Noise is the most frequent reason for complaints about environmental conditions in the workplace. It is associated with individual health and well-being and decreased productivity and performance. This study identified a set of acoustic strategies for open-plan workplaces and examined a case study applying those to four open-plan offices in the United States. The set of measures was defined based on a literature review and a focus group interview with 17 experts. A total of four topics were identified as key performance indicators of proper acoustic environments in the open-plan workplaces. A total of 19 items were then developed within these 4 topics as the protocols for planning acoustic strategies for workplace health and well-being. In the case study, the level of acoustic performance for workplace health and well-being was highest in the Dallas office (27.5 points out of a total of potential 40.0) followed by the Minneapolis office (26.0). Both offices outperformed the other offices in achieving space planning principles to control noises and occupant noise control in open spaces for acoustical privacy. A further examination on the relationships between acoustic strategies and other health and well-being key performance indicators in these offices suggests that guidance to increase occupants’ auditory comfort, well-being, and performance should be sought by designers in a holistic and integrative way.
HaapakangasaAHongistoVVarjoJ, et al. Benefits of quiet workspaces in open-plan offices – evidence from two office relocations. J Environ Psychol2018; 56: 63–75.
2.
HaapakangasAHallmanDMMathiassenSE, et al. Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: the role of environmental perceptions and workspace use. Build Environ2018; 145: 115–124.
3.
HayBKempMF.Measurements of noise in air conditioned, landscaped offices. J Sound Vib1972; 23: 363–373.
4.
BoycePR.User’s assessments of landscaped office. J Arch Res1974; 3: 44–62.
5.
BanburySPBerryDC.Office noise and employee concentration: identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics2005; 48(1): 25–37.
6.
SeddighABerntsonEJönssonF, et al. The effect of noise absorption variation in open-plan offices: a field study with a cross-over design. J Environ Psychol2015; 44: 34–44.
7.
ISO 3382-3:2012. Acoustics – measurement of room acoustic parameters – part 3: open plan offices.
8.
WarnockAC.Acoustical design guide for open offices. Ottawa, ON, Canada: NRC Institute for Research in Construction, 2004.
9.
ŞentopABayazıtNT.A tool to support the integration of noise control criteria in building design. Build Acoust2016; 23(2): 92–109.
10.
KeighleyEC.The determination of acceptability criteria for office noise. J Sound Vib1966; 4(1): 73–87.
11.
KeighleyEC.Acceptability criteria for noise in large offices. J Sound Vib1970; 11(1): 83–93.
12.
SundstromETownJPRiceRW, et al. Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environ Behav1994; 26(2): 195–222.
13.
KjellbergALandstromUTesarzM, et al. The effects of nonphysical noise characteristics, ongoing task and noise sensitivity on annoyance and distraction due to noise at work. J Environ Psychol1996; 16: 123–136.
14.
NewshamGRVeitchJACharlesKE.Risk factors for dissatisfaction with the indoor environment in open-plan offices: an analysis of COPE field study data. Indoor Air2008; 18(4): 271–282.
15.
DingS.Users’ privacy preferences in open plan offices. Facilities2008; 26(9–10): 401–417.
16.
KjellbergALandstromU.Noise in the office: part I – guidelines for the practitioner. Indus Ergon1994; 14: 87–91.
17.
KjellbergALandstromU.Noise in the office: part II – the scientific basis (knowledge base) for the guide. Indus Ergon1994; 14: 93–118.
18.
BradleyJS.The acoustical design of conventional open plan offices. Canadian Acous2003; 27(3): 23–30.
19.
VirjonenPKeränenJHongistoV.Determination of acoustical conditions in open-plan offices: proposal for a new measurement method and target values. Acta Acustica United with Acustica2009; 95(2): 279–290.
20.
Dokmeci YorukogluPNKangJ. Development and testing of Indoor Soundscape Questionnaire for evaluating contextual experience in public spaces. Build Acoust2017; 24(4): 307–324.
21.
AlettaFAstolfiA.Soundscapes of buildings and built environments. Build Acoust2018; 25(3): 195–197.
22.
KangJ.Welcome to acoustics – a new open access journal for the growing multidisciplinary scientific and engineering community and beyond. Acoustics2019; 1(1): 1–2.
23.
LeeYOsburnMWolkoffJ.Promoting workplace health and wellness through an open source analytics PROWELL. Chicago, IL: International Facility Management Association, 2018.
24.
LeeY. Workplace health and its impact on human capital: seven key performance indicators of workplace health. In: KorhanO (ed.) Indoor environment and health. London: IntechOpen, 2019, pp. 1–29.
LeeYSchottenfeldM.Use of well-being metrics by firms and industries. In: OECD workshop 2017: measuring business impacts on people’s well-being, Paris, 23–24February2017. Paris: OECD.
VenetjokiNKaarlela-TuomaalaAKeskinenE, et al. The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics2006; 49(11): 1068–1091.
29.
KrasnovAGreenEREngelsB, et al. Enhanced speech privacy in office spaces. Build Acoust2019; 26(1): 57–66.
30.
Di BlasioSShtrepiLPuglisiGE, et al. A cross-sectional survey on the impact of irrelevant speech noise on annoyance, mental health and well-being, performance and occupants’ behavior in shared and open-plan offices. Int J Environ Res Pub Heal2019; 16(2): 280.
31.
LindborgPFribergA.Personality traits bias the perceived quality of sonic environments. Appl Sci2016; 6(12): 405.
32.
ParkJChungSLeeJ, et al. Noise sensitivity, rather than noise level, predicts the non-auditory effects of noise in community samples: a population-based survey. BMC Pub Heal2017; 17: 315.
33.
AlettaFVander MynsbruggeTVan de VeldeD, et al. Awareness of ‘sound’ in nursing homes: a large-scale soundscape survey in Flanders (Belgium). Build Acoust2018; 25(1): 43–59.
34.
BeheshtiMHRoohalah HajizadehRBorhani JebeliMB, et al. The role of individual and personality traits in noise annoyance. Ann Med Heal Sci Res2018; 8: 133–138.
35.
ShepherdDHeinonen-GuzejevMHautusMJ, et al. Elucidating the relationship between noise sensitivity and personality. Noise Heal2015; 17(76): 165–171.
36.
LeeY.Lighting quality and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings using occupant evaluation. J Green Build2011; 6(2): 139–155.
37.
The US GSA. Sound matters: how to achieve acoustic comfort in the contemporary office. Washington, DC: The US GSA, 2011.
38.
The US GSA. Facilities standards for the public building services. Washington, DC: The US GSA, 2014.
39.
NewshamGR.Making the open-plan office a better place to work. Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Research Council of Canada, 2003.
40.
ErmannM.Architectural acoustics illustrated. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
