4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Investigating library users’ perceived indoor environmental quality: SEM-Logit analysis study in a university library

        , , ,
      Journal of Building Engineering
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design.

            The article examines which subjectively evaluated indoor environmental parameters and building features mostly affect occupants' satisfaction in mainly US office buildings. The study analyzed data from a web-based survey administered to 52,980 occupants in 351 office buildings over 10 years by the Center for the Built Environment. The survey uses 7-point ordered scale questions pertaining to satisfaction with indoor environmental parameters, workspace, and building features. The average building occupant was satisfied with his/her workspace and building. Proportional odds ordinal logistic regression shows that satisfaction with all 15 parameters listed in the survey contributed significantly to overall workspace satisfaction. The most important parameters were satisfaction with amount of space (odds ratio OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.55-1.59), noise level (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.25-1.29), and visual privacy (OR 1.26, 95% CI: 1.24-1.28). Satisfaction with amount of space was ranked to be most important for workspace satisfaction, regardless of age group (below 30, 31-50 or over 50 years old), gender, type of office (single or shared offices, or cubicles), distance of workspace from a window (within 4.6 m or further), or satisfaction level with workspace (satisfied or dissatisfied). Satisfaction with amount of space was not related to the gross amount of space available per person.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review.

              This review examines scientific literature on the effect of gender on indoor thermal comfort. Gender differences have been generally considered to be small and insignificant but this review shows that a growing number of studies have found significant differences in thermal comfort between the genders. Clearly more than half of the laboratory and field studies have found that females express more dissatisfaction than males in the same thermal environments. Very few studies have found males to be more dissatisfied than females. A meta-analysis shows that females are more likely than males to express thermal dissatisfaction (ratio: 1.74, 95% confidence interval: 1.61-1.89). However, most studies found no significant difference in neutral temperatures between the genders. Females are more sensitive than males to a deviation from an optimal temperature and express more dissatisfaction, especially in cooler conditions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Building Engineering
                Journal of Building Engineering
                Elsevier BV
                23527102
                September 2024
                September 2024
                : 93
                : 109805
                Article
                10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109805
                aae703a6-e4eb-4091-9bc2-e418ed3e2122
                © 2024

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article