The purpose of this study is to evaluate a number of recently completed workplaces in the UK. The first aim is to assess the impact of various aspects of the workplace environment on users’ levels of stimulation. The body of previous research undertaken into the workplace environment, identified the aspects to be investigated. Samples of employees from the sixteen businesses were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the workplaces. The results were entered into a regression analysis, and the most significant predictors of perceived stimulation identified. The data also revealed a dramatic reduction in staff arousal levels from mornings to afternoons. Thus, there is a second aim to determine whether changes to significant aspects of the workplace environment during the day can counteract the reduction in users’ stimulation. Two further workplaces were studied to enable changes to be made over a 12-week period. A sample of employees completed questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews revealed the reasons behind the results. It was found that provision of artwork, personal control of temperature and ventilation and regular breaks were the most significant contributions to increasing stimulation after lunch; while user choice of layout, and design and décor of workspaces and break areas, were the most significant aspects at design stage.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbdouHGLorschOA: The impact of the building indoor environment on occupant productivity – part 2: effects of temperature: ASHRAE Trans1994;100(2):895–901.
2.
KwalleckKPLewisCM: Effects of environmental color on males and females: Appl Ergon1990;21:275–278.
3.
AndersonKJ: Impulsivity, caffeine, and task difficulty: a within-subjects test of the Yerkes-Dodson law: Pers Indiv Differ1994;16:813–830.
4.
ChristieMMcBreartyE: Psychophysiological investigations of post lunch state in male and female subjects: Ergonomics1979;22(3):307–323.
5.
ColquhounWP: Rhythms in performance: in AshchoffJ (ed.): Handbook of Behavioural Neurobiology: Biological Rhythms, New York, Plenum Press, 1981, pp. 333–349.
6.
FolkardS: Diurnal variation: in HockeyR (ed.): Stress and Fatigue in Human Performance, Chichester, Wiley, 1983, pp. 245–272.
7.
HildebrandtGRohmertWRutenfranzJ: 12 and 24 hour rhythms in error frequency of locomotive drivers and the influence of tiredness: Int J Chronobiol1974;2:175–180.
8.
SmithAPMilesC: The combined effects of occupational health hazards: an experimental investigation of the effects of noise, nightwork and meals: Int Arch Occup Environ Health1986;59(1):83–89.
9.
DuffyF: The Changing Workplace. London, Phaidon, 1992.
10.
LaingADuffyFJaunzensDWillisS: New Environments for Working. London, Construction Research Communications Ltd, 1998.
11.
12.
CohenRStandevenMBordassBLeamanA: Assessing building performance in use 1: the PROBE process: Build Res Inf2000a;29(2): 85–102.
13.
MarcusT: Forum: does the building industry suffer from collective amnesia?: Build Res Inf2001;29(6):473–476.
14.
OselandN (ed.): British Council for Offices Guide to Post-Occupancy Evaluation. London, British Council for Offices, 2007.
15.
DavisMCLeachDJCleggCW: The physical environment of the office: contemorary and emerging issues: in HodgkinsonGPFordJK (eds): International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 26, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2010, pp. 193–237.
16.
BrillMMargulisSKonaEBOSTI: Using Office Design to Increase Productivity. Buffalo, NY, Workplace Design and Productivity, 1984.
17.
PreiserWFERabinowitzHZWhiteET: Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.
18.
LeamanABordissB: Assessing building performance in use 4: the probe occupant surveys and their implications: Build Res Inf2001;29(2):129–143.
19.
ChilesWD: Effects of elevated temperatures on performance of a complex mental task: Ergonomics1968:11(1):89–96.
20.
FangerPO: Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Application in Environmental Engineering. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
21.
EganD: Concepts in Thermal Comfort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1975.
22.
BoycePR: Users’ attitudes to some types of local lighting: Lighting Res Technol1979;11(3):158–164.
23.
HeerwagenJHHeerwagenDR: Lighting and psychological comfort: Lighting Des Appl1986;16(4):47–51.
24.
BaronRAReaMS: Lighting to soothe the mood: Lighting Des Appl1991;12:30–32.
25.
BinerPM: Effects of lighting-induced arousal on the magnitude of goal valence: Pers Soc Psychol Bull1991;17(2):219–226.
26.
CroomeDJGanGAwbiHB: Evaluation of thermal comfort and indoor air quality in offices: Build Res Inf1992;20(4):21–225.
27.
28.
LoeDLRowlandsE: The art and science of lighting: a strategic survey for lighting design: Lighting Res Technol1996;28(4):153–164.
29.
de DearRJ: Developing an adaptive method of thermal comfort and preference: ASHRAE Trans1998;104(1a):145–167.
30.
de DearRJBragerGS: Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: revisions to ASHRAE Standard 55: Energy Build2002;34:549–561.
31.
JonesBW: Capabilities and limitations of thermal models for use in thermal comfort standards: Energy Build2002;34:653–659.
32.
BanburySPBerryDC: Office noise and employee concentration: identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements: Ergonomics2005;48(1):125–137.
33.
TanabeSNishiharaNHanedaM: Indoor temperature, productivity, and fatigue in office tasks: HVAC&R Res2007;13(4):623–633.
