Journal Pre-proof

Reinventing hybrid office design through a people-centric adaptive approach

Jiayu Pan, Shushen Chen, Ronita Bardhan

PII: S0360-1323(24)00061-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111219
Reference: BAE 111219

To appear in: Building and Environment

Received Date: 19 September 2023

Revised Date: 15 December 2023
Accepted Date: 16 January 2024

Please cite this article as: Pan J, Chen S, Bardhan R, Reinventing hybrid office design through a
people-centric adaptive approach, Building and Environment (2024), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2024.111219.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Reinventing hybrid office design through a people-centric adaptive approach

Authors: Jiayu Pan*1, Shushen Chen1,2, Ronita Bardhan1

1 Sustainable Design Group, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1PX
2 Atelier Ten, London, United Kingdom, E2 8DD

*Corresponding author: jp844@cam.ac.uk

o f
Abstract

ro
The indoor environment in office spaces has a significant impact on occupants’ health,
-p
satisfaction, well-being and productivity. The use of co-working space is rising as a
re
potential alternative workspace post pandemic to respond to the preference for hybrid
and flexible working. Hence, it is imperative to understand how the space planning and
lP

design of co-working space impacts the occupants. A year-long longitudinal questionnaire

na

survey, along with in-situ field measurement, is conducted in a co-working space in

London, to assess the environmental comfort, perception and preference in the space. The
ur

relationship between environmental factors like lighting, ventilation, privacy, thermal

Jo

comfort and access to amenities and occupants’ seat preference is explored. The results
indicate a general desire for more daylight and air flow suggested by the occupants, while
the factors like ‘good daylight’, ‘good ventilation’ and ‘near power sockets’ contribute to
occupants’ decision-making on seat selection significantly, while privacy and noise are
not seen as significant factors in this environment. The findings offer insights for the
environmental design for future workspaces in the hybrid working setup.

1
 1. Introduction
The indoor environment in office spaces plays a crucial role in the health, satisfaction,
well-being and productivity of occupants (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011; Antoniadou and
Papadopoulos, 2017). Satisfaction with the physical environment in offices is found to
have a strong positive association with the perceived well-being and productivity at work
(Haapakangas et al., 2018). Multiple studies have proved the connection between
environmental performance of the office space and organisational outcomes like lower
absence rate, higher job satisfaction and better employee commitment (Carlopio, 1996;
Veitch et al., 2007; Newsham et al., 2009). How to provide a comfortable indoor

o f
environment in office has been a widely discussed topic. Investigation results point out

ro
that the work environment with good privacy, sufficient ventilation and daylight, high
-p
visual comfort, less noise, comfortable thermal condition is desirable (Kamarulzaman et
al., 2011; Alker et al., 2015; Borisuit et al., 2015; Haapakangas et al., 2018; Abdollahzadeh,
re
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian, 2020).
lP
na

In recent times, the traditional 9-to-5 office style has undergone significant changes due
to the pandemic, leading to the emergence of hybrid working modes. This shift has
ur

necessitated the evolution of office designs towards more flexible patterns. As a result,
Jo

alternative options like co-working spaces with hot-desking systems and flexible working
hours have gained popularity (Caglar, Faccio and Ryback, 2020). Co-working space is
described as an organizational approach to cultural and creative work that emphasizes
collaboration and community (Merkel, 2015), which can provide dynamic work
environments at a reduced cost (Tan and Lau, 2021). Consequently, workers' preferences
for office spaces have also changed, prompting a corresponding evolution in office design.
It is hypothesised that, while occupants in office space are granted with more power to
choose which space they use and where they sit, they tend to gravitate towards the places
with some preferred environmental features. In the post-pandemic era, there is a growing
demand for investigating how environmental design factors influence the use of offices to

2
deliver an occupant-friendly environment with better health and well-being, particularly
hybrid co-working spaces.

By collecting longitudinal-survey-based empirical data from a co-working space case

study site, this study aims to understand the environmental performance and occupants’
subjective perceptions in a flexible co-working space; it also investigates how occupants’
preference for various environment factors have affected where occupants sit. The
novelty of this study lies in its attempts to generate new knowledge about the
environmental comfort conditions and environmental preferences in a hybrid co-

o f
working space with hot-desking setup. It aims at understanding how survey-based data

ro
could reveal occupants’ environmental adaptation and preference, thus further applying
-p
the data to inform space planning strategies and environmental design decisions.
re
This manuscript is structured as follows: after the introduction in Section 1, Section 2
lP

reviews literature relating to the emergence of hybrid work models and co-working
na

spaces, alongside studies on environmental comfort within office settings. Section 3

presents details about the study site, questionnaire design and analytical methods. Section
ur

4 outlines the analysis results, while Section 5 engages in discussions. Finally, Section 6
Jo

offers the study’s conclusion.

2. Literature review
This section reviews the literature relating to this study from two perspectives, the
emergence of co-working space as an alternative option after the pandemic and the
investigation of the environmental comfort in office environment. The academic
literature search engines are Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science, while some
online resources from media and organisation reports are also included as the supplement.
The keywords include but not limit to the words that describe the context like ‘hybrid
working’, ‘workspace’, and ‘office’, and the words relating to environmental
characteristics like ‘daylight’, ‘thermal comfort’, ‘air quality’ and ‘acoustic’.

3
 2.1 The rise of co-working space as a hybrid option
The pandemic has brought about a significant shift in modern working practices, with the
widespread adoption of remote work leading to a large-scale ‘work-from-home’
experiment. This transformation has given workers the freedom to choose their working
locations, leading to a gradual transition towards a hybrid working style. In mega-cities
like London, where population growth brings new jobs and opportunities, existing office
spaces must be reimagined and reconstructed to meet the changing demands. The
conventional structured office spaces might no longer be necessary, as the focus shifts
towards creating multi-use communal spaces that facilitate work, communication and

o f
collaboration (AECOM, 2022). Furthermore, the anticipated decrease in office occupancy

ro
presents cost-saving opportunities for businesses in terms of rent, maintenance and
-p
operational expenses (Boland et al., 2020). Offering flexible seating and layouts becomes
an appealing solution for office manager and occupants.
re
lP

In the post-pandemic era, there is an emerging trend of renovating existing office spaces
na

according to new design standards. For instance, an office provider in London has
announced a £27 million refurbishment plan, which includes offering alternative spaces
ur

for work and relaxation and enhancing energy efficiency (Neville, 2022). Report from
Jo

Microsoft highlights that employees now prioritize health and well-being over work
(Microsoft, 2022). A conceptual model developed by Sorensen et al. (2021) emphasizes
the significance of workspace and working conditions in ensuring workers’ safety, health
and well-being. In a study based on interviews, Nanayakkara, Wilkinson and Ghosh
(2021) identify key considerations for designing new offices, such as flexibility,
functionality, advantage, noise level and a sense of community. Ultimately, the future of
office design is expected to prioritize factors like health and well-being, collaboration,
resiliency, flexibility and sustainability to create high-quality environments that
encourage office use (Nanayakkara, Wilkinson and Ghosh, 2021; AECOM, 2022; Ajith et
al., 2022).

4
While working from home has its challenges, including mental depression, concentration
difficulties, information sharing deficiencies and work-life balance management issues
(Teevan, Hecht and Jaffe, 2021; Yang et al., 2021), local co-working spaces have emerged
as potential solutions when pandemic restrictions are eased. These co-working hubs
provide a convenient alternative for employees, eliminating the need for long commutes.
Unlike traditional offices with fixed seats and working hours, co-working spaces offer
occupants greater freedom and flexibility to choose their working hours and preferred
locations and seats within the space. Some previous studies have explored the concept of
co-working spaces. Co-working spaces often described as environments that embody

o f
flexibility, change, mobility, community-building and idea-sharing (Füzi, Clifton and

ro
Loudon, 2014; Makakli, Yücesan and Ozar, 2019). They provide individuals with a
-p
flexible working environment and access to common spaces for events and food facilities
(Makakli, Yücesan and Ozar, 2019). Users choose co-working spaces as they seek a
re
workplace outside their homes that fosters inspiration, with accessibility and atmosphere
lP

being crucial factors in their decision-making (Weijs-Perrée et al., 2019). Similar findings
na

are echoed in a later study, with convenient location, open space layout, shared facilities
and knowledge sharing being significant factors contributing to user satisfaction (Tan and
ur

Lau, 2021). However, the environmental conditions in the co-working space and how
Jo

they affect the use of space are less studied.

2.2 Environmental comfort in offices

User’s comfort in office incorporates thermal comfort, visual comfort, audio comfort,
physical comfort, physiological comfort, psychological comfort and spiritual comfort
(Shafaghat et al., 2015); while the comfort that could be directly influenced by physical
environmental conditions mainly includes elements like temperature, air flow, view,
light, noise and privacy. Environmental comfort, especially thermal comfort in the indoor
environment, is a widely investigated topic in research with multiple model and
standards (Yao et al., 2022). Table 1 provides a summary of the literature that studied the
impact of environmental factors on human performance, comfort and satisfaction.

5
 Table 1 Summary of literature

Environmental factor Impact Major conclusion Reference

Thermal comfort Productivity The satisfaction and productivity of occupants greatly relies on the (Akimoto et al.,
provision of suitable air conditioning within the space 2010)

Window view Discomfort Attractive window views can reduce discomfort; (Aries, Veitch and
Being close to window with low-quality lighting can cause thermal and Newsham, 2010)
glare problems

Indoor environmental Discomfort Indoor environmental quality could affect the perceived satisfaction and (Aye, Chiazor and
quality dissatisfaction Robinson, 2005)

Daylight and artificial Health Poor indoor lighting is identified as the cause of many health and (Begemann, Van
light performance problems Den Beld and
Tenner, 1997)

Daylight and artificial Visual comfort, Daylight condition receives significantly higher visual acceptance score (Borisuit et al.,
light alertness and mood compared to electrical light. 2015)

Daylight, window Satisfaction The proportion of individuals satisfied with their workstations tends to (Cai and Marmot,

f
rise when they are located in closer proximity to windows. 2013)

o
37 factors including Satisfaction Occupants perceive environmental design factors, facilities, work and (Carlopio, 1996)
environmental design, system, equipment and tools and health and safety as their physical

ro
facilities etc. work environment, with significant contributions to the satisfaction.

