Figure - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Qualitative assessment of satisfaction in administrators and researchers, analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
Source publication
Indoor environment quality (IEQ) evaluation can help improve building satisfaction and productivity of residents. However, for more efficient analysis, it is necessary to gain a large amount of data on the differences between specific groups, such as building and resident work types. In this study, we conducted an IEQ evaluation for administrators...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... the data did not pass the normality test, the Mann-Whitney test was applied for data analysis. Table 6 shows the comparison of the average satisfaction with the target building, as analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. The satisfaction data for each item in Table 5 was used for the analysis, and the symbol M in Table 6 means the average ranking value of IEQ items by job type. ...Context 2
... 6 shows the comparison of the average satisfaction with the target building, as analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. The satisfaction data for each item in Table 5 was used for the analysis, and the symbol M in Table 6 means the average ranking value of IEQ items by job type. In Table 6, when the p-value of the corresponding IEQ item is significant, the higher the average ranking value, the higher the average satisfaction with the item. ...Context 3
... satisfaction data for each item in Table 5 was used for the analysis, and the symbol M in Table 6 means the average ranking value of IEQ items by job type. In Table 6, when the p-value of the corresponding IEQ item is significant, the higher the average ranking value, the higher the average satisfaction with the item. As a result of the Mann-Whitney test, there were significant differences in layout (Z = −2.757, ...Context 4
... the case of layout, as a result of the quantitative measurement shown in Table 4, the difference in area per capita between the group of researchers and the group of administrators was not statistically significant, but the difference in storage per capita was significant (p < 0.001). In addition, in the qualitative evaluation in Table 6, the administrative group (39.21) had lower average satisfaction with the placement than the research group (55.48), and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney test). Moreover, in Table 8, the manager group (41.74) had a statistically significantly lower productivity evaluation for batches than the research group (54.01) (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney test). ...Context 5
... in the case of temperature, the average temperature of the research group (25.0 • C) was found to be higher than the average temperature of the administrative group (23.9 • C), and it was found to be statistically significant (Table 4). In the qualitative evaluation of Table 6, the administrative group (59.90) had a higher average ranking value in terms of satisfaction than the research group (43.46), and this difference was significant (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney test). Similarly, in Table 8, which evaluated work productivity, the administrative group (57.83) had significantly higher productivity evaluation for thermal comfort than the research group (44.66) (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney test). ...Context 6
... the quantitative measurement results, CO2 concentration met the recommended range (less than 800 ppm) presented by BS EN standard 15251:2007 [48] for both researchers and administrators. As a result of the qualitative evaluation, it was confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference in both satisfaction and work productivity in the two groups (Tables 6 and 8). In addition, there was no statistically significant correlation between the total productivity and work productivity of IEQ items (Table 9). ...Context 7
... addition, due to the features of the research building, the requirements for the sound environment may be high because of the complex and concentration-dependent work being carried out [29]. However, in the Mann-Whitney test, which determines whether the results of the survey conducted in this study are statistically significant, the results in Tables 6 and 8 prove that the survey values for the acoustic environment conducted in this study were not significant. Although Table 9 shows that total productivity and researchers' work productivity are statistically significant, comprehensively considered, it is considered that additional factors need to be correlated to evaluate the sound environment of residents in research buildings. ...Citations
... Similarly, in [18], it was reported that people tested at an elevated temperature of 30 • C assessed the air quality as worse in comparison to a thermal environment of 22 • C. Thus, it is important to consider air quality in a broader sense rather than limiting it to the CO 2 level. It is especially crucial, because indoor environment quality can influence the overall satisfaction of room residents and their productivity, as reported by Lee et al. [19], who also indicated a difference in the indoor air quality perception between different occupations of the same building. The influence of the indoor air quality on occupants' productivity was addressed by Lee et al. [20]. ...
... The design of the questionnaire was influenced by the standards [52,53] and journal papers [54][55][56]. Productivity of the respondents was assessed by themselves as a subjective evaluation (as in other studies such as [8,19,21,22,57]). The room users filled the questionnaires ca. ...
People tend to spend considerable amounts of time in buildings; thus the issue of providing proper indoor environmental quality is of significant importance. This paper experimentally analyses the subjective sensations of the occupants of intelligent and traditional buildings with the focus on possible differences between these two types of buildings. The study is based on a large database of 1302 questionnaires collected in 92 rooms where simultaneous measurements of the indoor environment physical parameters (air and globe temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, and illuminance) were carried out. Their impact on the subjective assessment of the indoor environment has been presented and analysed. The results show that the occupants seemed to be more favourable towards the indoor conditions in the intelligent building; however, the differences in comparison to the traditional buildings were not considerable. Similarly, self-reported productivity proved to be higher in the intelligent building, while the optimal range of air temperature, which ensured highest productivity, was 22–25 °C. Moreover, a strong correlation between the occupants’ overall comfort and their perception of the air quality has been found.
Over the past decade, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in influencing occupant productivity. Researchers have studied various buildings, including offices, schools, hospitals, and residential settings, to understand the relationship between IEQ and productivity outcomes. Studies have taken a multifactorial approach, considering multiple aspects of IEQ. Evidence from the literature review suggests that the quality of the indoor environment is an essential factor that affects the productivity of building occupants, and it is one of the fundamental issues in the development of societies. This area of research requires the responsible participation of researchers at all levels, as there is significant scope to contribute to knowledge. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the published literature on indoor environmental quality and its impact on building occupant productivity through the scientific literature available from one of the largest and most famous academic databases, Scopus; the study was determined in 2011 to 2023. The search used differential thresholds for IEQ keywords affecting building occupant productivity. Three discrete queries were performed, resulting in approximately 3861 publications. These were filtered by reducing false positives and excluding publications irrelevant to the research topic. The final results were 72 publications. This study also used Excel and VOS viewer to analyse and create graphs and network visualisation maps to show the growth of publications and their types, active countries and institutions for recovered publications, international collaboration, author keywords, active journals, and citation analysis. This study can significantly advance our understanding of building occupant productivity and enhance quality of life and work. Evaluating the research outputs is essential for highlighting contributions to knowledge and global collaboration in this research area. The potential impact of this study is not just theoretical. It can shape the future of our built environments and the lives of those occupying them.