34.
ZhangHArensEFardSAHuizengaCPaliagaGBragerGZagreusL: Air movement preferences observed in office buildings: Int J Biometeorol2007;51(5):349–360.
35.
GrossauerEWagnerA: Thermal comfort and satisfaction at work places – a field study in office buildings: Bauphysik2008;30(6):445–452.
36.
Kaarlela-TuomaalaAHeleniusRKeskinenEHongistoV: Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study during relocation: Ergonomics2009;52(11):1423–1444.
37.
HwangTKimJT: Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building: Indoor Built Environ2011;20(1):75–90.
38.
CIBSE: Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. London, Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers, 2001.
39.
40.
41.
CIBSE: Interior Lighting Code. London, Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers, 1994.
KonarE: Status demarcation in the office: Environ Behav1982;14(5):561–580.
47.
VernonMD: The Psychology of Perception. London, University Press, 1965.
48.
BirrenF: Light, Color and Environment. Revised Edition, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.
49.
WrightA: The Guide to Colour Psychology. London, Colour Affects Ltd, 1998.
50.
StoneNJ: Environmental view and color for a simulated telemarketing task. J Environ Psychol2003;23(1)63–78.
51.
LarsonLAdamsJDealBTylerE: Plants in the workplace: the effects of plant density on task performance, attitudes and perceptions: Environ Behav1998;30(3):261–281.
52.
FieldT: Effect of indoor foliage plants on health and discomfort symptoms among office workers: Indoor Built Environ1998;7:204–206.
53.
ShibataSSuzukiN: Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood: Scand J Psychol2004;45(5):373–381.
54.
BringslimarkTHartigTPatelGG: Psychological benefits of indoor plants in workplaces: putting experimental results into context: Hortscience2007;42(3):581–587.
55.
DravigneAWaliczeckTMLinebergerRDZajicekJM: The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction: Hortscience2008;43(1):183–187.
56.
57.
CIBSE: Daylighting and Window Design. London, Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers, 1999.
58.
BoycePR: Human Factors in Lighting, 2nd edn. London, Taylor and Francis, 2003.
59.
Ne’emanEHopkinsonRG: Critical minimum acceptable window size: a study of window design and provision of a view: Lighting Res Technol1970;2(1):17–27.
60.
KeighlyEC: Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in office buildings – a study of window shape: Build Sci1973;8(4):311–320.
61.
LudlowAM: The function of windows in buildings: Lighting Res Technol1976;8(2):57–68.
62.
NewshamGBrandJDonnellCVeitchJAriesMCharlesK: Linking indoor environment conditions to job satisfaction: a field study: Building Res Inf2009;37(2):29–147.
63.
BurgerJ: Negative reactions to increases in perceived control: J Pers Soc Psychol1989;56(2):246–256.
64.
SpectorPE: Perceived control by employees: a meta analysis concerning autonomy and participation at work: Hum Relat1986;39(11):1005–1016.
65.
BromleyAKRBordassWTLeamanA: Are you in control? User and occupant controls in office buildings: Build Serv J1993;5(4):30–32.
66.
FountainMBragerGde RearR: Expectations of indoor climate control: Energy Build1996;24:179–182.
SzigetiFDavisG: Forum: the turning point for linking briefing and POE?: Build Res Inf2002;30(1):47–53.
69.
BellA: Re-imagining the Office. Farnham, Gower Publishing Ltd, 2010.
70.
DulJ: Business Ergonomics beyond health and safety: work environments for employee productivity, creativity and innovation: in BustPD (ed.): Contemporary Ergonomics. London, Taylor and Francis, 2009, pp. 16–23.
71.
KroemerKHEKroemerAD: Office Ergonomics. London, Taylor and Francis, 2001.
HelanderMGCzajaSJDruryJMBurriG: An ergonomic evaluation of office chairs: Inform Techn People1987;3(3):247–263.
74.
BCO: British Council for Offices: Office Fit-Out Guide. London, British Council for Offices, 2003.
75.
SmoldersaKCHJde KortaYAWTennercADKaiserFG: Need for recovery in offices: behavior-based assessment: J Environ Psychol2012; 32(2): 126–134.
76.
77.
78.
BluyssenPMAriesMvan DommelenP: Comfort of workers in office buildings: the European HOPE project: Build Environ2011;46(1):280–288.
79.
KaplanRKaplanS: The Experience of Nature. A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, University Press, 1989.
80.
JamesW: The Principles of Psychology. New York, Henry Holt, 1890.
81.
HerzogTRBlackAMFountaineKAKnottsDJ: Reflection and attentional recovery as distinct benefits of restorative environments: J Environ Psychol1997;17(2):165–170.
82.
OselandNA: Improving Office Productivity: A Guide for Business and Facilities Managers. Harlow, Longman, 1999.
83.
RoscoeJT: Fundamental Research Statistics for Behavioral Sciences. New York, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.
84.
Russell BernardH: Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London, Sage Publications, 2000.
85.
OstroffC: The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes and performance - an organizational level analysis: J Appl Psychol1992;77(6):963–974.