Acoustics, thermal Environmental and Significant improvement is found in the environmental satisfaction in (Hongisto et al.,
comfort, ergonomics
and interior design
job satisfaction -p
almost all environmental aspects after refurbishment. 2016)
re
Air quality and thermal Productivity, Occupant satisfaction is significantly enhanced by having personal (Huizenga et al.,
comfort satisfaction control over environmental conditions. 2006)

Thermal comfort Productivity The productivity of women increases when they feel warmer, while the (Kawakubo,
lP

productivity of men increases when they feel cooler. Sugiuchi and

Arata, 2023)

Acoustic environment Work performance Self-assessed work performance reduces as noise increases (Kaarlela-
na

Tuomaala et al.,
2009)

Indoor environmental Dissatisfaction The principle components relating to the satisfaction are privacy and (Kent et al., 2021)
ur

quality space and cleanliness and maintenance

Acoustic and privacy Dissatisfaction, Distraction by noise and loss of privacy are the major causes of (Kim and De
interaction workspace dissatisfaction in open-plan office layouts Dear, 2013)
Jo

Lighting Mood, satisfaction The deviation between participants’ lighting preferences and the (Newsham and
experienced lighting is an important predictor of participant mood and Veitch, 2001)
satisfaction.

Thermal, lighting, Environmental and Environmental satisfaction contributes to the overall job satisfaction, (Newsham et al.,
acoustic, furniture, and job satisfaction and window access is an important predictor to satisfaction with 2009)
exterior view lighting condition.

Privacy Job satisfaction and Architectural privacy is associated with the psychological privacy, and (Sundstrom, Burt
performance job satisfaction is associated with the satisfaction with workspace and Kamp, 1980)

Noise Environmental and Noise disruption associates with dissatisfaction towards the (Sundstrom et al.,
job satisfaction, job environment and job but not correlates with self- or supervisor-assessed 1994)
performance performance.

Privacy/acoustics, Environmental and Factors of privacy, ventilation and lighting could represent the (Veitch et al.,
lighting, and job satisfaction satisfaction with environmental features, which is also linked to the 2007)
ventilation/temperature overall job satisfaction,

Proximity to window, Satisfaction Proximity to window influences employee happiness and offsets some (Yildirim, Akalin-
privacy, lighting of the downsides of open office spaces. Baskaya and
Celebi, 2007)

6
An office environment characterized by good ventilation, abundant daylight, low noise
levels and comfortable thermal conditions positively influences users’ overall experience,
especially the satisfaction and work performance. Adequate ventilation ensures air
quality, and poor air quality has been linked to health concerns and reduced productivity
(Aye, Chiazor and Robinson, 2005; Seppanen, Fisk and Lei, 2006; Alker et al., 2015). The
presence of daylight enhances visual comfort and presents an opportunity for energy-
saving (Turan et al., 2020). Maximizing daylight availability is considered an optimal
strategy (Abdollahzadeh, Tahsildoost and Zomorodian, 2020). Also, seats by the window
are always preferable with a higher perceived productivity and satisfaction (Cai and

o f
Marmot, 2013). On the other hand, noise pollution can lead to distraction, diminishing

ro
expected efficiency and productivity. Studies have reported that participants in noisy
-p
environments experience increased fatigue and reduced motivation to work (Jahncke et
al., 2011). Dissatisfaction with the environment has been found to correlate with
re
disturbances caused by noise (Sundstrom et al., 1994). Additionally, High indoor
lP

temperatures have been associated with reduced productivity (Kamarulzaman et al.,

na

2011). Various thermal adaptive approaches have been observed in offices, including
mechanical adjustments like using cooling or heating devices (Singh et al., 2023), as well
ur

as personal actions such as consuming cold drinks or adding clothing layers (Liu et al.,
Jo

2012; Liu and Wang, 2019).

However, the previous investigations on thermal comfort and lighting tend to focus
specifically on their implications on adaptative behaviours and energy use, especially an
emphasis on the use of HVAC system (Franzetti, Fraisse and Achard, 2004; Rupp,
Vásquez and Lamberts, 2015; Lamsal, Bajracharya and Rijal, 2023). Also, most existing
studies have primarily focused on traditional office types, with fixed cubicles or open-
plan structures (Veitch et al., 2007; Hens, 2009; Steemers and Manchanda, 2010;
Abdollahzadeh, Tahsildoost and Zomorodian, 2020), while modern co-working space is a
less studied subject. The literature focuses more on the occupants’ satisfaction to the
physical environment (Carlopio, 1996; Veitch et al., 2007; Newsham et al., 2009; Jahncke

7
et al., 2011; Kent et al., 2021), but lacks sufficient investigation into the impact of
occupants’ comfort and preferences on their seat selection within a space.

3. Data and methods

This section introduces the study site, data collection and analysis methods, as
demonstrated in Figure 3.1. A longitudinal field survey was conducted in a co-working
space in London. The study first examines occupants’ environmental perceptions with a
standard subjective comfort questionnaire survey and records various indoor
environmental parameters. As a follow-up, the participants also rate and rank the

o f
importance of environmental factors that affect their seat preferences and subjectively

ro
evaluate the overall environment. The environmental neutral conditions for indoor
-p
temperature and illumination level are derived from the voted comfort level and
measured environmental parameters with correlation analysis. Significance tests are
re
applied to examine the association between the preference for environmental factors and
lP

occupants’ actual seat selection.

na
ur
Jo

Figure 3.1 Framework of data and methods

3.1 Study site

The case study is located in London (51° 30ʹ 26ʺ N, 0° 7ʹ 39ʺ W), the capital and largest
city of the United Kingdom (UK). London features a temperate oceanic climate according
to the Köppen classification, characterized by cool to mild winters and warm to hot

8
summers. The monthly average temperature in London ranges from 5°C in January to
19°C in July and August. The monthly average relative humidity varies from 70% in June
to 88% in December, while the average wind speed hovers around 2 to 4 meters per
second (m/s) (EnergyPlus, 2023).

The case study site is an experimental creative hybrid co-working space situated near Old
Street, opened in early 2020. It serves multiple purposes, functioning as a co-working
space, exhibition and event venue and local café. It operates from 9 am to 6 pm on
weekdays. The ground floor is a dynamic café area with an open working space and

o f
reception area. The basement level is designed to accommodate various meeting needs,

ro
with enclosed meeting rooms and versatile open spaces tailored for different types of
-p
gatherings. The maximum capacity of the space is approximately 70 to 80 occupants. The
site employs a mixed-mode cooling system, combining natural and mechanical
re
ventilation methods for environmental control. The analysis of the occupancy pattern in
lP

the site has been performed in previous works (Pan, Cho and Bardhan, 2022; Pan et al.,
na

2023).
ur

3.2 Longitudinal field survey and measurement

Jo

To comprehensively understand the occupants’ environmental comfort and preference, a

longitudinal field study is conducted, adhering to the ASHRAE Class II protocol
(ASHRAE Standard 55, 2020). The data collection spans four seasons to capture the
diverse thermal environment, running from March 2022 to April 2023. The study
incorporates two main components for environmental comfort data collection: 1) the
subjective part, utilizing a thermal comfort sensation questionnaire, and 2) the
instrumental part, involving indoor climate measurements. These two aspects are
simultaneously recorded, following the methodology established by Földváry Ličina et al.
(2018). In addition to the standard thermal comfort questions, this study incorporates
additional questions to explore the influence of environmental variables on seat
preferences.

9
The questionnaire applied in this study consists of three sections, comprising of 20
questions. The sections include demographic profiles (age, gender and occupation),
subjective comfort votes and environmental variable preferences. Prior to the study,
ethics approval was sought and obtained from the Faculty of Architecture and History of
Art Research Ethics Subcommittee at the University of Cambridge. As per ethical
requirements, all participants are informed about the project’s process and contacts. They
provide verbal consent to participate in the survey, fully aware of their right to withdraw
at any stage. The following subsections detail the survey procedure, encompassing the

o f
subjective comfort questionnaire, environmental data monitoring and the questionnaire

ro
addressing environmental factors and seat preferences.
-p
3.2.1 Subjective comfort survey
re
Thermal comfort is described as the condition of mind that reflects satisfaction with the
lP

surrounding thermal environment (De Dear and Brager, 1998; Antoniadou and
na

Papadopoulos, 2017; ASHRAE Standard 55, 2020). The understanding of subjective

comfort is composed of three parts: demographic information, subjective thermal comfort
ur

votes and personal variables (Földváry Ličina et al., 2018; ASHRAE Standard 55, 2020).
Jo

The demographic profile encompasses gender, age and occupations. The subjective
thermal data collection involves thermal sensation votes (TSV), thermal preference votes
(TPV), humidity sensation votes (HSV), humidity preference votes (HPV), air movement
sensation votes (ASV) and air movement preference votes (APV). In addition to the
subjective thermal comfort survey, the votes for lighting condition are also obtained with
novel indicators of lighting sensation votes (LSV), daylight preference votes (dLPV) and
artificial lighting preference vote (aLPV). These metrics were treated similar to thermal
votes where occupants referred to a like-art-scale to register their sensation preference on
lighting conditions.

