Testing the relationship between objective indoor environment quality and subjective experiences of comfort

At present, workplace researchers lack a suitable methodology for combining objective indoor environmental quality (IEQ) data with repeated subjective assessments of comfort in real offices. To address this gap, we conducted a study at two office sites. Four IEQ parameters (carbon dioxide, temperature, humidity, and illuminance) were continuously monitored at each site, and brief environmental comfort surveys were sent to employees' smartphones four times per day across the study period. In total, 45 employees across the two sites completed 536 surveys. The findings confirm that the repeated sampling approach is a more appropriate method for measuring comfort than a questionnaire delivered at one time only. Adherence to recommended temperatures reduced the risk of thermal discomfort, however this effect was weak and other predicted associations between the physical environment and environmental comfort were not supported. The results also showed a strong association between environmental comfort and self-rated productivity, such that employees rated themselves as most productive when they were satisfied with noise levels, temperature, air quality, and lighting within the office. Overall, the results highlight that it is critically important to consider strategies for optimising occupant comfort, although this is unlikely to be achieved through adherence to environmental comfort boundaries alone.

Automated summary

The study suggests that repeated sampling is a more appropriate method for measuring comfort, and adherence to recommended temperatures can reduce the risk of thermal discomfort. There is a strong association between environmental comfort and self-rated productivity, with employees rating themselves as most productive when satisfied with noise levels, temperature, air quality, and lighting within the office.