A revised model based on laboratory studies Indoor air 30
1130-46
[34] Blasio S D, Shtrepi L, Puglisi G E and Astolfi A 2019 A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Impact
of Irrelevant Speech Noise on Annoyance, Mental Health and Well-being, Performance and
Occupants' Behavior in Shared and Open-Plan Offices Int J Environ Res Public Health 16 280
[35] Kim J, Candido C, Thomas L and de Dear R 2016 Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect
of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and
health Build Environ 103 203-14
[36] American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers 2020 Thermal
Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 – 2020)
(Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE)
[37] Lin Z and Deng S 2008 A study on the thermal comfort in sleeping environments in the
subtropics—Developing a thermal comfort model for sleeping environments Build Environ 43
70-81
[38] Djongyang N, Tchinda R and Njomo D 2010 Thermal comfort: A review paper Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 14 2626-40
[39] Quang T N, He C, Knibbs L D, de Dear R and Morawska L 2014 Co-optimisation of indoor
environmental quality and energy consumption within urban office buildings Energy Build 85
225-34
[40] Tanabe S-i, Nishihara N and Haneda M 2007 Indoor Temperature, Productivity, and Fatigue in
Office Tasks HVAC&R Res 13 623-33
[41] World Health Organization (WHO) 2018 WHO Housing and health guidelines. (Geneva: World
Health Organization) p 172
[42] Seppanen O, Fisk W J and Faulkner D 2003 Cost benefit analysis of the night-time ventilative
cooling in office building. In: Proc. of the Healthy Buildings 2003 Conf., (United States:
National University of Singapore) pp 394-97
[43] Michael G, Jacquot L, Millot J and Brand G 2005 Ambient odors influence the amplitude and
time course of visual distraction Behav Neurosci 119 708-15
[44] Danuser B, Moser D, Vitale-Sethre T, Hirsig R and Krueger H 2003 Performance in a complex
task and breathing under odor exposure Hum Factors 45 549-62
[45] Gupta R, Howard A and Zahiri S 2020 Investigating the relationship between indoor environment
and workplace productivity in naturally and mechanically ventilated office environments Build
Serv Eng Res Technol 41 280-304
[46] Kowalska M, Zejda J E, Bugajska J, Braczkowska B, Brozek G and Malińska M 2011 [Eye
symptoms in office employees working at computer stations] Medycyna pracy 62 1-8
[47] Soo-Young K and Jong-Jin K 2007 Influence of light fluctuation on occupant visual perception
Build Environ 42 2888-99
[48] Thach T-Q, Mahirah D, Sauter C, Roberts A C, Dunleavy G, Nazeha N, Rykov Y, Zhang Y,
Christopoulos G I, Soh C-K and Car J 2020 Associations of perceived indoor environmental
quality with stress in the workplace Indoor air 30 1166-77
[49] Kaida K, Takahashi M and Otsuka Y 2007 A Short Nap and Natural Bright Light Exposure
Improve Positive Mood Status Ind Health 45 301-8

11
World Building Congress 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101 (2022) 022001 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/2/022001

[50] Kaarlela-Tuomaala A, Helenius R, Keskinen E and Hongisto V 2009 Effects of acoustic

environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices - longitudinal study during
relocation Ergonomics 52 1423-44
[51] Jahncke H, Hygge S, Halin N, Green A M and Dimberg K 2011 Open-plan office noise: Cognitive
performance and restoration J Environ Psychol 31 373-82
[52] Pierrette M, Parizet E, Chevret P and Chatillon J 2015 Noise effect on comfort in open-space
offices: development of an assessment questionnaire Ergonomics 58 96-106
[53] Haka M, Haapakangas A, Keränen J, Hakala J, Keskinen E and Hongisto V 2009 Performance
effects and subjective disturbance of speech in acoustically different office types--a laboratory
experiment Indoor air 19 454-67
[54] Hongisto V 2005 A model predicting the effect of speech of varying intelligibility on work
performance Indoor air 15 458-68
[55] Haynes B P 2008 The impact of office layout on productivity J. Facil. Manag. 6 189-201
[56] Iris D B and Beijer M 2014 The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity
support J. Facil. Manag. 12 142-57
[57] van Teijlingen E and Hundley V 2002 The importance of pilot studies Nursing standard (Royal
College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987) 16 33-6
[58] Leon A C, Davis Ll Fau - Kraemer H C and Kraemer H C 2011 The role and interpretation of
pilot studies in clinical research J Psychiatr Res 45 626-9
[59] Hertzog M A 2008 Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies Res Nurs Health
31 180-91
[60] Colenberg S, Jylhä T and Arkesteijn M 2021 The relationship between interior office space and
employee health and well-being – a literature review BRI 49 352-66
[61] Falagas M, EI P, GA M and G P 2008 Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and
Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses FASEB J 22 338-42
[62] Nunnally J C 1978 Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw Hill)
[63] Hair J, Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. 2005 Multivariate Data Analysis
(United States: Prentice Hall)
[64] Isaac S and Michael W B 1995 Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles,
methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education
and the behavioral sciences (San Diego, Calif.: EDITS Publishers)
[65] Hill R and Hamilton W P 1998 What Sample Size is “Enough” in Internet Survey Research? In:
Interpersonal Computing and Technology：An Electronic Journal for the 21st century,
(Trento, Italy: University of Trento)
[66] Julious S A 2005 Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study Pharm Stat 4 287-
91
[67] Ayuso Sanchez J, Ikaga T and Vega Sanchez S 2018 Quantitative improvement in workplace
performance through biophilic design: A pilot experiment case study Energy Build 177 316-
28
[68] Kim J and de Dear R 2013 Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-
plan offices J Environ Psychol 36 18-26

12