10
 The Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) index is a comprehensive method for assessing human
thermal comfort and quantifying thermal sensations on a scale from cold (-3) to hot (+3)
based on the heat balance between the human body and the surrounding environment
(Fanger, 1970). The seven-point thermal sensation scale by ASHRAE and Nicol’s five-
point preference scale, outlined in Table 2 (Humphreys, Nicol and Roaf, 2015), are
employed. Personal variables comprise clothing insulation levels and activity intensities.
The calculation of clothing insulation levels is derived from ASHRAE standard 55-2017
(ASHRAE Standard 55, 2020), while respondents’ activities over the preceding 15 minutes
are assessed to determine corresponding metabolic rates. The linear regression expression

o f
is typically adopted to explain the occupants’ sensation and measurement (Yao et al.,

ro
2022; Singh et al., 2023).
-p
Table 2 Sensation and preference scales (Fanger, 1970; Humphreys, Nicol and Roaf, 2015)
re
Thermal Humidity Air Lighting Thermal Humidity Air Daylight Artificial Overall
sensation sensation movement sensation preference preference movement preference light acceptability
sensation preference preference
lP

-3 Cold Very dry Very still Too dark

-2 Cool Dry Moderately Dark Much Much more Much more Much more Much more
still warmer humid air daylight artificial
na

movement light

-1 Slightly Slightly Slightly still Slightly A bit A bit more A bit more A bit more A bit more
Cool dry dark warmer humid air daylight artificial
ur

movement light

0 Neutral Neither Neutral Neutral No change No change No change No change No change Acceptable
Jo

humid nor
dry

+1 Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly A bit cooler A bit drier A bit less air A bit less A bit less Not acceptable
Warm humid moving bright movement daylight artificial
light

+2 Warm humid Moderately Bright Much Much drier Much less Much less Much less
moving cooler air daylight artificial
movement light

+3 Hot Very Much Too bright

humid moving

3.2.2 Field measurement

The outdoor temperature is sourced from the closest local weather station in London
(Met Office, 2023). Indoor climate monitoring is conducted using the Kestrel 5400 device
(Kestrel Instruments, 2023) and testo 400 (Testo Ltd, 2023), capturing metrics such as air
temperature, globe temperature, heat index, relative humidity and air velocity (refer to

11
Table 3 for details on accuracy and range). Positioned at approximately the working plane
level while participants complete the questionnaire, the instrument facilitates accurate
measurements. Illumination readings are acquired employing a URCERI light meter at
the working plane/desk level. To ensure precision, each measurement is replicated three
times.
Table 3 Indoor environment measurement (Kestrel Instruments, 2023; Testo Ltd, 2023)

Range Resolution Accuracy

Kestrel 5400 Air temperature -29.0 to 70.0 °C 0.1 °C ±0.5 °C

Globe temperature -29.0 to 60.0 °C 0.1 °C ±1.4 °C

Relative humidity 10 to 90%, 25°C 0.1 %RH ±2 %RH

f
noncondensing

o
Air velocity 0.6 to 40.0 m/s 0.1 m/s Larger of 3% of reading

ro
Testo 400 (and Air temperature -20 to +70 °C 0.1 °C ±0.5 °C
probes)
Globe temperature 0 to + 120 °C 0.1 °C -40 to +1000 °C

Relative humidity 0 to 100 %RH

-p 0.1 %RH ±2 %RH (5 to 90 %RH)
re
Air velocity 0.1 to 15 m/s 0.01 m/s ±(0.1 m/s + 1.5 % of mv)

Illuminance 0 to 100000 Lux 0.1 Lux F1 = 6 % = V(Lambda)

(< 10000 ) adjustment
lP

F2 = 5 % = cos-true
evaluation

Light meter Illuminance 0 lux to 200,000 lux 0.1 lux ±3% rdg ± 8 dgts
na

(<10,000 Lux)
ur

3.2.3 Preference for environment and seats

Jo

Beyond assessing thermal comfort perception, the questionnaire survey delves into seat
preferences, the importance of environmental factors in seat selection and satisfaction to
the environment. The environmental factors are selected based on the common factors
discovered from the literature review in Section 2.2. Firstly, participants are queried
about their current seat choice and asked to identify their favoured seats. They are then
prompted to assign importance levels (ranging from 1 to 5) to environmental elements
influencing their seat preferences, including factors such as daylight, artificial lighting,
ventilation, privacy and proximity to people and facilities (outlined in Table 4). This
question serves to identify the environmental factors that is preferred by occupants in a
subjective point of view, while the indicated preferred environmental factors are further
examined with their actual seat choice to investigate the real impact. Additionally, to
validate these responses, participants rank their preferences among seven distinct factors

12
(closeness to window, thermal comfort, lighting, ventilation, privacy, closeness to
facilities and noise level). Lastly, respondents assess the satisfaction to the overall co-
working environment, rating it on a scale of 1 to 5 across six different dimensions:
ventilation, quietness, thermal comfort, lighting, privacy and overall environment.
Table 4 Questions relating to environmental preferences

Question Scale

Which of the following statements There is good daylight Scale 1 to 5,

were important to you when choosing 1 as not important,
where to sit? There is good electric/artificial lighting 5 as very important
There is good ventilation

I feel thermally comfortable here

f
It is quieter

o
It is near power sockets

ro
It is close to other people

It is distant from other people

It is close to window
-p
re
There is a nice view

There are only a few people passing by

lP

It was the closest available seat

It is close to the café/reception

How would following factor influence Closeness to window Rank 1 to 7,

na

your seat choice? 1 as most

Thermal comfort impactful, 7 as least
Lighting impactful
ur

Ventilation

Privacy
Jo

Closeness to facilities (e.g. printer, toilet, cafe and reception)

Noise level (quietness)

How would you rate this environment? Ventilation Rate 1 to 5,

1 as not satisfied,
Quietness 5 as very satisfied
Thermal Comfort

Lighting

Privacy

Overall

3.3 Data assembly and analysis

The questionnaire and measurement data is assembled, processed and analysed in SPSS
Statistics 28.0.1.1(14) (IBM Corp, 2023). Several statistical techniques, including
regression analysis, correlation analysis and significance test are applied to derive the

13
neutral environmental conditions and understand the association in environmental
conditions, subjective perceptions and satisfactions.

3.3.1 Deriving neutral environmental conditions

Neutral environmental conditions in workspace could be derived based on the collected
subjective comfort perceptions and measured environmental parameters. The derivation
of thermal neutral temperature has been widely applied in the thermal comfort studies
(Zhao, Lian and Lai, 2021; Yao et al., 2022). The relationship between the measured
temperature and thermal sensation is investigated to find thermal neutrality with linear

o f
regression analysis (Malik and Bardhan, 2022). Thermal neutrality is characterized as the

ro
indoor temperature that aligns with a neutral thermal sensation (De Dear and Brager,
-p
1998). Indoor temperature parameters like air temperature, globe temperature or
operative temperature, have been extensively employed in investigations related to
re
thermal comfort. In this case, the indoor operative temperature is applied as it considers
lP

both radiant heat and air temperature. As an extension to the typical approach of deriving
na

thermal neutrality, the lighting neutrality is investigated based on the lighting sensation
votes and measured illuminance levels with regression model as well.
ur
Jo

3.3.2 Correlation analysis and Chi-square test of independence

The study also seeks to unravel the connections between occupants' environmental
preferences, their seat selections and their satisfaction with the co-working environment.
A Pearson correlation analysis is used to investigate the internal association among the
environmental factors, represented by the subjectively voted importance level.
Additionally, typical significance tests are applied to examine the association between
variables. The Chi-square test of independence is applied to examine two hypotheses:
1) the occupants-rated importance level of each environmental factors (13 factors
including daylight, artificial lighting, ventilation, thermal comfort, noise/quietness, close
to power sockets, close to people, distant from people, close to window, view, few people
passing by, closest available seat and close to reception) has associations with occupants’

14
current seat selection, if they indicate their current seat as their preferred choice;
2) Occupants’ satisfaction to environmental factors (ventilation, noise, thermal comfort,
light and privacy) and overall satisfaction to the space are related to where occupants sit.

4. Results
This section presents the outcomes of the field study and their corresponding analysis.
The descriptive data are sample sizes and personal variables, followed by an in-depth
examination of environmental comfort and an exploration of how environmental
parameters influence seat preferences.

o f
4.1 Descriptive results

ro
4.1.1 Sample distribution
-p
A total of 278 participants completed the survey. Table 5 provides information about the
distribution of participants over seasons, categorized by gender and age group.
re
Specifically, 79, 86, 60 and 53 sets of responses were recorded in Spring (March to May),
lP

Summer (June to August), Autumn (September to November) and Winter (December to

na

February), respectively. The sample size is affected by the presence of occupants on

survey days, as well as their availability and willingness to engage.
ur
Jo

Gender distribution is relatively balanced, with approximately 51.4% of respondents

identifying as female and 45.7% as male. Eight people (about 2.9%) reported ‘non-
binary/third gender’ or ‘prefer not to say’. The majority of participants fall within the 18
to 54 age group, with those aged 18 to 34 constituting over 70% of respondents. The
participants in age groups of 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 count for 14.4% and 11.9%
respectively.

Additionally, the survey identifies a diverse range of fourteen distinct occupation types,
as presented in Figure 4.1. Notably, a significant proportion of respondents
(approximately 57.9%) work in the Architecture and Engineering sector. This
prominence can be attributed to the utilization of the space as a primary in-person

15
workspace by the employees and partners from a company in the built environment
industry. Furthermore, there is a distinct representation of participants in other industries
and occupational categories, including Art and Design (11.2%), Management (9.0%), Sales
and Related (3.2%), Social Care, Services and Hospitality (2.9%), Computer Science
(2.5%) and Marketing and Public Relations (2.5%). This diverse representation highlights
the multi-industry nature of the co-working space.
Table 5 Demographic information (Age and Gender)

Total March-May June-August September- December 2022-

2022 2022 November 2022 February 2023

Gender Female 143 37 43 31 32

o f
Male 127 42 40 27 18

ro
Non-binary / third 6 0 3 2 1
gender

Prefer not to say 2 0 0 0 2

Age 18-24 years old 79 25

-p
26 15 13
re
25-34 years old 119 23 33 28 35

35-44 years old 40 17 10 9 4

lP

45-54 years old 33 13 12 7 1

55-64 years old 7 1 5 1 0

na
ur
Jo

Figure 4.1 The distribution of industry/occupation

16
 4.1.2 Personal variables
The personal variables include clothing insulation and metabolic rate calculated based on
activities undertaken within the past 15 minutes (Table 6). The predominant clothing
combinations among occupants comprise jeans, trousers, skirts or shorts as bottom wear,
paired with shirts, T-shirts, cardigan or jumpers as upper wear. The collective mean
clothing insulation of all participants stands at 0.60 clo. The highest recorded clothing
insulation value is 1.53 clo, which was found in December, corresponding to the
ensemble of jeans, long sleeve shirt, T-shirt, jacket, sweater, socks and shoes. Conversely,

o f
the lowest clothing insulation value recorded is 0.24 clo in July, with only dress and

ro
sandals. The average clo level in four seasons are 0.61 (spring), 0.45 (summer), 0.67
(autumn) and 0.75 (winter) respectively. -p
Table 6 Summary of personal variables
re
All (Clo) March-May 2022 June-August September- December 2022-
lP

