4.7 Article

A social survey on the noise impact in open-plan working environments in China

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 438, Issue -, Pages 517-526

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.082

Keywords

Noise; Sound; Open-plan office; Environment; China

Funding

  1. British Council
  2. Royal Society
  3. China Natural Science Foundation
  4. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20112302110045]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study is to reveal noise impact in open-plan working environments in China, through a series of questionnaire surveys and acoustic measurements in typical open-plan working environments. It has been found that compared to other physical environmental factors in open-plan working environments, people are much less satisfied with the acoustic environment. The noise impact in the surveyed working environments is rather significant, in terms of sound level inside the office, understanding of colleagues' conversation, and the use of background music such as music players. About 30-50% of the interviewees think that various noise sources inside and outside offices are 'very disturbing' and 'disturbing', and the most annoying sounds include noises from outside, ventilation systems, office equipment, and keyboard typing. Using higher panels to separate work space, or working in enclosed offices, are regarded as effective improvement measures, whereas introducing natural sounds to mask unwanted sounds seems to be not preferable. There are significant correlations between the evaluation of acoustic environment and office symptoms, including hypersensitivity to loud sounds, easily getting tired and depression. There are also significant correlations between evaluation of various acoustics-related factors and certain statements relating to job satisfaction, including sensitivity to noise, as well as whether conversations could be heard by colleagues. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available