2022 November 2022 February 2023

Clothing Mean 0.60 0.64 0.45 0.64 0.73

insulation
na

(Clo) Max 1.53 1.09 0.83 1.04 1.53

Min 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.29 0.29

ur

SD 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.24

Metabolic Mean 1.29 1.29 1.31 1.27 1.28

rate (Met)
Jo

Max 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.57 1.57

Min 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

SD 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.14

Survey responses predominantly reflect activities like sitting, standing and walking,
which are typical office-related activities. Sitting (1.2 met) reported by occupants
includes meeting, working or eating, while standing activities primarily comprise relaxed
standing (1.2 met) as well as standing with light activities (1.6 met). Walking equates to
1.9 met. The mean metabolic rate is 1.29 met, with a maximum rate of 1.9 met and a
minimum of 1.2 met. The average metabolic rates in spring (1.3 met) and summer (1.3
met) are slightly higher than the values in autumn (1.26 met) and winter (1.28 met).

17
Participants were also enquired about their sweating level, with options ranging from no
sweating and slightly sweating, to moderately sweating and excessively sweating.
However, a majority of respondents indicated no sweating (n=249, 8.6%), while only 29
people (10.4%) were slightly sweating. summer had the highest incidence of participants
reporting slight sweating, totalling twelve individuals.

4.1.3 Environmental conditions

The indoor and outdoor climate data is reported in Table 7. The hourly outdoor weather
data from 9am to 6pm in the survey dates is extracted from the weather station. The

o f
average air temperature across all survey dates is 16.2°C, with a minimum value of 4°C in

ro
February morning and a maximum value of 28°C in late afternoon in July. The seasonal
-p
average outdoor temperatures are 16.6°C (spring), 24.0°C (summer), 15.6°C (autumn) and
8.8°C (winter). Average humidity and wind speed are 63.6% and 3.8 m/s respectively,
re
with the highest humidity (93.6%) recorded in October, the lowest humidity (26.9%) in
lP

March, the highest wind speed (9.83 m/s) in November and the lowest wind speed (0.46
na

m/s) in June.
ur

The indoor climate data is captured by Kestrel 5400, testo 400 and a light meter. Indoor
Jo

air temperature fluctuates within the range of 19°C to 26.3°C. The average air
temperature stands at approximately 23.0°C, further breaking down to 22.4°C in spring,
24.4°C in summer, 23.3°C in autumn and 21.2°C in winter. Relative humidity readings fall
within an acceptable range, ranging from 37.9% to 59.4%, with an overall mean relative
humidity of 47.9%. Air velocity is barely detected in the space, ranging from 0 to 0.02
m/s. Illuminance levels are measured at the desk levels, with a mean value of 145.3 lux.
The largest value is 1354 lux, and the smallest is 13.2 lux. The average illuminance in
winter is significantly lower than the values in the other three seasons.
Table 7 Summary of environmental condition

All March-May 2022 June-August 2022 September-November December 2022-February

2022 2023

Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min

18
Indoor Air 23.00 26.30 19.00 22.38 24.80 20.05 24.43 26.30 22.55 23.30 24.00 22.10 21.24 22.30 19.00
environment temperature

Globe 22.89 26.70 18.60 22.27 24.40 20.30 24.29 26.70 22.45 23.11 23.90 22.10 21.31 22.40 18.60
temperature

Relative 47.85 59.40 37.90 44.08 50.80 38.90 46.09 53.90 37.90 55.49 59.40 52.10 47.68 54.20 40.30
humidity

Air velocity 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Illuminance 145.30 1354.00 13.20 170.42 668.60 22.93 181.61 1354.00 24.40 111.06 412.90 13.20 87.69 460.10 19.70
(desk level)

Outdoor Air 16.23 28.00 4.00 16.56 22.70 9.20 23.97 28.00 18.50 15.60 21.60 11.80 8.78 11.90 4.00
environment temperature

Relative 63.06 93.60 26.90 50.02 80.40 26.90 49.12 71.10 30.60 78.45 93.60 50.10 74.64 90.30 53.10
humidity

Wind speed 3.82 9.83 0.46 3.45 5.81 1.34 3.11 4.48 0.46 4.07 9.83 1.34 4.63 6.69 1.34

o f
4.2 Subjective environmental comfort responses

ro
4.2.1 Thermal sensation and thermal preference votes
-p
Occupants' thermal sensation is gauged through a seven-point scale (as outlined in Table
re
3.1), spanning from cold (-3) to hot (+3). The seasonal distribution of Thermal Sensation
Votes (TSV) is visually depicted in the upper chart of Figure 4.2. Notably, approximately
lP

80% of respondents register votes within the realm of comfort, ranging from slightly cool
na

(-1) to slightly warm (+1). Also, 38.9% of participants vote for a neutral thermal sensation
(0). Spring features the highest proportion of neutral sensation vote. Meanwhile, a
ur

fraction of participants, about 15.1%, report a warm sensation (+2), while 2.5% express a
Jo

cool sensation (-2). There are a total of six people (2.2%) voted for a cold sensation (-3),
with four in winter, while only one person selects a hot sensation (+3) in summer.

The computed average TSV value leans slightly towards the warm side at 0.31.
Specifically, mean TSV values are recorded at 0.06 in spring, which is very close to the
neutral sensation. The average values in summer and autumn shows a slightly warm
sensation at 0.56 and 0.53. The TSV for winter is centred at 0, suggesting a neutral
perception.

Thermal preference is quantified on a five-point scale, ranging from much warmer (-2) to
much cooler (+2). The mean Thermal Preference Vote (TPV) value is 0.18, suggesting a

19
mild tendency towards cooler sensations. The distribution of TPV across each TSV point
is presented in Figure 4.2(b). Around 47.8% of respondents vote for no change (0), with
31.3% of participants concurrently selecting both a neutral thermal sensation (0) and a
preference for no change (0). Roughly 27.3% of participants vote for a slightly cooler (+1)
environment, while 18.4% express a preference for a slightly warmer (-1) setting. In
summer and autumn, the average TPVs are 0.42 and 0.40, showing an inclination towards
cooler preference, while the values in spring and winter are -0.10 and -0.06.
Furthermore, correlation analysis unveils a robust positive association between TSV and
TPV, evidenced by a correlation coefficient of 0.658.

o f
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

20
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 4.2 (a) Monthly distribution of thermal sensation votes; (b) Cross-tabulation of subjective thermal votes

4.2.2 Humidity sensation and preference votes

Given their potential impact on thermal comfort perceptions (Fountain and Arens, 1993;
Kitagawa et al., 1999), the survey also looks into respondents' humidity and air movement
sensations and preferences. The distribution of Humidity Sensation Votes (HSV) across
the months is visually depicted in Figure 4.3(a), while the cross-tabulation of subjective

21
humidity votes is detailed in Figure 4.3(b). HSV responses span from dry (-2) to humid
(+2), with an average value of -0.13, This indicates a generally neutral sensation, leaning
slightly towards slightly dry. About 95% of participants vote for comfortable humidity
sensations, including slightly dry (-1), neutral (0) and slightly humid (+1). Only ten
occupants perceive the environment as dry and four feel humid. Participants tend to feel
drier in winter with a mean vote of -0.23, comparing with the other seasons.

o f
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 4.3 (a) Monthly distribution of humidity sensation votes; (b) Cross-tabulation of subjective humidity votes

22
The mean Humidity Preference Vote (HPV) corresponds to the average HSV at -0.15,
showing a preference for a slightly more humid environment, yet closely aligned with no
change. About half (48.9%) of participants make neutral selections, expressing neither a
humid nor dry sensation (0) and demonstrating no change (0) preference. Also, around
24.8% of participants lean towards the preference for a bit more humid environment (-1),
while 12.9% prefer a slightly drier environment (+1). A positive correlation between HSV
and HPV is observed, with a coefficient of 0.797.

4.2.3 Air movement sensation and preference votes

o f
While the instruments detect very limited air movement, respondents' perception of air

ro
movement shows some variability. Descriptive values of Air Movement Sensation Votes
-p
(ASV) and Air Movement Preference Votes (APV) are outlined in Figure 4.4. The average
ASV value is -0.2, showing a tendency towards slightly still perceptions. Approximately
re
80% of responses align within the range of slightly still (-1) to slightly moving (+1).
lP

Notably, 17 participants (about 6.1%) report a very still (-3) sensation, while 26 (9.4%)
na

respondents vote for moderately still (-2) air movement. In summer, the ASV value is
0.14, indicating an inclination towards slightly moving, while the values in spring,
ur

autumn and winter are -0.18, -0.65 and -0.28.

Jo

The mean APV value records at -0.59, signifying a general preference for increased air
movement. The desire for more air movement is stronger in autumn, with an average
value of -0.78. While 41.7% of respondents express a desire for no change (0), a
significant 53.6% exhibit a preference for more air movement (-1 or -2). Only 17.6%
participants indicate neutral sensations and preferences at the same time. A number of 30
people (10.8%) express a desire for more air movement (-1 or -2) even when sensing
slight or moderate air movement (1 or 2). A positive correlation exists between ASV and
APV, characterized by a coefficient of 0.52.

23
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 4.4 (a) Monthly distribution of air movement sensation votes; (b) Cross-tabulation of subjective air movement
votes

4.2.4 Lighting sensation and preference votes

The survey also looks at participants' perception of lighting conditions, as demonstrated
in Figure 4.5. The average lighting sensation vote is -0.31, indicating a perception towards
slightly dark. Approximately 87.8% of participants' votes fall within the acceptable
spectrum, ranging from slightly dark (-1) to slightly bright (+1). Specifically, 43.2%

24
perceive a slight darkness (-1), 35.3% express a neutral perception (0), and only 9.4%
report a mildly bright sensation (+1). In addition, a total of 15 respondents note dark (-2)
or very dark (-3), while 19 individuals indicate a sensation of brightness (+2).

Furthermore, lighting preferences are explored, encompassing two distinct choices:

daylight (dLPV) and artificial light (aLPV). A preference for brighter environments is
evident, with a dLPV value of -0.87 and an aLPV value of -0.37. More daylight is
specifically desired in winter, with a dLPV value of -1.02. About 17.6% of respondents
choose for a neutral sensation and no change concerning daylight, while 30.6% express

o f
neutral sensation and no change for artificial light. Meanwhile, around 68% of occupants

ro
prefer environments with increased daylight (-1 and -2), while only 30.6% favour more
-p
artificial light. No respondents express a preference for reduced daylight (+1 or +2), with
only six individuals desire less artificial light (+1). Correlation analysis reveals a relatively
re
moderate positive correlation between LSV and LPV for both daylight and artificial light.
lP

The correlation coefficients of LSV and LPV for daylight and artificial light are 0.44 and
na

0.47 respectively.
ur
Jo

25
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP

Figure 4.5 (a) Monthly distribution of lighting sensation votes; (b) Cross-tabulation of subjective lighting votes, left:
na

daylight preference votes, right: artificial lighting preference votes

ur

4.2.5 Overall environmental comfort

Jo

The assessment of overall comfort acceptability is categorized into ‘acceptable’ and

‘unacceptable’. The majority of respondents (93%) indicate that they find the overall
comfort level 'acceptable’, while 16 participants (6%) choose ‘unacceptable’. Figure 4.6
shows the distribution of acceptability votes by season. There are five ‘unacceptable’ votes
in summer, autumn and winter respectively, and only one is found in spring.

26
 o f
ro
Figure 4.6 Overall environmental comfort acceptability vote

-p
4.3 Relationship between measured temperature and thermal sensation
re
The relationship between indoor temperature and thermal sensation are explored to
lP

derive the neutral thermal condition. The regression analysis of thermal sensation votes
(TSV) applies indoor operative temperature (Top). It derives a linear regression
na

relationship as follows:
ur

TSV = 0.226 Top − 4.869 (1)

A significant relationship is found with r=0.274 and p<.001 between TSV and Top (shown
Jo

in Figure 4.7). The calculated neutral temperature is 21.54°C at TSV=0. The 90%
acceptability range lies between 19.45°C to 23.76°C. The calculated operative temperature
fluctuations within the range of 17.12 to 25.96 are associated with TSV values between -1
and 1.

27
 o f
ro
-p
Figure 4.7 Regression analysis of TSV and operative temperature
re
lP

4.4 Relationship between measured illuminance level and lighting sensation

The recommended illuminance level in offices commonly lie between 200 and 500 lux
na

(Newsham and Veitch, 2001), while a neutral lighting condition could be derived by
ur

determining the illuminance level based on the lighting sensations. The linear regression
model of lighting sensation votes (LSV) and measured illuminance level (Ev) is illustrated
Jo

in Figure 4.8. A linear regression relationship is derived:

LSV = 0.002 Ev − 0.604 (2)
The regression results show a significant relationship (r=0.349, p<.001). For LSV =0, the
calculated illuminance is 302 lux.

28
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP

Figure 4.8 Regression analysis of LSV and illumination level

4.5 The impact of environmental variables on seat preferences

na

4.5.1 Seat preferences

While participants were enquired about their seat preference, they pointed out their
ur

current seat and indicated whether it aligns with their preferred choice. They also voted
Jo

for few preferred seats. Out of the total of 278 participants, 226 people (81.3%) indicated
their current seat is aligned with their preferred choice. The distribution of current seat
and preferred seat votes are displayed in Figure 4.9. During the survey, a large number of
participants occupy the areas 1 and 6. The occupants indicate a strong preference for
sitting at areas 1, 6, 2 and 7. While area 4 had fewer occupants, it was frequently chosen
as the preferred seat. Areas with more than 30 preferred seat votes are highlighted on the
plan.

29
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 4.9 Votes for current and preferred seats

4.5.2 Analysis of environmental factors

A range of environmental factors were enquired in the questionnaire, to investigate the
subjective preference of the occupants. Figure 4.10 presents the importance of each
statement regarding seat selection. The factors 'near power sockets', 'good daylight' and
'thermally comfortable' are ranked as the top three most important elements, with mean
importance levels of 4.26, 4.16, and 4.04, respectively. The following tier of significant

30
factors includes ‘close to window’, ‘good ventilation’ and ‘nice view’, with corresponding
average importance ratings of 3.86, 3.84 and 3.59. The factors with less significant, such as
‘distant from people’, ‘close to café and reception’ and ‘closest available seat’, hold
importance values below 3.

o f
ro
-p
re
Figure 4.10 Level of importance of each statement in regard to seat selection
lP

Moreover, participants rank their preferences across seven environmental factors as a

na

validation (as indicated in Figure 4.11). These ranking outcomes reveal the importance of
ur

factors such as thermal comfort, lighting and ventilation regarding occupants' seating
decisions. Conversely, factors like closeness to facilities and privacy are less important
Jo

with a lower rank.

31
 o f
ro
Figure 4.11 Ranking results among seven design factors

-p
At the end of this questionnaire, participants evaluate the space by assigning ratings to
re
their contentment across five distinct environmental parameters, along with an overall
lP

score (see Figure 4.12). Ventilation, lighting and thermal comfort receive higher scores
compared to privacy and quietness. The average overall score is around 3.68, reflecting an
na

acceptable level of satisfaction.

ur
Jo

32
 o f
ro
-p
re
Figure 4.12 Overall evaluation of the space
lP

Additionally, a Pearson correlation metric based on the importance level of each factor is
na

presented in Figure 4.13. It shows the internal associations between the environmental
design factors. Paired factors, like ‘good ventilation’ and ‘thermal comfort’, ‘close to
ur

window’ and ‘nice view’, and ‘closest seat’ and ‘close to facilities’, show a robust positive
Jo

correlation over 0.5. Meanwhile, ‘good daylight’ is closely and positively associated with
‘close to window’ and ‘nice view’, while ‘quiet’ exhibits a positive correlation to ‘distant
from people’. As expected, the factor ‘close to people’ is negatively correlated with ‘quiet’
and ‘distant from people’. Also, ‘closest seat’ demonstrates a negative correlation with
‘close to window’, ‘good daylight’ and ‘good ventilation’.

33
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP

Figure 4.13 Correlation metric for the importance level of each statement
na

4.5.3 Association between the seat selection and the environmental factors
ur

The associations between seat selection and each environmental factor were examined by
Pearson’s Chi-square test. The results for the two tested hypotheses are presented here.
Jo

Both of the hypotheses are partially fulfilled with the environmental factors with
significant association to seat selection identified in the tests.
Hypothesis 1: the occupants-rated importance level of each environmental factor has
associations with occupants’ current seat selection.
For this test, the subset of participants who indicated satisfaction with their current seat
(n=226) is used, as the results shown in Table 8. The results reflect that importance of
factors like ‘good daylight’, ‘good ventilation’ and ‘quiet’ have a robust significant
association with occupants’ current seat selections, with the null hypothesis rejected
(p<.001). The highly insignificant features include thermal comfort and distant from
people, with a high p-value of 0.976 and 0.751 respectively.

34
 Table 8 Results of Chi-square tests (Hypothesis 1)

Current seat

Chi-square Significance (p-value)

There is good daylight 268.76*** <.001

There is good electric/artificial lighting 219.61 0.084

There is good ventilation 212.35*** <.001

I feel thermally comfortable here 155.12 0.976

It is quieter 293.96*** <.001

It is near power sockets 225.47* 0.049

It is close to other people 240.92** 0.010

It is distant from other people 178.38 0.751

It is close to window 230.21* 0.031

f
There is a nice view 213.29 0.139

o
There are only a few people passing by 222.58 0.064

ro
It was the closest available seat 226.45* 0.045

It is close to the cafe/reception

-p 237.74* 0.014

*** significance level at p<0.001

** significance level at p<0.01
re
** significance level at p<0.05
lP
na

Hypothesis 2: Occupants’ satisfaction to environmental factors and overall satisfaction to

the space are related to where occupant sits.
ur

In this test, all participants (n=278) are included, and the Chi-square test results are
Jo

displayed in Table 9. The outcomes suggest that occupants' satisfaction ratings concerning
environmental attributes exhibit limited connections with their seat choices, except for
the 'privacy' rating. This 'privacy' rating demonstrates a robust association with their
current seat (p<.001).

Table 9 Results of Chi-square tests (Hypothesis 2)

Current seat

Chi-square Significance
(p-value)

Ventilation 213.31 0.386

Quietness 236.28 0.087

Thermal Comfort 190.19 0.807

Lighting 245.70 0.038

Privacy 325.44*** <.001

35
 Overall 171.83 0.183

*** significance level at p<0.001

5. Discussion
5.1 Environmental perceptions in co-working spaces
As a result, the case study demonstrates an environmentally acceptable work
environment, with an overall satisfaction score of 3.68. Environmental perceptions have
slight tendencies towards warm, dry, still air movement sensation and dark sensations,
while occupants indicate a preference for a slightly cooler and more humid with a bit

f
more air movement, daylight and artificial lighting.

o
ro
While about 80% of respondents indicate their thermal sensation is in the acceptable
-p
range (TSV from -1 to +1), the calculated indoor neutral operative temperature 21.54°C
re
basically aligns with suggested neutral temperature range in previous field studies in UK
lP

offices (Oseland, 1998). The slope of 0.226°C −1 in linear regression indicates a relatively
limited sensitivity of sensation regarding indoor temperature changes. However, the
na

neutral temperature data represents a slightly cool sensation indicated by ASHRAE

Standard 55-2020 with a predicted mean vote (PMV) of -0.72 (Tartarini et al., 2020). This
ur

result shows occupants in the workspace tend to adapt to the slightly cooler environment,
Jo

even showing with a preference for cooler conditions. Additionally, the survey validates
the close association between thermal comfort and ventilation, that participants who
consider ‘thermally comfortable’ as an important factor for their seat choice also assign
high importance on ‘good ventilation’.

Regarding the lighting sensation, about 87.8% of participants report an acceptable

sensation, with a calculated neutral illuminance level at 302 lux. However, only 13.7% of
measured illuminance values lie in the recommended illuminance range of 275-600 lux,
while Newsham and Veitch (2001) suggested this range to maximise the number of
occupants receiving within 100 lux of their own preferred illuminance. Many of the

36
participants in the studied space adapt to the relatively dark environment, while they
would prefer more daylight.

Interestingly, the strong desire for more daylight and air movement is revealed in the
comfort survey, regardless the actual sensation. ‘Good daylight’ and ‘good ventilation’ are
also identified as two of the most important environmental factors that affects the seat
decision. The importance levels of these two factors have robust correlations to factors
like ‘close to window’ and ‘good view’ as well. These findings echo with the conclusions
from previous studies. The proximity to window and window view are considered an

o f
important and attractive to the comfort in office, despite the potential issues like glaring,

ro
thermal discomfort and outdoor noise (Cai and Marmot, 2013). However, nature view
-p
may have a negative impact on the comfort level, but view with a good quality is
preferred with a positive association to perceived comfort (Aries, Veitch and Newsham,
re
2010). At the same time, no significantly high correlation among factors is found,
lP

indicating these selected factors have limited predictive power towards another, with
na

their irreplaceable nature.

ur

Meanwhile, the factors like quiet, close to or distant from other people, few people
Jo

passing-by and closest available seat receive less importance votes, along with a lower
rank for the importance of privacy and noise level. These findings show some level of
disagreement with some previous studies conducted in traditional offices, which
emphasise the satisfaction to privacy and acoustic performance in workspace (Carlopio,
1996; Kamarulzaman et al., 2011; Kent et al., 2021). Additionally, the factors that
associate with amenities are less important, except for ‘close to power socket’. This reveals
occupants’ specific demands on accessible power sockets around where they sit, which is
less discussed in the previous studies.

Overall, as the Physical Work Environment Satisfaction Questionnaire by Carlopio (1996)

points out, lighting, air quality and atmosphere has a significant contribution to the

37
satisfaction with the design of the physical environment. Three major factors of
satisfaction with privacy/acoustics, satisfaction with lighting and satisfaction with
ventilation/temperature can best predict the satisfaction with environmental features in
office. The findings in the field study presented in this manuscript partially agree with
this conclusion, by re-emphasising the importance of providing quality ventilation and
sufficient lighting in the workspace. However, in the co-working space, with its open and
flexible nature, occupants may be less sensitive to privacy and acoustic performance,
though they acknowledge the lack of good privacy and quietness in the case study space
with a lower satisfaction score.

o f
ro
5.2 From environmental factors to the features of preferred seats
-p
While limited studies investigate the association between the environmental features and
seat selection, the analytical results in Chi-square tests point out the importance levels of
re
‘good daylight’, ‘good ventilation’ and ‘quiet’ have a strong association with occupants’
lP

actual seat selection. The results also indicate that these environmental factors may have
na

a greater predictive power when evaluating the distribution of seat occupancy in a space.
At the same time, while ‘thermally comfortable’ receives a high vote in the participants’
ur

subjective importance judgement, it fails to demonstrate a significant relationship with

Jo

the actual seat choice. This may require further investigation to explain. Moreover, the
occupants’ current seats seem to have limited association with their general satisfaction
with the environment. It may indicate where people sit actually has a limited impact on
how satisfied they are to the environment.

38
 o f
ro
-p
re
lP
na

Figure 5.1 Identified popular seats with the voted importance of environmental features
ur
Jo

As a result, the popular seats are identified, and some features of the seats based on
occupants’ votes are generalised based on the importance ratings, as shown in Figure 5.1.
The importance vote of each factor on each seat is compared with the average importance
level to reveal seats’ features. For example, the large shared table (zone 1) is more
occupied and preferred by the participants who consider good daylight and ventilation as
highly important but care less about quietness. Occupants who sit in individual semi-
enclosed seats (zone 2) are the group who prefer an environment with less noise. The
participants who choose sofa seats (zone 4) consider daylight and quietness more
important than ventilation.

6. Conclusion

39
This study investigates the environmental comfort and seat preferences in a co-working
space in London. It reveals the influence of environmental factors on seat preference and
subsequent seat selection behaviours based on the subjective perceptions, as a further
extension from the previous investigations of occupancy level (Pan, Cho and Bardhan,
2022; Pan et al., 2023). The findings can have a contribution to the understanding of
occupants’ perception, adaptive comfort and demand in the flexible hotdesking co-
working setup, thus contributing the future design of workspaces, especially from the
perspective of environmental design and space planning.

o f
Overall, the key findings and contributions are summarised as follows:

ro
• The case study demonstrates a good level of environment comfort and
-p
performance, with over 80% participants indicate their sensations locating in the
acceptable range and an average satisfaction score of 3.68.
re
• The calculated indoor neutral operative temperature is 21.54°C, which indicates a
lP

slight sensation and preference towards cooler environment. The occupants tend
na

to adapt to the slightly cool environment as long as the basic comfort temperature
range is maintained.
ur

• A strong desire for better daylight and more air movement is revealed from the
Jo

survey, regardless the actual sensation.

• Users’ subjective perceptions and feedback highlighted the significance of factors
like good daylight, good ventilation and proximity to power sockets in
determining their seat preferences. Occupants were more likely to select seats that
offered optimal lighting conditions and ventilation with good access to power
sockets.
• Additionally, occupants in co-working spaces are less sensitive to the privacy and
noise in the space, particularly because they may have a lower expectation on
these two attributes in a shared space.
• The relationship between occupants’ subjective preference and their actual seat
selection is validated through the tests. The factors like ‘good daylight’, ‘good

40
 ventilation’ and ‘quiet’ are identified a robust association with occupants’ actual
seat selection. Based on the factors, the features of popular seats are identified.
• Occupants who use shared tables may have a higher forgiveness and adaptation
regarding noise with more preference for good daylight.

As a result, these findings offer valuable insights for the planning and design of hybrid
workspaces with a hot-desking setup. In comparison to traditional office arrangements,
occupants in such environments exhibit a higher degree of adaptability, even though they
may need to make some compromises in thermal comfort, lighting and privacy.

o f
Therefore, designers can create diverse environmental experiences for users while

ro
ensuring that fundamental comfort requirements are met. given the flexibility and
-p
freedom that occupants have regarding seat selection in the hybrid office. At the same
time, special attention should be given to factors such as maximizing natural daylight and
re
optimizing ventilation to enhance the overall workspace experience. Additionally, the
lP

provision of amenities, particularly the access to power sockets, emerges as an important

na

consideration when designing flexible office layouts.

ur

However, there are a few limitations in the study. Firstly, the analysis focuses specifically
Jo

on the environmental features, while some characteristics of the seat and workstation, for
example, the furniture and layout, are not considered in the study regarding the selection
of the seat (Colenberg, Jylhä and Arkesteijn, 2021). Also, the subjective votes on the
environmental factors only reflects the preferences of occupants, but they do not fully
reflect the actual environmental performance of each seat. Moreover, the adaptation
measures in the space is not included in the study, as office occupants face more
constrained adaptation possibilities compared to occupants of other building types due to
shared spaces and structure (Singh et al., 2023). Lastly, this study focuses on one
particular co-working environment, with a limited diversity in user profiles, and its
applicability to broader contexts has not been fully assessed. Further research will be
required to develop more generalised pattern with more diversity in user and space types

41
embedded for analysis. Moving forward, this study will contribute to the future
investigation on predicting the occupancy of the co-working space based on
environmental and spatial factors of seats in the future.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the lab_ collective and the depot_ for enabling the data
collection for this study, with special thanks to Tze Yeung Cho and Felix Clarke for their
help in the field survey. This study is in part supported by the Alan Turing Institute with
the doctoral enrichment ward. All opinion, findings and/or conclusion are that of the

o f
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organisation. This paper is

ro
also an extended version of the article ‘How do occupants perceive thermal comfort in a
-p
hybrid office space? A case study of a co-working space in London’, presented at
3rd Conference on Comfort at the Extremes Resilient Comfort: Designing to
re
Survive (CATE2022).
lP
na

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used chat.openai in order to improve
ur

the language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content
Jo

as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

42
Reference
Abdollahzadeh, N., Tahsildoost, M. and Zomorodian, Z.S. (2020) ‘A method of partition design for
open-plan offices based on daylight performance evaluation’, Journal of Building Engineering, 29,
p. 101171. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101171.

AECOM (2022) ‘The future of London’s offices’, AECOM Commercial&Residential. Available at:
https://aecom.com/without-limits/publication/future-londons-offices/ (Accessed: 9 May 2022).

Ajith, M. et al. (2022) ‘Sustainable technology, materials and working layout for post covid-19
office spaces’, in 2022 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International
Conferences (ASET). 2022 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International
Conferences (ASET), Dubai, United Arab Emirates: IEEE, pp. 1–6. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1109/ASET53988.2022.9734927.

Akimoto, T. et al. (2010) ‘Thermal comfort and productivity - Evaluation of workplace

o f
environment in a task conditioned office’, Building and Environment, 45(1), pp. 45–50. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.06.022.

ro
Alker, J. et al. (2015) Productivity in Offices - the next chapter for green building, World Green
-p
building Council. Available at: https://www.glass.org/sites/default/files/2020-
09/worldgbc__health_wellbeing__productivity_short_report.pdf.
re
Antoniadou, P. and Papadopoulos, A.M. (2017) ‘Occupants’ thermal comfort: State of the art and
lP

the prospects of personalized assessment in office buildings’, Energy and Buildings, 153, pp. 136–
149. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.001.
na

Aries, M.B.C., Veitch, J.A. and Newsham, Guy.R. (2010) ‘Windows, view, and office
characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort’, Journal of Environmental
ur

Psychology, 30(4), pp. 533–541. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.004.

ASHRAE Standard 55 (2020) ‘Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy’.

Jo

Available at: https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-55-thermal-

environmental-conditions-for-human-occupancy.

Aye, L., Chiazor, M. and Robinson, J.R.W. (2005) ‘Evaluation of occupant perception and
satisfaction in two new office buildings’, in Solar 2005, Renewable Energy for a Sustainable
Future - A challenge for a post carbon world, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual conference of
Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society.

Begemann, S.H.A., Van Den Beld, G.J. and Tenner, A.D. (1997) ‘Daylight, artificial light and
people in an office environment, overview of visual and biological responses’, International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20(3), pp. 231–239. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
8141(96)00053-4.

Boland, B. et al. (2020) ‘Reimagining the office and work life after COVID-19’, Reimagining the
office and work life after COVID-19, 8 June. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-
insights/reimagining-the-office-and-work-life-after-covid-19 (Accessed: 5 June 2023).

43
Borisuit, A. et al. (2015) ‘Effects of realistic office daylighting and electric lighting conditions on
visual comfort, alertness and mood’, Lighting Research & Technology, 47(2), pp. 192–209.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153514531518.

Caglar, D., Faccio, E. and Ryback, E. (2020) ‘Creating the office of the future’, PwC
Strategy+Business, 29 July. Available at: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/Creating-the-
office-of-the-future.

Cai, J. and Marmot, A. (2013) ‘Let the sunshine in: Perception of windows by Chinese office
workers’, International Journal of Facility Management, 4(3), pp. 1–13.

Carlopio, J.R. (1996) ‘Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction

questionnaire.’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(3), pp. 330–344. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.3.330.

f
Colenberg, S., Jylhä, T. and Arkesteijn, M. (2021) ‘The relationship between interior office space

o
and employee health and well-being – a literature review’, Building Research & Information,

ro
49(3), pp. 352–366. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098.

-p
De Dear, R.J. and Brager, G.S. (1998) ‘Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference’, ASHRAE Transactions, 104(Pt 1A), pp. 145–167.
re
EnergyPlus (2023) Weather Data. Available at: https://energyplus.net/weather.
lP

Fanger, P.O. (1970) Thermal comfort: Analysis and applications in environmental engineering.
Copenhagen: Danish Technical Pr.
na

Földváry Ličina, V. et al. (2018) ‘Development of the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database
II’, Building and Environment, 142, pp. 502–512. Available at:
ur

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.06.022.
Jo

Fountain, M.E. and Arens, E.A. (1993) ‘Air movement and thermal comfort’, ASHRAE Journal,
35(8). Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0q03g71s.

Franzetti, C., Fraisse, G. and Achard, G. (2004) ‘Influence of the coupling between daylight and
artificial lighting on thermal loads in office buildings’, Energy and Buildings, 36(2), pp. 117–126.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2003.10.005.

Füzi, A., Clifton, N. and Loudon, G. (2014) ‘New in-house organizational spaces that support
creativity and innovation: the co-working space’, in. R & D Management Conference, Stuttgart.
Available at: https://figshare.cardiffmet.ac.uk/articles/conference_contribution/New_in-
house_organizational_spaces_that_support_creativity_and_innovation_the_co-
working_space/19317431.

Haapakangas, A. et al. (2018) ‘Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based

offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use’, Building and Environment,
145, pp. 115–124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.017.

44
Hens, H.S.L.C. (2009) ‘Thermal comfort in office buildings: Two case studies commented’,
Building and Environment, 44(7), pp. 1399–1408. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.020.

Hongisto, V. et al. (2016) ‘Refurbishment of an open-plan office – Environmental and job

satisfaction’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, pp. 176–191. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.12.004.

Huizenga, C. et al. (2006) ‘Air quality and thermal comfort in office buildings: Results of a large
indoor environmental quality survey’, HB 2006 - Healthy Buildings: Creating a Healthy Indoor
Environment for People, Proceedings, 3, pp. 393–397.

Humphreys, M., Nicol, F. and Roaf, S. (2015) Adaptive Thermal Comfort: Foundations and
Analysis. 1st edn. Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315765815.

f
IBM Corp (2023) ‘IBM SPSS Statistics for MacOS’. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp (Released 2021).

o
ro
Jahncke, H. et al. (2011) ‘Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration’, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), pp. 373–382. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002. -p
re
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A. et al. (2009) ‘Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office
rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study during relocation’, Ergonomics, 52(11), pp.
lP

1423–1444. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903154579.

Kamarulzaman, N. et al. (2011) ‘An Overview of the Influence of Physical Office Environments
na

Towards Employee’, Procedia Engineering, 20, pp. 262–268. Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.164.
ur

Kawakubo, S., Sugiuchi, M. and Arata, S. (2023) ‘Office thermal environment that maximizes
workers’ thermal comfort and productivity’, Building and Environment, 233, p. 110092. Available
Jo

at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110092.

Kent, M. et al. (2021) ‘A data-driven analysis of occupant workspace dissatisfaction’, Building and
Environment, 205, p. 108270. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108270.

Kestrel Instruments (2023) Kestrel 5400 WBGT Heat Stress Tracker (HST) & Weather Meter,
Kestrel Instruments. Available at: https://kestrelinstruments.com/kestrel-5400-heat-stress-tracker
(Accessed: 4 August 2023).

Kim, J. and De Dear, R. (2013) ‘Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in

open-plan offices’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, pp. 18–26. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007.

Kitagawa, K. et al. (1999) ‘Effect of humidity and small air movement on thermal comfort under a
radiant cooling ceiling by subjective experiments’, Energy and Buildings, 30(2), pp. 185–193.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(98)00086-3.

45
Lamsal, P., Bajracharya, S.B. and Rijal, H.B. (2023) ‘A Review on Adaptive Thermal Comfort of
Office Building for Energy-Saving Building Design’, Energies, 16(3), p. 1524. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031524.

Liu, J. et al. (2012) ‘Occupants’ behavioural adaptation in workplaces with non-central heating
and cooling systems’, Applied Thermal Engineering, 35, pp. 40–54. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.09.037.

Liu, J. and Wang, J. (2019) ‘Thermal comfort and thermal adaptive behaviours in office buildings:
A case study in Chongqing, China’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
371(2), p. 022002. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/371/2/022002.

Makakli, E.S., Yücesan, E. and Ozar, B. (2019) ‘Co-Working Space Concept in the Spatial and
Urban Context: A Case Study of “Kolektif House”’, FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum
Bilimleri Dergisi, (14), pp. 297–312. Available at: https://doi.org/10.16947/fsmia.667316.

o f
Malik, J. and Bardhan, R. (2022) ‘Thermal comfort perception in naturally ventilated affordable

ro
housing of India’, Advances in Building Energy Research, 16(3), pp. 385–413. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512549.2021.1907224.
-p
Merkel, J. (2015) ‘Coworking in the city’, ephemera, 15(1). Available at:
re
https://ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/15-1merkel.pdf (Accessed: 15 December
2023).
lP

Met Office (2023) Weather Observations Website. Available at: https://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/

(Accessed: 4 August 2023).
na

Microsoft (2022) ‘Great expectations: Making hybrid work work’, 2022 Work Trend Index:
Annual Report, pp. 1–56.
ur

Nanayakkara, K.T., Wilkinson, S.J. and Ghosh, S. (2021) ‘Future office layouts for large
Jo

organisations: workplace specialist and design firms’ perspective’, Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, 23(2), pp. 69–86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-02-2020-0012.

Neville, M. (2022) ‘£27m “future of work” London office refurbishment project enlists Grand
Designs leadership’, Bdaily News, 13 April. Available at:
https://bdaily.co.uk/articles/2022/04/13/27m-future-of-work-london-office-refurbishment-
project-enlists-grand-designs-leadership (Accessed: 1 August 2023).

Newsham, G. et al. (2009) ‘Linking indoor environment conditions to job satisfaction: a field
study’, Building Research & Information, 37(2), pp. 129–147. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210802710298.

Newsham, G. and Veitch, J. (2001) ‘Lighting quality recommendations for VDT offices: a new
method of derivation’, Lighting Research & Technology, 33(2), pp. 97–113. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/136578280103300205.

Oseland, N.A. (1998) ‘Acceptable temperature ranges in naturally ventilated and air-conditioned
offices’, in Proceedings of the 1998 ASHRAE Winter Meeting. ASHRAE Transactions. Available
at: https://www.aivc.org/sites/default/files/airbase_11093.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2023).

46
Pan, J. et al. (2023) ‘Future workspace needs flexibility and diversity: A machine learning-driven
behavioural analysis of co-working space’, PLOS ONE. Edited by P.K. Donta, 18(10), p. e0292370.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292370.

Pan, J., Cho, T.Y. and Bardhan, R. (2022) ‘Occupancy level prediction based on a sensor-detected
dataset in a co-working space’, in Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on
Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation. BuildSys ’22: The 9th ACM
International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation,
Boston Massachusetts: ACM, pp. 340–347. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3563357.3566133.

Rupp, R.F., Vásquez, N.G. and Lamberts, R. (2015) ‘A review of human thermal comfort in the
built environment’, Energy and Buildings, 105, pp. 178–205. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.047.

Seppanen, O., Fisk, W.J. and Lei, Q.H. (2006) ‘Ventilation and performance in office work’,

o f
Indoor Air, 16(1), pp. 28–36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00394.x.

ro
Shafaghat, A. et al. (2015) ‘Enhancing staff’s satisfaction with comfort toward productivity by
sustainable Open Plan Office Design’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 19, pp. 151–164. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.08.001. -p
re
Singh, M.K. et al. (2023) ‘Adaptive thermal comfort in the offices of three climates of North-East
India’, Journal of Building Engineering, 75, p. 106843. Available at:
lP

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106843.

Sorensen, G. et al. (2021) ‘The future of research on work, safety, health and wellbeing: A guiding
na

conceptual framework’, Social Science & Medicine, 269, p. 113593. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113593.
ur

Steemers, K. and Manchanda, S. (2010) ‘Energy efficient design and occupant well-being: Case
studies in the UK and India’, Building and Environment, 45(2), pp. 270–278. Available at:
Jo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.025.

Sundstrom, E. et al. (1994) ‘Office Noise, Satisfaction, and Performance’, Environment and
Behavior, 26(2), pp. 195–222. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600204.

Sundstrom, E., Burt, R.E. and Kamp, D. (1980) ‘Privacy at Work: Architectural Correlates of Job
Satisfaction and Job Performance.’, Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), pp. 101–117.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/255498.

Tan, T.H. and Lau, K. (2021) ‘Understanding users’ and hosts’ motives to co-working space: Case
of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’, Open House International, 46(1), pp. 81–95. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-07-2020-0077.

Tartarini, F. et al. (2020) ‘CBE Thermal Comfort Tool: Online tool for thermal comfort
calculations and visualizations’, SoftwareX, 12, p. 100563. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100563.

47
Teevan, J., Hecht, B. and Jaffe, S. (2021) The New Future of Work: Research from Microsoft into
the Pandemic’s Impact on Work Practices, Microsoft. Microsoft. Available at:
https://aka.ms/newfutureofwork.%0AOr.

Testo Ltd (2023) Testo 400 Universal IAQ Tester, Testo. Available at: https://www.testo.com/en-
UK/testo-400/p/0560-0400 (Accessed: 4 August 2023).

Turan, I. et al. (2020) ‘The value of daylight in office spaces’, Building and Environment, 168, p.
106503. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106503.

Veitch, J.A. et al. (2007) ‘A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field
findings’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), pp. 177–189. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.002.

Weijs-Perrée, M. et al. (2019) ‘Analysing user preferences for co-working space characteristics’,

f
Building Research & Information, 47(5), pp. 534–548. Available at:

o
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1463750.

ro
Yang, L. et al. (2021) ‘The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers’,
-p
Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), pp. 43–54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-
01196-4.
re
Yao, R. et al. (2022) ‘Evolution and performance analysis of adaptive thermal comfort models – A
lP

comprehensive literature review’, Building and Environment, 217, p. 109020. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109020.
na

Yildirim, K., Akalin-Baskaya, A. and Celebi, M. (2007) ‘The effects of window proximity,
partition height, and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27(2), pp. 154–165. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.01.004.
ur

Zhao, Q., Lian, Z. and Lai, D. (2021) ‘Thermal comfort models and their developments: A review’,
Jo

Energy and Built Environment, 2(1), pp. 21–33. Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2020.05.007.

48
Table 1 Summary of literature

Environmental
Impact Major conclusion Reference
factor

The satisfaction and productivity of occupants

Thermal comfort Productivity greatly relies on the provision of suitable air (Akimoto et al., 2010)
conditioning within the space

Attractive window views can reduce discomfort;

(Aries, Veitch and
Window view Discomfort Being close to window with low-quality lighting
Newsham, 2010)
can cause thermal and glare problems

Indoor
Indoor environmental quality could affect the (Aye, Chiazor and
environmental Discomfort
perceived satisfaction and dissatisfaction Robinson, 2005)
quality

o f
Daylight and Poor indoor lighting is identified as the cause of (Begemann, Van Den
Health
artificial light many health and performance problems Beld and Tenner, 1997)

ro
Visual comfort, Daylight condition receives significantly higher
Daylight and
alertness and visual acceptance score compared to electrical (Borisuit et al., 2015)
artificial light
mood light. -p
The proportion of individuals satisfied with their
re
Daylight, window Satisfaction workstations tends to rise when they are located in (Cai and Marmot, 2013)
closer proximity to windows.
lP

37 factors Occupants perceive environmental design factors,

including facilities, work and system, equipment and tools
environmental Satisfaction and health and safety as their physical work (Carlopio, 1996)
na

design, facilities environment, with significant contributions to the

etc. satisfaction.
ur

Acoustics, thermal
Environmental Significant improvement is found in the
comfort,
and job environmental satisfaction in almost all (Hongisto et al., 2016)
ergonomics and
Jo

satisfaction environmental aspects after refurbishment.

interior design

Occupant satisfaction is significantly enhanced by

Air quality and Productivity,
having personal control over environmental (Huizenga et al., 2006)
thermal comfort satisfaction
conditions.

The productivity of women increases when they

(Kawakubo, Sugiuchi and
Thermal comfort Productivity feel warmer, while the productivity of men
Arata, 2023)
increases when they feel cooler.

Acoustic Work Self-assessed work performance reduces as noise (Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al.,

environment performance increases 2009)

Indoor The principle components relating to the

environmental Dissatisfaction satisfaction are privacy and space and cleanliness (Kent et al., 2021)
quality and maintenance

Distraction by noise and loss of privacy are the

Acoustic and Dissatisfaction,
major causes of workspace dissatisfaction in open- (Kim and De Dear, 2013)
privacy interaction
plan office layouts

Mood, The deviation between participants’ lighting (Newsham and Veitch,

Lighting
satisfaction preferences and the experienced lighting is an 2001)

1
Environmental
Impact Major conclusion Reference
factor

important predictor of participant mood and

satisfaction.

Environmental satisfaction contributes to the

Thermal, lighting, Environmental
overall job satisfaction, and window access is an
acoustic, furniture, and job (Newsham et al., 2009)
important predictor to satisfaction with lighting
and exterior view satisfaction
condition.

Architectural privacy is associated with the

Job satisfaction (Sundstrom, Burt and
Privacy psychological privacy, and job satisfaction is
and performance Kamp, 1980)
associated with the satisfaction with workspace

Environmental Noise disruption associates with dissatisfaction

and job towards the environment and job but not
Noise (Sundstrom et al., 1994)
satisfaction, job correlates with self- or supervisor-assessed
performance performance.

o f
Privacy/acoustics, Factors of privacy, ventilation and lighting could
Environmental

ro
lighting, and represent the satisfaction with environmental
and job (Veitch et al., 2007)
ventilation/temper features, which is also linked to the overall job
satisfaction
ature satisfaction,

Proximity to
window, privacy, Satisfaction
-p
Proximity to window influences employee
happiness and offsets some of the downsides of
(Yildirim, Akalin-
Baskaya and Celebi,
re
lighting open office spaces. 2007)
lP
na
ur
Jo

2
Table 3 Indoor environment measurement (Kestrel Instruments, 2023; Testo Ltd, 2023)

Measurement Range Resolution Accuracy

Air temperature -29 to 70°C 0.1 °C ±0.5°C

Globe
-29 to 60°C 0.1 °C ±1.4°C
temperature
Kestrel 5400
Relative 10 to 90%RH, 25°C
0.1 %RH ±2%RH
humidity noncondensing

Air velocity 0.6 to 40 m/s 0.1 m/s ±0.1 m/s

Air temperature -20 to 70 °C 0.1 °C ±0.5°C

Globe
0 to 120 °C 0.1 °C ±1.5°C

f
temperature

o
Relative
Testo 400 0 to 100%RH 0.1 %RH ±2%RH (5 to 90 %RH)

ro
humidity
(and probes)
Air velocity 0.1 to 15 m/s 0.01 m/s ±(0.1 m/s + 1.5% of reading)

Illuminance 0 to 100000 lux

-p 0.1 lux
F1 = 6% = V(λ) adjustment, F2
= 5% = cos-true evaluation (EN
re
(<10000)
13032-1)

±(8 lux + 3% of reading)

lP

Light meter Illuminance 0 to 200000 lux 0.1 lux

(<10,000 lux)
na
ur
Jo

3
 Table 7 Summary of environmental condition

September-November December 2022-

All March-May 2022 June-August 2022
2022 February 2023

Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min

Air
temperature 23.0 26.3 19.0 22.4 24.8 20.1 24.4 26.3 22.6 23.3 24.0 22.1 21.2 22.3 19.0
(°C)

Globe
temperature 22.9 26.7 18.6 22.3 24.4 20.3 24.3 26.7 22.5 23.1 23.9 22.1 21.3 22.4 18.6
(°C)

Indoor Relative
environment humidity 47.9 59.4 37.9 44.1 50.8 38.9 46.1 53.9 37.9 55.5 59.4 52.1 47.7 54.2 40.3

f
(%RH)

o
Air velocity

ro
0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(m/s)

Illuminance
(desk level)
(lux)
145.3 1354.0 13.2 170.4 668.6 22.9 -p
181.6 1354.0 24.4 111.1 412.9 13.2 87.7 460.1 19.7
re
Air
temperature 16.2 28.0 4.0 16.6 22.7 9.2 24.0 28.0 18.5 15.6 21.6 11.8 8.8 11.9 4.0
lP

(°C)

Outdoor Relative
environment humidity 63.1 93.6 26.9 50.0 80.4 26.9 49.1 71.1 30.6 78.5 93.6 50.1 74.6 90.3 53.1
na

(%RH)

Wind speed
3.82 9.83 0.46 3.45 5.81 1.34 3.11 4.48 0.46 4.07 9.83 1.34 4.63 6.69 1.34
ur

(m/s)
Jo

4
Reinventing hybrid office design through a people-centric adaptive approach

Authors: Jiayu Pan*1, Shushen Chen1,2, Ronita Bardhan1

1 Sustainable Design Group, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1PX
2 Atelier Ten, London, United Kingdom, E2 8DD
*Corresponding author: jp844@cam.ac.uk

Highlights:
•

f
A year-long longitudinal questionnaire survey with in-situ field measurement

o
conducted in a co-working space

ro
• A slight sensation and preference towards cooler environment is found
•
-p
A general desire for more daylight and air flow is revealed by occupants
re
• Occupants in co-working spaces are less sensitive to privacy and noise
lP

• ‘Good daylight’, ‘good ventilation’ and ‘quiet’ have a robust association with
occupants’ seat selection
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo