c. 2

NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 130

User Acceptance of an

Energy Efficient Office Building—

A Study of the Norris Cotton

Federal Office Building

ENERG/EFFICIEN€y

1:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act ot Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities^ — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering^ — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology^ — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. ^Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 130 ^

^ User Acceptance of an

Energy Efficient Office Building—

A Study of the Norris Cotton

Federal Office Building

no. i2o

Jacqueline Elder

Robert L. Tibbott

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Prepared for:

Office of Building & Community Systems

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20582

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued January 1981
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80-600188

National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 130

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Bldg. Sci. Ser. 130, 122 pages (Jan. 1981) CODEN: BSSNBV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1980

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Price $4.50

(Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)

.
ABSTRACT

The General Services Administration built the Norris Cotton Federal

Office Building in Manchester, New Hampshire, and chose it as a "demonstration project for studying the effectiveness of energy

conservation techniques in the design and operation of a contemporary office building." User acceptance of both the innovative

and conventional design features in the building was measured by

administering a questionnaire to employees shortly after occupancy

of the building and again eight months later. The most positively

rated feature overall was the lighting, but reaction to the high

pressure sodium lighting system as installed in the Norris Cotton

Building was strongly negative. Response to noise levels and

disturbances was about evenly divided, but workers in open-plan

offices were less satisfied with the noise climate than workers

in partitioned offices. Most respondents were dissatisfied with

the temperature and ventilation conditions and the small windows

in the building. In general, the occupants rated the building much

higher in appearance than their previous offices, slightly higher

in terms of suitability for performance of their jobs, and slightly

lower with respect to comfort. A literature review of recent survey

studies of the office environment is included.

Key Words: Energy conservation; lighting; man/environment research;

noise; office building; post-occupancy evaluation;

questionnaire; temperature; user needs; ventilation;

windows.

iii
PREFACE

This report is one of a group documenting NBS research and analysis

efforts in developing energy and cost data in support of the Department

of Energy (DoE) /National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Building Energy

Conservation Criteria Program. This work was supported by DoE/NBS

Task Order A008-BCS under Interagency Agreement No. EA 77 A 01 6010.

Cover photo:

The Norris Cotton Federal Office

Building.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Scope of the Report 2

1.2 Organization of the Report 2

2. BACKGROUND 3

2.1 Nature of Previous Evaluation Studies 5

2.2 General Response to Open-Plan Offices 5

2.3 Response to Specific Design Features 6

2.3.1 Lighting 6

2.3.2 Noise 8

2.3.3 Temperature and Ventilation 9

2.3.4 Windows 11

2.4 Conclusions 13

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE NORRIS COTTON BUILDING 15

3.1 Energy Conserving Design Features 16

3.1.1 Lighting 16

3.1.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning

(HVAC) Systems 19

3.1.3 Windows 19

3.2 Interior Space Occupancy and Design 24

4. RESEARCH APPROACH 25

4.1 Observations and Interviews Prior to Relocation to

the Norrls Cotton Building 26

4.2 First Mail Questionnaire 26

4.3 Second Mall Questionnaire 27

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

5. RESULTS 29

5.1 Observations and Interviews Prior to Relocation to

the Norris Cotton Building 29

5.2 Questionnaires 30

5.2.1 General Response to the Norris Cotton

Building 33

5.2.2 Response to Specific Design Features 35

5.2.2.1 Lighting 35

5.2.2.2 Noise 39

5.2.2.3 Odor 43

5.2.2.4 Ventilation 43

5.2.2.5 Temperature 47

5.2.2.6 Windows 47

6. DISCUSSION 55

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 61

8. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS 63

9. REFERENCES 65

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cover Letter, Questionnaire #1,

Percentage Summaries of Responses

to Questionnaire #1 69

Appendix B: Cover Letter, Questionnaire #2,

Percentage Summaries of Responses

to Questionnaire #2 81

Appendix C: Floor-by-Floor Analysis of First

Questionnaire Results 93

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Appendix D: Floor-by-Floor Analysis of Second

Questionnaire Results 99

Appendix E: Comparison of First and Second

Questionnaire Results 107

Appendix F: Occupant "Likes" and "Dislikes" on First Questionnaire 113

Appendix G: Occupant "Likes" and "Dislikes" on Second Questionnaire 113

vii
FIGURES

No. Page

1 A typical open-plan office 4

2 Map of Manchester, New Hampshire showing the location of

the Norris Cotton Building and the Federal agencies prior

to their relocation to the Norris Cotton Building 17

3 Second floor windows in Norris Cotton Building 23

4 Position of blinds in Norris Cotton Building 23

5 Exterior of building housing previous IRS offices 31

6 Exterior of building housing previous VA and

AFES offices 31

7 Interior of a previous VA office 32

8 Interior of a previous AFES office 32

9 Percent of respondents satisfied with various

design features 36

10 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you with the lighting of your office?" 38

11 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you with the noise level of your office?" as a function of office type 40

12 Response to the question, "Does your office ever

become so noisy that you find it difficult to work?"

as a function of office type 41

13 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are

you with the noise level of your office?"... 42

14 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you with the odor of your office?" 44

15 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you with the odor of your office?" as a function

of type of HVAC system 45

16 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you with the ventilation of your office?" 46

viii
FIGURES (continued)

No. Page

17 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you with the ventilation of your office?" as a function

of type of HVAC system 48

18 Response to the question, "Does it ever seem uncomfortably stuffy?" as a function of type of HVAC

system 49

19 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are

you with the temperature of your office?" 50

20 Response to the question, "Does it ever get cold

enough to make you feel uncomfortable?" as a function

of type of HVAC system 51

21 Response to the question, "Does it ever get warm

enough to make you feel uncomfortable?" as a function

of type of HVAC system 52

22 Response to the question, "About how satisfied are you

with the window size of your office?" 53

Ix
TABLES

No. Page

1 Lighting Systems in the Norris Cotton Building 18

2 Illuminance (dekalux) at Task Surface with Contrast

Measuring Instruments in Place 20

3 Contrast Rendition Factors Obtained with Photometric

Techniques 21

4 Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems

in the Norris Cotton Building 22

5 Summary of Occupant "Likes" 34

6 Summary of Occupant "Dislikes" 34

Facing page;

Interior of an opeU'-plan office in

the Norris Cotton Building,

X
1. INTRODUCTION

The General Services Administration (GSA) built the Norris Cotton

Federal Office Building in Manchester, New Hampshire, and chose it as a "demonstration project for studying the effectiveness of energy

conservation techniques in the design and operation of a contemporary

office building" (Rensberger, 1978). The building was dedicated on October 8, 1976, and was designed from the beginning with high priority

given to energy conservation. Both conventional and innovative energy

conserving technologies are incorporated in the Norris Cotton Building.

1
The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) evaluated and monitored the

building for the Department of Energy (DoE) . The evaluation was carried

out by a multldlsclpllnary team of NBS researchers with the assistance

of consultants and other experts. Five areas were evaluated:

* Energy — heating and cooling

* Solar system

* Interior lighting

* User acceptance

* Economic analysis

1 .1 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

This document reports user* acceptance. In determining how the innovative design features of the Norris Cotton Building compare with more

conventional design features, it is important to determine not only the

engineering and economic performance of these features but also user reaction to them. A questionnaire was developed to assess occupant re- sponse. The questionnaire explored occupant reaction to the building in

general and more specifically to the energy conserving design features

as they affected the sensory environment experienced by the occupants.

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Section 2 summarizes the recent survey research literature on the office

environment. These studies provide a background for the evaluation of

the Norris Cotton Building and a context within which the results of

the evaluation may be assessed.

Sections 3, 4, and 5 are related to the study of the Norris Cotton

Building. The energy conserving design features and physical layout

of the building are described in section 3. Section 4 presents the

research approach and section 5 gives the results of the Norris Cotton

Building study.

In section 6, the results of the Norris Cotton Building study are explored with reference to the other evaluation studies presented in

section 2.

Section 7 provides a summary and presents the research conclusions.

* In its broadest sense, "user" includes both employees working in the

building and visitors to the building. An assessment of visitor

response was beyond the scope of this study and unless otherwise noted

"user" is synonymous with "occupant" or "employee."

Facing page:

Interior of a private office in the

Norris Cotton Building.
This section reports a literature review that concentrates on recent

survey studies of the office environment. These studies have tended

to focus on the "open-plan" office — the predominant type in the Norris

Cotton Building. The review does not cover many studies prior to 1965

which dealt exclusively with conventional, partitioned offices.

jl

3
Figure 1. A typical open-plan office

4
In contrast with the conventional, partitioned office, the open-plan

office has no ceiling-high walls between individual work areas; instead, screens or movable acoustical barriers, plants, cabinets, and bookcases are used to define work stations and provide visual and acoustical

privacy (figure 1). Advocates of the open-plan office claim it greatly

reduces initial costs of installation, requires less energy for operation, makes more efficient use of space, enables regrouping of work

stations in response to changing work demands, and improves communication among workers. Perhaps because these assertions have not been

adequately proven to the satisfaction of all designers, many

"traditional" offices are still being built.

2.1 NATURE OF PREVIOUS EVALUATION STUDIES

Although recent survey studies, conducted primarily in Europe and the

United States, have sought to determine how well open-plan offices meet

the visual, acoustical, and thermal comfort needs of those who work in

them, the existing building evaluation literature does not yet provide an adequate basis for making design decisions. As Lozar (1978) observes,

"The environmental psychology research literature presently in existence

appears fragmented, has many different factors involved, and does not

provide a consistent basis for overall generalizability to habitability

factors.

One reason why generalization is difficult is that many studies have

been concerned only with the evaluation of a particular building. As

Elder, Turner, and Rubin (1979) point out, "informational needs in such

cases are highly specific, as are the research methods employed.

Another problem is that reported studies, by and large, do not establish

correlations between subjective responses, such as attitudes or preferences, and physical design parameters. The physical environment has

not always been carefully described or measured, and even when precise

physical data are available, they cannot always account for the observed

user response. Studies have often shown that simple relationships

between the intensity of physical stimuli and the responses of office

occupants cannot be assumed and that qualitative considerations are also important. Nemecek and Grand jean (1973), for instance, found that

informational content of conversational noise rather than loudness was

a better predictor of the amount of disturbance experienced by office

occupants.

2.2 GENERAL RESPONSE TO OPEN-PLAN OFFICES

How do user attitudes towards the open-plan office compare with those

towards the conventional, partitioned office? In general, the data

regarding user satisfaction with the two types of offices are inconclusive, reflecting the variety of contexts and methods under which such

studies have been carried out. Nemecek and Grand jean (1973), for

example, studied user response in six different open-plan office buildings in Europe and reported that 59 percent of those surveyed would

accept another job in a large-scale office, while 37 percent preferred a

5
conventional one. They concluded that "the advantages of the large-space

office outweigh the disadvantages for the majority of those concerned.

Harris (1978), on the other hand, found that a sample of employees drawn

from a number of conventional offices in the United States were more positive about their workplaces than were those working in open-plan

offices.

Some studies have appeared to indicate that the open-plan office is

superior to the conventional office in appearance but not in function.

As Brookes (1972) notes, "it looks better but it works worse." Elder

et al. (1979) similarly found that occupants of the offices in the

building they studied (over 80 percent of which was open-plan) judged

their offices to be much better in appearance than the previous offices

occupied, but slightly worse in suitability for performance of their

jobs. Many open-plan offices that are studied have new finishes and

furnishings and this fact presents a methodological challenge to attempts

to compare their appearance with that of conventional offices that may

not have been as nicely furnished.

2. 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES

2.3.1 Lighting

Survey studies have often shown that occupants consider lighting as one

of the most satisfactory aspects of the office environment. Wolgers

(1973), Boyce (1974), and Elder et al. (1979) all found overwhelmingly

positive response to the lighting in the open-plan offices they studied;

in the latter instance, only four percent expressed dissatisfaction with

it.

Some studies have examined the relationship between illumination levels

and occupant satisfaction. Nemecek and Grand jean (1973) found that

lighting levels between 400 lux (37 footcandles) and 850 lux (75 fc) were judged best and were associated with fewer visual problems than

were levels beyond 1000 lux (93 fc). Boyce (1974) found that levels

of 400 lux (37 fc) were judged satisfactory, and 800 lux (74 fc) more satisfactory. Kraemer et al. (1977) measured light levels of generally

between 600 lux (56 fc) and 900 lux (84 fc) and reported that most

people felt the lighting was satisfactory. These studies were all conducted in Europe and the ranges of satisfactory light levels reported

might not be generalizable to other cultures.

There is some evidence, however, that factors such as brightness

contrast and direct glare from lamps are also important predictors of

satisfaction with lighting. Kraemer et al. (1977), for example, found

that the level of illumination at work stations "influenced people's

opinions either for or against lighting and office conditions" in

65 percent of all cases; lighting contrasts on the ceiling and in adjacent areas influenced opinions 75 percent of the time; and shading of

lamps did so in 80 percent of all cases. The authors conclude that these

6
results show the importance of properly shading lamps to avoid direct

glare and adhering to standards for the contrast range of colors

and materials when designing rooms.

Another qualitative factor affecting opinion is color rendition.

Laboratory research (Aston and Bellchambers , 1969) has shown that if

people feel a light source provides good color rendition, they are satisfied with less light than if the source gives poorer color rendition. A survey study by Williams (197 5) showed that high pressure

sodium lighting, which is efficient but gives certain colors an unusual

appearance, was generally acceptable to users, but Flynn (1977) concluded

that high pressure sodium lighting "should probably not be simply substituted for the more conventional spectra developed by the common fluorescent sources" when subjective acceptability is an important consideration.

Williams lists the following conditions as "usually necessary for high

pressure sodium lighting to be fully acceptable:"

(1) The space should be lighted only with HPS sources.

(2) The colors of room surfaces and furniture should be selected

under HPS lighting.

(3) HPS lighting looks better the further the illumination

level is increased above 50 footcandles.

Several studies have appeared to show a strong preference for daylight

over artificial light (Manning, 1965; Wells, 1965; Markus, 1967).

Elder et al. (1979) found that over 70 percent preferred a combination

of natural and artificial light, but that those who favored only natural

light outnumbered those who favored only artificial light by almost

a 2:1 margin. There appears to have been little research done on the

relationship between satisfaction with lighting and the ratio of daylight

to artificial light. Elder et al. (1979) found extremely high satisfaction (93 percent) in a building with 100 percent glazing on two facades,

but Ruys (1970) found that response was also positive in the absence of

any daylight.

One methodological problem associated with survey studies of daylighting

preference is the difficulty of controlling for potentially confounding

variables such as view and illumination level. For instance, to what

extent is the preference for daylighting really masking a preference

for view or higher light levels? A clearer understanding of the relative

importance of daylight, view, and illumination levels to building occupants would provide useful information to building designers, but determining these relationships requires a high degree of control over experimental conditions that is usually possible only in laboratory

studies.

The task/ambient concept of lighting, emphasizing the concentration of

light in areas where it is needed, has been incorporated into many

open-plan offices in the form of "systems furniture" lighting, in which

7
the main light source is built into the work station itself. The

advantage of lighting at the work station is that desks can be moved

without seriously affecting the lighting, and energy may be saved by

eliminating overillumi nation of nonwork areas. Goodrich (1978) reported

very high acceptance of task lighting in the building he studied. However, research on the user response to task lighting has been limited,

and has been hampered by the fact that the superior furniture and decor

generally associated with the use of task lighting may influence opinions

of it. Thus, any conclusion about the general acceptability of task

lighting would be premature without further research.

2.3.2 Noise

Although acoustical comfort appears to be fairly important to office

occupants (Harris, 1978; Elder et al. , 1979), noise is a common source

of dissatisfaction in open-plan offices. Nemecek and Grand jean (1973),

for instance, found that 35 percent of the people in their study of

open-plan offices were severely disturbed by noise and that only 20 percent were not bothered at all. They also found that "acoustic disturbances" were more than twice as numerous as "visual disturbances.

Kraemer et al. (1977) reported that 58 percent of those surveyed said

there were certain noises which they found particularly disturbing in

their offices, and Elder et al. (1979) found that 54 percent felt their

offices were sometimes so noisy that it was difficult to work.

The response of office occupants to the acoustical climate does not

appear to be simply a function of noise level. Rather, the relationship between potentially disturbing noises and the background noise

level appears to be of primary importance in determining the level

of occupant satisfaction. As Lloyd (1974) notes, unsatisfactory conditions can result from too little noise in the office as well as too

much, because a certain amount of background noise is necessary to

mask impact sounds and voices. In recognition of this fact, designers

will often introduce background noise, such as music or "white" noise,

into open-plan offices to lessen distractions from peak noises and to

improve speech privacy. Such noise often has a spectral shape that

allows it to blend in with other background noises, such as ventilation

system noise.

Noise from conversations has frequently been identified as the most

disturbing type of noise in open-plan offices (Brookes, 1972; Nemecek

and Grandjean, 1973; Elder et al. , 1979). Nemecek and Grandjean (1973)

found that conversations were the most disturbing office noise not

because they were particularly loud, but because of their information

content. Boyce (1974) concluded that information content and unpredictability were largely responsible for noise disturbances. Office machines

and telephones are usually mentioned as other major sources of noise,

but the distribution of office machines can have a significant effect

on how annoying they are. Kraemer et al. (1977) noted that where

8
typewriters were scattered throughout the office, 43 percent of the

people surveyed considered them very disturbing, but where they were grouped together, only seven percent did.

A problem frequently associated with open-plan offices is the absence

of auditory privacy. Designers have used several techniques to try to ensure auditory privacy, including masking noises, lightweight partitions, and increased distances between occupants. These techniques do

not appear to have achieved a high degree of success, however. Harris

(1978), for example, reported that open-plan office workers generally

felt they had less conversational privacy than did workers in conven- tional offices and Elder et al. (1979) found that occupants of open-plan

offices frequently complained of the lack of privacy.

Some studies of open-plan offices have indicated that internally

generated noise is much more of a problem than outside street noise.

Nemecek and Grand jean (1973), for example, reported only a single

mention of external noise, and Elder et al. (1979) found that only

three percent were bothered by it in a "sealed" building whose windows

could not be opened. By contrast, studies of conventional offices have

often shown that street noise is more disturbing to occupants than

internal noise (Manning, 1965). However, factors other than differences in interior space design make it difficult to compare the relative

contributions of internal and external noise to acoustic conditions

in open-plan and conventional offices. For instance, since conventional

offices are, as a group, older than open-plan offices, they are more likely to use natural ventilation. The location of an office with

respect to street traffic is another important factor.

The response to office noise has been found to vary with the type of

occupation. Nemecek and Grand jean (1973) found that only about 10 percent of managers were not bothered by noise, compared to 30 percent

of the clerical workers. Boyce (1974) similarly noted that about

70 percent of the managers and professionals were often disturbed by

noise, whereas only about 45 percent of clerical and secretarial

workers were.

2.3.3 Temperature and Ventilation

Cooper, Hardy, and Wiltshire (1974) and Elder et al. (1979) identified

thermal comfort as a very important quality of satisfactory office

environments. Nemecek and Grandjean (1973) and Kraemer et al. (1977)

reported positive responses to temperatures during both summer and

winter. Most of the offices in these studies had room temperatures

off70°-75°F (21°-24°C). On the other hand, Boyce (1974) noted problems,

especially during the heating season; room temperatures in his study

averaged about 70°F (21 °C). Wolgers (1973) also found a somewhat negative response, and Elder et al. (1979) found extreme dissatisfaction,

although actual temperature levels were not reported in either study.

9
A common technique used in studying the thermal comfort of office workers

has been to ask them to vote at regular intervals on the quality of the

themal environment. Humphreys and Nicol (1970) used this approach in

a study of British office workers. Each desk was provided with a monitor

on which a vote was cast every hour. A seven-point continuum scale was

used, with "much too warm" and "much too cold" as the endpoints.

Humphreys and Nicol found that if people were properly clothed, they

could be comfortable over a rather wide range of temperatures. They

also noted that simple globe temperature measures predicted thermal

comfort as well as did more complex measurements.

The question of how to extend the range of temperatures in offices

without causing worker discomfort has received attention recently. Gagge

and Nevins (1976) conducted a questionnaire survey of thermal preferences

in a Federal office building to determine reaction to temperatures of

68°-70°F (20°-21°C-) in winter and 78°-80°F (26°-27°C) in summer. They

found that the lower temperatures could be made acceptable to 80 percent

of suitably dressed persons if their legs and feet were covered, while

the higher temperatures could be made acceptable by wearing lighter

clothing, increasing air movement, or reducing humidity.

Some survey studies have shown statistically significant sex differences

in the response to temperature, with women reporting that they feel too

cold much more often than men. This may be due to the fact that women

dress more lightly than men rather than to any biological difference,

since laboratory studies in which both groups were equally clothed have

not shown any such differential sensitivity to temperature (Fanger,

1977).

Ventilation is often studied in conjunction with temperature, perhaps

because of the way in which these two features closely interact to

determine satisfaction. Proper ventilation, for instance, requires

an optimum rate of air movement that varies with temperature. Cold

temperatures in combination with excessive air movement produce com- plaints of draftiness, while increased air movement is desirable when

temperatures are warm to avoid feelings of stuffiness.

Studies of the response to ventilation in offices have dealt mainly

with the problem of drafts. Nemecek and Grand jean (1973) noted that

30 percent of those surveyed reported being disturbed by drafts, but

the researchers were unable to account for this finding in terms of

the existing physical conditions (rates of air movement). Kraemer et al.

(1977) found that 60 percent of the office occupants they questioned

never noticed drafts. Elder et al. (1979), however, found widespread

dissatisfaction with the ventilation, although the physical basis of

this negative response was not clear.

Ventilation problems typically occur more often for women than for men (Nemecek and Grand jean, 1973; Boyce, 1974; Kraemer et al. , 1977).

The reason for this appears to be that women tend to wear lighter

clothing than men and are thus more affected by cold drafts.

10
2.3.4 Windows

In addition to increasing the amount of light in offices, windows

serve as an important component of the visual environment by providing

occupants with sunshine and a view, or visual contact with the outside

world. Elder et al. (1979) found that the most often mentioned advantages of windows were providing a change of view to break monotony,

allowing the occupant to see what the weather was like, and providing

sunshine. Collins (1975) has summarized the literature on psychological

reactions to windows.

Research on user response to windows has concentrated on such topics

as the general importance of windows to building occupants, identification of window benefits, and preferred window size and shape.

Survey methods have been used extensively in the first two areas,

while experimental techniques are common in studying size and shape

preferences.

Although windows may not be as important to building occupants as other environmental features, such as noise, temperature, and lighting

(Elder et al. , 1979), their absence from a building can cause considerable dissatisfaction. Ruys (1970), for example, surveyed workers in

five windowless office buildings and found that 90 percent expressed

dissatisfaction with the lack of windows and nearly 50 percent thought

this had an adverse effect on them or their work. Similarly, Elder

et al. (1979) found that almost half of those surveyed said it was

"very important" to have a window in their office, while only 13 percent

said it was "not important."

View appears to be the most important window benefit for office workers

(Collins, 1975, pp. 53, 76). Wells (1965) reported that 90 percent

thought it was important to have a view of the outside world, while

only one percent thought a good view was not important. Cooper et al.

(1974) found that only 13 percent felt a good view was not important.

Keighley (197 3a), using a scale model approach, determined that window

satisfaction was strongly influenced by the quality of the view.

Another important benefit provided by windows is sunshine (direct

sunlight). In a survey by Ne'eman and Longmore (1973), 73 percent of

office workers wanted some sunshine in their offices, while only 24 percent thought sunshine was a nuisance. Ne'eman and Longmore found

that the desire for sunshine depended on the type of building, the kind

of activities performed, and the amount of occupant control over sunshine. In homes, for instance, where occupants can regulate their

exposure to direct sunlight by using shading devices or by simply moving

out of the sun, 90 percent or more of those surveyed wanted sunshine,

while in schools, where occupants generally do not have access to

shading devices and spend most of their time in fixed sitting positions,

only 42 percent wanted sunshine. There was also a dramatic difference

in the desire for sunshine between hospital patients, on the one hand,

and the hospital staff, on the other. Only two percent of the patients

11
thought sunshine was a "nuisance, " while 62 percent of the hospital

staff did. Ne'eman (1974) suggests that "the difference In the response

to the Sun by people performing different activities within the same Interior Is an Important criterion for proper environmental design.

Boyce (1974) and Elder et al. (1979) studied satisfaction with window

size using survey methods. In the study by Boyce, windows covered only

13 percent of the exterior walls, while In the study by Elder et al.

,

the entire north and south facades were glazed. Boyce found that

although occupant opinion of the window size was slightly more positive

than negative, there was much variability of response and a substantial

minority was dissatisfied. Elder et al. found that 65 percent were satisfied with the window size, while only 16 percent were dissatisfied.

Some researchers have tried to determine acceptable window sizes and

shapes by using scale model techniques In which an office environment

of reduced size Is presented to the subject. Window size and shape

are either adjusted by the subject or systematically varied by the

researcher. Using this approach, Ne'eman and Hopklnson (1970) found

that In order to satisfy 50 percent of the people, a window had to

co"er at least 25 percent of the wall; to satisfy 85 percent. It needed

to cov^.r at least 35 percent of the wall. Ne'eman and Hopklnson also

found that window width was more Important than height In determining

preferred size, and that preferred shape depended on the distance from

the window and on the type of view (near or far). Kelghley (1973b)

also used a scale model approach and concluded that for optimum user

satisfaction, a window must occupy at least 20 percent of the wall.

In a related study, Kelghley (1973a) determined that a wide window was preferable to a narrow one. Ludlow (1976) studied preferred size and

shape as a function of view for a scale model of an open-plan office.

View content and distance from the window were found to have significant

effects on size and shape preferences. Ludlow agreed with Ne'eman and

Hopklnson (1970) and Kelghley (1973a) In finding that horizontal views were preferred to vertical ones, but disagreed with them In that he

found much larger preferred window sizes (50-80 percent of the exterior

wall).

For most people, the benefits provided by windows appear to be more Important than any drawbacks, such as letting In hot air In summer

and cold air In winter, glare, and outside noise. Although some sunlight Is often preferred by building occupants, an excess of It can produce both visual and thermal discomfort. Elder et al. (1979)

found that overheating due to windows was often a problem according

to 27 percent of those surveyed, and that 29 percent often noticed

cold drafts near windows. Since the windows In that study covered

100 percent of two of the exterior walls, however, these results may not

be typical of office buildings with less window area. Also, some people

may have responded to the HVAC system Instead of to the windows.

Despite the large windows, only three percent were often bothered by

12
glare, and no one was especially bothered by noise near the windows.

Nemecek and Grand jean (1973) also reported that window glare was not

a serious problem in "strongly lit" offices.

2.4 CONCLUSIONS

The research studies which have been reviewed in this section provide

a context for the evaluation of the Norris Cotton Building. As evidenced by the studies examined here, the field of building evaluation

lacks the standardized methods of investigation and the information

base that would allow precise comparisons with other buildings. Nevertheless, the patterns of responses obtained in these studies can serve

as a general basis for comparison with the responses obtained in the

Norris Cotton Building surveys.

13
Facing page:

Solar overhangs and vertical fins > the exterior facades of the I^orr^s

Cotton Building reduce glare and

overheating

.

14
DESCRIPTION OF THE NORRIS COTTON BUILDING

The Norris Cotton Building is considered a "living laboratory" for

testing and evaluating methods to conserve energy in office buildings.

It is among the first Federal buildings to be designed with energy

efficiency in mind throughout the design process and is one of the few

buildings in which energy consumption has been thoroughly monitored.

15
The Norris Cotton Building is located in downtown Manchester, New

Hampshire (figure 2). The building is nearly cubical in shape, has two

underground levels of parking garage, seven office floors, and a mechanical penthouse. The building contains approximately 97,6U0 square feet

(9,070 square meters) of office space and 78,740 square feet (7,320 square

meters) of garage and mechanical space. Among the significant unique

features incorporated in the building are:

• a variety of interior illumination systems;

• innovative energy conserving heating, air conditioning,

and ventilating systems and in conjunction with these

massive exterior walls with the insulation on the

exterior side of the masonry, between the masonry and

facing panels to minimize the effects from outdoor

temperature;

• no windows on the north wall and small window areas on

the south, east, and west walls to reduce heat loss..

The energy consumption of the building is monitored by means of sensors and meters throughout the building. An extensive instrumentation

system was specified for the building using a commercially available

minicomputer-based building monitoring and control system. The system

is used to calculate hourly average values in engineering units from

approximately 700 temperature, humidity, flow, radiation, electric

energy, and illumination sensors.

Due to unforeseen delays, the instrumentation system did not become

operational until after both questionnaires had been administered.

Therefore, only sketchy physical measurements were available during

the time occupant response data were being collected.

3.1 ENERGY CONSERVING DESIGN FEATUBIES

3.1.1 Lighting

Six different illumination systems, all drawing approximately the same power per unit floor area, are used in the building. Table 1 lists

the luminaire types installed on the various floors. The first and

third floors have identical luminaires, but differ in the type of

lenses installed (i.e., the extent of polarization of the light).

The second and sixth floors have identical lighting systems, but differ

in the amount of fenestration, and therefore, the amount of daylighting.

On the second floor, photoelectric cells automatically turn off the

artificial lights when natural light levels are sufficient. The three

perimeter rows of lighting along the south, east, and west sides of

the building are connected to three independent photoelectric switches

which switch the lights off one row at a time from the extreme outer

row to the inner rows when sufficient daylight is available. These

cells are equipped with a 30-second time delay device to prevent the

16
' -f -I

Scale

Figure 2. Map of Manchester, New Hampshire, showing the location

of the Norris Cotton Building and the Federal agencies prior to their relocation to the Norris Cotton Buildin

17

i
lights from switching off and on when outside light levels change for

brief periods. (In actual use, the photocells almost never received

enough daylight to be triggered.) The fourth floor has high pressure

sodium lamps. These lamps differ from the fluorescent in two ways:

1) a large percentage of the light emitted is in the yellow region

of the visible spectrum, and 2) the high pressure sodium lamps have

a longer warm-up time (it is several minutes from the time the switch

is activated before the lamp reaches full light output). The fifth

floor has "systems furniture" with built-in task lighting. Each desk

is illuminated by metal halide lamps mounted in the top of an adjacent

cabinet. These lamps provide indirect illumination by reflecting

light off the ceiling onto the work surface. An additional work surface

underneath the cabinet is directly illuminated by fluorescent lamps.

Table 1. Lighting Systems in the Norris

Cotton Building

Floor Lamp Ty pe Lens Type

1 Fluorescent Prismatic

2 Fluorescent (plus

natural lighting

and photocell

control on perimeter)

Twin beam

3 Fluorescent Polarized

4 High Pressure Sodium Prismatic

5 Metal Halide and

Fluorescent

Task-lit systems

furniture

6 Fluorescent Twin beam

7 Fluorescent Prismatic

NOTE: The lamps and lenses on floors one interchangeable.

and three are

18
After the building had been occupied for eight months (May 1977), NBS

made physical measurements of the various illumination systems.

Tables 2 and 3 give illumination levels and contrast rendition factors*

obtained for each system.

3.1.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems

The HVAC systems at the Norris Cotton Building include heat pumps,

fan coil units, heat storage and recovery devices, variable volume air

distribution, and liquid-heating solar collectors. Each of the floors

in the building utilizes a different type HVAC system. Table 4 lists

the HVAC systems installed on the various floors. As table 4 shows,

there are two main types of systems: heat pump systems, which are used on floors one through three; and central equipment systems, on floors four through seven.

In February 1977, measurements of the temperature and ventilation

conditions in the building were made. A thermographic study (Richtmyer

et al. , 1979) showed that there were more cold surfaces on the first

three floors of the building, especially on the east and west walls.

Concurrent ventilation measurements using a tracer gas (Hunt, 1979)

revealed that the air in the building as a whole was replaced by fresh

air from the outside at the rate of about 0.75 changes per hour. The

air change rate on the first three floors, however, was much higher

than on the upper four floors (1.03 and 0.54 changes per hour,

respective ly ).

3.1.3 Windows

There are no windows on the north facade (service functions have been

placed against this wall). Windows on the east, west, and south facades

allow about six percent fenestration, with a 1.2 ft x 5.3 ft

(0.4 m X 1.6 m) window every 10 feet (3 meters). On the second floor

the window area encompasses 12 percent of the exterior wall area on the

east, west, and south facades in order to increase the amount of natural

light. The additional windows are long, narrow, and placed horizontally

near the ceiling between the vertical windows (figure 3). Also there

is a six-foot overhang above the windows on the second floor. All of

the, windows are double-glazed (the interior glazing is clear and the

exterior glazing has a bronze tint) with Venetian blinds built into the

space between the glass panes. The blinds are fixed in the down position

with the slats at the horizontal angle (figure 4).

* Contrast rendition factor is a qualitative measure of the lighting

determined by dividing the contrast of the task under the lighting

system by the contrast of the task, under a reference lighting system

in which the light flux on the task is equal from all directions.

The higher the contrast rendition factor is, the better the lighting.

19
Table 2

Illuminance (dekalux) at Task Surface with Contrast Measuring Instruments

in Place

North^ East South West

Floor Location^ ROL R OL RO L RO L

1 NC2 99,.2 90 .1 98,.6 97,.5 90,.2 NCI 88,.2 95,.2 88,.8 102 115 NCI 98,.0 105 96,.8 96,.8 105

• J OJ ,. 0 94

,

94

,

.8 86

.

, 2

2 DRl 66,.3 68,.9 67,.8 60,.6 64 .8 DR3 73,.8 71,.3 74,.8 74,.8 81,.0 DR3 77,.7 73,.5 79,.2 76,.3 80 .7

NRl 47,.7 49,.8 48,.4 41,.0 46,.3 NR2 58,.7 56,.5 58,.3 57,.7 65 .1 NR3 70,.6 66 .7 72,.6 68,.3 76,.4

3 NC2 55,.6 47,.6 54,.0 56,.1 48,.4 NCI 55,.3 59,.6 55,.3 56..1 62,.0 NCI 53,.8 59,.7 53,.8 54,.2 60,.5 NC2 53,.6 45,.5 52,.5 53..8 45,.8

4 NS3 97,.4 96,.8 96,,8 94,.2 57,.6 NSl 112 112 110 115 114 NS2 76,.4 91,.7 75,,4 77,.4 91,.4 NS3 116 68,.6 121 127 126

5 Dl 57,.8 63 .2 D2 65,,1 62,.0 61..9 D3 64,.9 57,.9 52,.1 D4 67..1 60,.0

6 DRl 54,.0 53,.8 53,,4 46,.2 49,.6 DR3 67 ,.8 63,.9 68,,0 62.,6 73,.9 DR3 67,.7 61,,4 65,,6 69..8 72,.4

7 NS2 49,.5 59,.3 48,.1 46.,3 58,,1 NSl 78,.5 79,.3 78..2 77..0 79,.1

98,.2 95,.4 87..7 97.4 96..8 87,.7 96.3

102 87.,2 112 102 87..2 93..6 86.6

97,.9 96..8 104 96.8 97.,1 105 97.9

93,.8 94..8 86..9 94.3 94..8 86..1 93.6

69,.7 66,.0 60,.5 65.1 72..6 66..6 62.3

73,.2 76..2 71..6 75.1 73.,2 81..5 75.6

77,,1 80..2 74,.8 75.5 79..1 86..5 78.8

52,.3 44..8 38,.7 45.0 53.,2 46,.6 42.1

58,.9 58.,6 54,.6 59.4 58..6 65,,2 58.3

71,.0 71..1 66,.6 68.4 68.,3 77..6 70.0

55,.3 56,.0 49,.6 56.0 55..3 48..5 55.0

56,,5 55..0 59,.8 56.4 55..6 59..2 55.3

55,.1 54..7 58,.6 54.2 53..6 59..2 53.5

52,.7 53.,7 46.,2 53.3 53..5 46..1 53.4

92,.0 95..8 96..3 96.8 93..1 59..2 90.9

112 113 118 114 110 114 114

75 .4 75..3 90,.7 76.8 75,.3 92..4 75.4

126 126 77..5 121 128 131 132

64.7

62.3

56,.2 50,.4 45 .4 48.9 56.8 50,.6 46,.7 68..2 68..2 61,,7 65.6 67.8 75,.2 64.,7 69,.1 74,.2 74,.2 74.

A

67.8 74,.6 71..8

48..5 46,.9 57,.9 46.7 47.1 57,,1 46..4 78..7 76,.4 79,.0 78.7 76.6 80,,4 78..0

From Yonemura et al. (1978).

^ Direction in which photometer, simulating a typical worker, faces. 0 = photometer directly facing the indicated compass point; R and L = photometer facing 45° to the right and left, respectively, of the Indicated compass point.

2 N = artificial light only, D = artificial light plus daylight; C = checkerboard luminaire spacing, R = continuous rows of luminaires, S = symmetrical luminaire spacing; 1 = directly under luminaire,

2 = centered between 4 luminaires, 3 = centered between 2 luminaires.

20
Table 3

Contrast Rendition Factors Obtained with Photometric Techniques

North'' East South West

Floor Location^ ROLROL ROL ROL

1 NC2 . 929 .816 91

3

.954 .815 .907 .992 .882 .986 .975 .894 976

NCI . 951 .970 859 .919 .948 892 .908 .957 .867 .881 .959 .884 NC

1

Q Q 7

. 982 961 . 946 .988 .925 .946 .952 .925 .940 .917 965 NC2 .986 .886 1 012 1 .008 .929 994 .980 .918 1.026 .998 .917 .965

2 DRl 1 .010 .987 1 052 1 .044 1 .033 I 048 1 .002 1 .037 1 . 038 1 .02

1

1 .045 1 031 DR3 . yoi QOA 955 1 . 029 972 1 .000 . 879 .992 .954 1 .015 920 DR3 . 92

1

1 053 .970 1 . 047 984 .962 .915 9.46 .969 . 996 96

1

NRl .970 .878 924 1 009 1 .007 959 .954 1.066 .986 .906 .946 923

NR3 . 889 . 890 .821 .865 .974 1 .010 .875 .837 .887 .891 .858 .845 NR3 Q 0 1

. 827 917 877 1 .034 889 .912 .816 .909 .886 .981 .868

3 NC2 1.043 .979 1 051 1 .088 .967 1 051 1.027 .987 1.055 1.119 .965 1 .033 NCI .934 .940 930 1 019 .935 940 .918 1 .076 .954 .899 .967 957 NCI . y i i . 92 2 . 939 .948 . 943 . 947 .968 .919 .969 .911 . 928 NC2 1.011 .976 1 084 1 076 .919 1 070 1.043 .944 1.018 .999 .955 .968

4 NS3 .984 1.004 968 999 .641 .914 .937 .983 .984 .991 .641 1 .057 NSl .901 .875 866 .874 .845 880 .916 .852 .885 .959 .867 .937 NS2 1.004 1.066 1 013 .988 1 .059 .983 .993 1.130 .943 .985 1 .038 .962 NS3 1.018 .659 990 .906 1 .002 1 112 .995 .510 1.057 .982 .987 .977

5 Dl .941 .924 872

D2 .899 .976 645

D3 .924 .957 1 023

D4 .762 .904 973

6 DRl 1.007 .939 1 017 1 .045 .995 .995 1.109 1.146 .977 1.021 .961 1 000

DR3 .935 .856 952 .921 1 .069 934 .959 .850 .923 .899 1 .050 .937 DR3 .975 1.010 1 027 .871 1 .012 1 009 1.069 .886 .972 1.069 .999 946

7 NS2 .996 1.106 944 1 .020 1 .036 970 1.016 1.046 .980 .999 1 .042 1 022

NSl .894 .839 858 914 .881 .867 .896 .859 .889 .892 .974 .862

From Yonemura et al. (1978).

^ A no. 2 pencil mark on standard bond paper served as the reference task.

^ Direction in which photometer, simulating a typical worker, faces. 0 = photometer directly facing the indicated compass point; R and L = photometer facing 45° to the right and left, respectively, of the indicated compass point.

N = artificial light only, D = artificial light plus daylight; C = checkerboard lumlnaire spacing, R = continuous rows of lumlnaires, S = symmetrical lumlnaire spacing; 1 = directly under luminaire,

2 = centered between 4 luminaires, 3 = centered between 2 luminaires.

21
Table 4. Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems

in the Norris Cotton Building

Floor Perimeter Zone Interior Zone

Heating/cooling heat

pump, with variable

air volume boxes

Heat pump with variable

air volume boxes

Heating/cooling heat

pump, console units

under windows

Heat pump with variable

air volume boxes

Heating/cooling heat

pump, with variable

air volume boxes

Heating, hot water

radiation; cooling,

variable air volume

boxes

Heat pump with variable

air volume boxes

Central air handling

unit with single duct,

variable air volume

boxes

Heating/cooling

double duct, variable

air volume boxes

Heating /cooling fan

coil units

Central air handling

unit with single duct,

variable air volume

boxes

Central air handling

unit with single duct,

variable air volume

boxes

Heating/cooling fan

coil units

Central air handling

unit with single duct,

variable air volume

boxes

22
Figure 3. Second floor windows in Norris Cotton Building
3.2 INTERIOR SPACE OCCUPANCY AND DESIGN

The Norris Cotton Building contains seven floors of office space occupied

by various Federal agencies with approximately 400 employees. The first

floor is occupied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) with approximately 25 employees; the second and third floors by the Veterans Administration (VA) with a total of about 90 employees; the fourth floor by

the Armed Forces Examining Station (AFES) with about 40 employees; the

fifth floor by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

with about 70 employees; the sixth floor by the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS) with about 60 employees; and finally the seventh floor has two

senators' offices, a congressman's office and several agencies with a small number of employees.

The layout of most areas in the building consists of open-plan offices

with a minimum of ceiling-high partitions. An exception is the fourth

floor, occupied by AFES, which has been subdivided into medical examination rooms, laboratory space, testing rooms, private offices, and

conference rooms. The seventh floor also has been subdivided since

several groups are located there.

Facing page;

The tilt angle of the solar oolleotor

panels on the Norris Cotton Building

can he adjusted to obtain the

maximum benefit from the sun.

24
4. RESEARCH APPROACH

Occupant response to the Norris Cotton Building was assessed in two

ways. First, observations were made and selective personal interviews

conducted in various agencies prior to their relocation to the Norris

Cotton Building. Second, two questionnaires — one six months after

occupancy, the other eight months later — were sent to all occupants

of the building.

The original research plan stressed an examination of the relationships

between the subjective response data obtained by means of the

25
questionnaires and the physical data collected by the sensors located

throughout the building. Unfortunately, detailed and consistent physical

measurements were not available for the periods during which the questionnaires were administered and only very rough conclusions could be drawn

concerning the effect of actual environmental conditions on the occupants.

4. 1 OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS PRIOR TO RELOCATION TO THE

NORRIS COTTON BUILDING

In August 1976, observations were made, photographs taken, and interviews

conducted at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Veterans Administration (VA), and the Armed Forces Examining Station (AFES) prior to

their relocation to the Norris Cotton Building. The interviews covered

employee reaction to their then current environment, impressions about

the Norris Cotton Building, and attitudes toward the upcoming move. The insights gained in this phase served as a reference for the

interpretation of responses to the Norris Cotton Building.

4.2 FIRST MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE

In March 1977, a questionnaire was distributed to every employee in

the Norris Cotton Building. By March, the employees had been in the

building six months and had experienced a winter in their new offices.

Six months was felt to be sufficient time for people to adapt to their new environment and also to ensure that the building environmental

control systems were functioning.

The questionnaires were mailed to the chief of each agency. The chief

or his representative then distributed a questionnaire to each employee.

Prior to the implementation of this procedure a personal interview was conducted with the chief of each agency explaining the purpose of the

questionnaire and the involvement of NBS in the evaluation of the Norris

Cotton Building. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter

briefly explaining the nature of the project, indicating that anonymity

would be maintained, and providing the name of a NBS contact. The

respondents could return the completed questionnaires directly to NBS

or each agency could collect its questionnaires and return them as

a group. Most of the questionnaires were returned in groups by the

agencies. Two hundred ninety-two completed questionnaires were returned - a return rate of 75 percent.

The questionnaire was developed using information from existing

questionnaires and from the interviews conducted prior to the move. It was pretested at NBS and on a limited basis at the Norris Cotton Building.

The questionnaire had 47 questions and required between 10 and 20 minutes

to complete. It began with questions concerning the occupants ' general

impressions of the Norris Cotton Building. For example: "Is there

anything you particularly like about the Norris Cotton Federal Building?"

"Would you like to change your present office in any way? If yes, how?"

These early questions tended to be open-ended and general in order

26
to elicit opinions from the occupants without drawing attention to

specific environmental attributes. Questions were then asked about

more specific topics such as the lighting; noise, particularly as it

related to the open-plan offices; the thermal environment; and the

windows, especially their size and the view from them.

The questionnaire concluded with "personal" information such as floor

number, sex, age category, and general job category. A statement on

the questionnaire assured respondents that this information would be

used for data analysis only and would not be used to identify individuals. (The initial (March 1977) questionnaire and the accompanying

cover letter are reproduced in appendix A.

)

4.3 SECOND MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE

The chief of each agency or his representative distributed the second

questionnaire to the employees in mid-November 1977. This was after

the employees had occupied the building for slightly over a year and

had experienced both winter and summer weather conditions.

The second questionnaire was essentially the same as the first. A few

questions were eliminated, for example, those asking the employees to

compare the Norris Cotton Building with their previous office, and some questions were consolidated. As a result of responses to the open-ended

questions on the first questionnaire, a question was added about satisfaction with parking, elevators, eating facilities, and exterior appearance. Sixty percent (230) of the questionnaires were returned. (The

second (November 1977) questionnaire and the accompanying cover letter

are reproduced in appendix B.)

27
Facing page:

windows in the Norris Cotton Building

ave generally smaller' and nxxrvowev than in other office huild%ngs.

28
5. RESULTS

5. 1 OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS PRIOR TO RELOCATION TO THE

NORRIS COTTON BUILDING

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was located on the ground floor of a building in the center of the shopping area of downtown Manchester

(figure 2). The office had a street front entrance with large windows

around the perimeter, a cafeteria, and free, readily available street

parking.

29
The Interior space was designed with private and semi-private offices

around the outside and open-plan offices in the interior area. (Figure 5

shows a photograph of the exterior of the IRS office. Security

regulations prohibited interior photographs.)

In general, the IRS interview results indicated that the employees

were satisfied with their location and offices (although they were occasionally cold in the winter). They had very practical concerns

about moving to the Norris Cotton Building and felt that the new

building needed more elevators, more parking, and a cafeteria. The

employees also were troubled about moving to the sixth floor and no longer being easily accessible to their clientele. The individuals

interviewed had not visited the Norris Cotton Building, but were aware of the solar collectors on the roof. Several of the employees

were bothered about the possibility of being located near the blank

north wall.

The Veterans Administration (VA) was located in an older building at

a far end of town (figure 2). The building had high ceilings, wood

panelling, large openable windows, window unit air conditioners, and

draperies in most areas. (Photographs of the building and an interior

office are shown in figures 6 and 7.)

The employees conveyed the impression that they liked the character

and location of the building. Discussion about the move to the

Norris Cotton Building brought up concerns about lunch and parking.

The employees indicated that although their older building did not

have a cafeteria, a number of satisfactory restaurants were located

nearby. Also, the building had parking lots to accommodate the

entire staff.

The Armed Forces Examining Station (AFES) was located in the same building as the VA (figure 2). (Figure 8 shows one of the old AFES

offices.) Several of the Individuals interviewed had actually been

in the Norris Cotton Building. They disliked the lack of parking

and lunch facilities and the extremely small windows. Their main

concern, however, was with the lighting system that had been installed.

They were to occupy the fourth floor illuminated by high pressure

sodium lamps. AFES employs doctors to perform physical examinations

on individuals being recruited by the armed services as well as laboratory technicians to analyze blood and urine samples —tasks that include

visual evaluation. The AFES commander felt the quality of the light

to be provided in the new building was inappropriate for these

visual evaluations, in which color discrimination is critical.

5.2 QUESTIONNAIRES

The results of the two questionnaires were analyzed in several ways.

First, percentages were calculated for the responses to each item.

These data appear in appendices A and B. Responses were then

analyzed by floor (appendices C and D), since each floor of the

30
Figure 5. Exterior of building housing previous IRS offices
Figure 8. Interior of a previous AFES office

32
Norris Cotton Building represents a different physical environment.

Questionnaire items were grouped by design feature, and summary tables

were developed comparing responses to each feature on the two questionnaires (appendix E). Finally, chi-square (x ) analyses were performed

to identify which differences were statistically significant (beyond

the .05 level).

For each questionnaire item, some respondents did not express an opinion or gave inappropriate responses. Usually, only a few responses

fell into these categories, especially for the key questions on satisfaction (item 9 of the first questionnaire, item 8 of the second), and

it was decided that eliminating these responses from the analysis would

not seriously alter the results. Second questionnaire data from the

seventh floor are not plotted in the figures reporting individual floor

responses because very few completed questionnaires were received from

that floor (item 36, appendix B),

5.2.1 General Response to the Norris Cotton Building

In the first part of the questionnaire, employees answered questions

concerning their general "likes" and "dislikes" about the Norris

Cbtton Building, changes desired in their offices, and which features

they considered most important in creating a good work environment.

Table 5 presents a summary of the major employee "likes" in the building.

As table 5 shows, the results of the two questionnaires — completed

six months and 14 months after occupancy of the building — were

essentially the same. Approximately two-thirds of the occupants liked

at least one aspect of the building (item 1 of both questionnaires).

Location ranked first, being cited as "convenient," "downtown," and

"central." Appearance and related aspects such as "newness" and

"cleanness" were other positive attributes.

The major "dislikes" are summarized in table 6. On the first

questionnaire, 83 percent disliked at least one aspect of the building

and on the second questionnaire, 79 percent (item 2 of both

questionnaires). The main problems identified by the building's

occupants were:

• The temperature was considered to be too cold and too variable.

• The elevators were too slow and unreliable.

• The amount of parking space available was inadequate.

• The windows were too small, there were too few of them, and

they could not be opened.

33
Table 5. Summary of Occupant "Likes"

First Questionnaire Number % Second Questionnaire Number %

(N = 265) (N = 213)

21 Ti_i vj r* d 1"

L. X1 awW11 fin \j\J ^ o

Appearance 38 14 Appearance 29 14

Newness 24 9 Newness 16 8

Cleanness 18 7 Lighting 15 7

Atmosphere 17 6 Atmosphere 13 6

Design 11 4 Cleanness 12 6

Table 6. Summary of Occupant "Dislikes"

First Questionnaire Number % Second Questionnaire Number %

(N=265) (N=213)

T* Om ^ T* O t~1lT*Q 1 cIUpcLcl LU-ITc 85 32 i empci acui

c

AQ

HiXcVdCOirS 70 26 jj xcva tor fa XO

48 18 IT a Living J

1

1

J. 7/

Wi ndows 47 18 Ventilation 31 14

Ventilation 45 17 Windows 26 12

Lack of cafeteria 35 13 Lighting 23 11

Heavy front doors 30 11 Lack of cafeteria 21 10

Lighting 29 11 Heavy front doors 16 7

34
• The amount of ventilation was excessive during the

heating season and inadequate during the cooling

season.

• The building had no cafeteria.

• The front entrance doors were too difficult to open,

particularly for the handicapped and elderly people

who often visited the Social Security Administration

offices in the building.

• The lighting on the fourth floor distorted colors,

caused annoying glare, and provided illumination

levels which were perceived to be too low.

Complete lists of the "likes" and "dislikes" reported on both questionnaires are contained in appendices F and G. Most respondents said they

would like to change one or more aspects of their offices (item 4

of both questionnaires). On both questionnaires, the most often mentioned changes desired were better temperature regulation, more privacy

(especially on the second and fifth floors), and greater window area. Other changes desired were better lighting (on the fourth floor), more

space, and less noise.

"Comfortable temperature" and "good light" were felt to be the two most

important physical features that determine the quality of the office

environment (item 8 of the first questionnaire, item 7 of the second).

All other features listed were considered much less important, though

each was mentioned by at least 10 percent of the respondents.

5.2.2 Response to Specific Design Features

Response to six features — lighting, noise, odor, ventilation, temperature, and windows — was examined in detail. Figure 9 summarizes

the response to these features. "Percent satisfied" is the percent

who said they were either "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with

the particular feature on item 9 of the first questionnaire (item 8

of the second). As figure 9 shows, the overall response to the lighting,

odor, and noise level was relatively positive, and to the temperature,

ventilation, and window size, negative. There were, however, a number

of differences in response to the various design alternatives tested

in each of these areas. These differences will now be considered.

5.2.2.1 Lighting

On both questionnaires, lighting was the most satisfactory design

feature in the building. In addition, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of persons who were satisfied with the

lighting on the second questionnaire (73 percent) as compared with the

number satisfied on the first questionnaire given eight months earlier

(62 percent). Follow-up questions on light levels, color rendition.

35
OaiJSIlVS lN33dad

36
and glare (items 20-23 of the first questionnaire, and items 18-21 of the

second) also yielded generally favorable opinions on both questionnaires,

with no statistically significant shifts in response over the eight

month interval between the questionnaires.

Figure 10 shows, however, an obvious lack of satisfaction with the high

pressure sodium lighting system as it was installed on the fourth floor.

Despite the fact that the illumination levels on the fourth floor were generally among the highest in the building (table 2), most persons

there felt that they had "too little light" to work by (item 20 of

appendix C, and item 18 of appendix D). By contrast, occupants of

other floors where the illumination levels were generally much lower

perceived the amount of light as "about right. " Many people also felt

that the high pressure sodium system distorted colors and caused annoying

glare (items 21-23 of appendix C, and items 19-21 of appendix D). As

table 3 shows, some unusually low contrast rendition factors were recorded on the fourth floor. This could be expected to produce com- plaints of poor task visibility if the placement of work stations was not carefully considered. More fourth floor occupants complained of

headaches and eyestrain than did occupants of other floors.

Response to the first and second floor lighting systems, on the other

hand, was consistently quite positive. On both questionnaires over

80 percent of the respondents on these two floors were satisfied with

the lighting. Both floors have uniformly spaced fluorescent lighting,

with added daylight on the second floor. Tables 1-3 give details on each of these systems, including both quantitative and qualitative

measurements of lighting effectiveness (illumination levels and contrast

rendition factors, respectively).

Task lighting was built into each fifth floor work station, thereby

concentrating light in those areas where it is needed. A description

of this system is provided in section 3.1.1. Despite the fact that this

system is quite different from those installed on the other floors, user satisfaction with the lighting was neither unusually high nor low com- pared with the other systems in the building (item 9a of appendix C, and

item 8a of appendix D).

Two other comparisons between systems were made. The second and the

sixth floors have identical lighting systems, with the exception that on the second floor horizontal windows near the ceiling provide more daylight (figure 3), and photoelectric switches shut off some of the

artificial lights when natural light levels reach a certain level (see

section 3.1.1). Statistical analyses revealed that on both questionnaires the second floor system (with about 90 percent satisfied) was significantly more satisfactory than the sixth floor system (about

60 percent satisfied).

Identical luminaires were installed on the first and third floors but

different lenses (originally prismatic on the first floor, polarized

on the third) were placed in them. In June 1977, the lenses were

37
CO

CM

CO 73

Q) •H

M-lCO •H

l-J

CO&Ou

Do<

a

•H

o

o

0) M-l ^ O

4-1 bO O C U -H

4-1 0) ^ CO 60 G -H O rH

cx

CO (U

OJ ^4J

3

bO

•H

05 CO CO m ^

CO CM

^

QBUSIIVS lN33d3d

38
interchanged in order to determine whether the polarized lenses had

been responsible for the lower level of satisfaction initially observed

on the third floor. On the second questionnaire, administered in

November 1977, however, satisfaction increased substantially on both

the first and third floors (figure 10). Thus no conclusions can be made

about the relative acceptability of the prismatic and polarized lenses

based on these data.

5.2.2.2 Noise

Although 50 percent of the respondents on the first questionnaire were satisfied with the noise level in their offices, 42 percent were dissatisfied. On the second questionnaire 53 percent were satisfied, and

35 percent dissatisfied with the noise level. On both questionnaires

more than 60 percent said their offices were never too noisy to work,

in (item 17 of the first questionnaire and item 15 of the second),

although 39 percent thought there was more noise in their present office

than in others they had worked in, while only 26 percent thought there was less (item 16 of the first questionnaire). Voices were the most

"noticeable" type of noise (item 18, first questionnaire) and the most

"bothersome" (item 16, second questionnaire). Telephones and office

machines ranked second and third.

A comparison of the noise climate in the open-plan and partitioned

offices in the building revealed statistically significant differences

in user response in terms of both the level of noise and its distractiveness (figures 11 and 12). On the first questionnaire, employees

in open-plan offices were more dissatisfied with the noise level and

had experienced more difficulty in working because of noise. Although

there was not a statistically significant difference in satisfaction

with the noise level on the second questionnaire, the difference in

the extent of work disruption due to noise persisted.

In contrast to most of the floors, the sixth floor response to noise

was very negative. On both questionnaires, less than 20 percent of the

sixth floor occupants were satisfied with the noise level (figure 13).

Nearly 90 percent said their current office was noisier than the last

one they had (item 16, first questionnaire); no one found it quieter.

Employees stated that the source of the noise problem was "white noise" or "ventilation system noise" (item 18 of the first questionnaire,

item 16 of the second). The sixth floor originally had white noise

generators but occupant complaints caused them to be turned off after an undetermined length of time.

On two floors there was a statistically significant change in

satisfaction between the first and second questionnaires. On the fifth

floor, it increased from 29 percent to 53 percent; on the second floor,

it decreased . from 64 percent to 45 percent. The reasons for these

shifts are not clear, but may be related to the fact that white noise

generators were initially installed on both of these floors, as on

39
I— X ^ ^ —

UJ IE n DC X CO to

> </} CO 00 — coo >o

7//////////////////////.

00

LU

o

o

LU

CO

It

CO

00

00

>-

cx

•HS 0)O

3 -H O 4-1 >^ M-lO

M M-l tt O

^3 C

<U O

•H -H

4-1 4-1 M O

•H C

4-J 3

CO M-l W

CO

:5O W ^ CO

4-1 r O 0) <; -H

: M-i

+J O

d M-i cr o

01 iH

4-J >

Qi O >H

4-1 0) OJ m

CO -H c o

0 (3 a

01 J3

Pd 4-J

(U

V43

•H

CM

3SN0dS3il JO AONJDDadJ

40
CO

UJ

>-

00

o

UJ

CO

00

00

CO

o.

>-

CM

CM

I—UJ

II

o

CO c

(LI o

B •H o 4-1 o CJ

01 C

4-1

CO >

CD

C13

<L) CJ " 'H

M—

)

O *-> O

3 w

O

O 4-1

w r—

1

0)o CJ •H

U-i Uh

•HT3 oH 4-1 •u •H

03

(U na D C

cr •H

QJ

>4-l 3 (U u O ex o u

u 4-1 CO (U

01 a

CO 4-1 •H coa CO o

CO •HO •4-1 c o

u

3

00

•H

to

3SN0dS3il JO A3N3n03Ud

41
5==

CO

CO

CM

J I I I I I

i-i •H

:s

O

U

n3

0) •H

•H

4J

CO

o

• o 0)o

<: •H

I 4-1

M-lO

o U

•H

4-1 O

W !>i 0)

•4-1 O

<u rH

0)

4-1 >

CD o iH

4-1 0) <U cn CD •Ho o c

exw a;

0)

• CO

i-H

0)

W)

•H

o> o© r** ELgD O is' (Q) (S CO (c^ ^

aausiivs iNaodSd

42
the sixth floor, but were also turned off at an undetermined time on all but the east side of the second floor because of complaints by

the occupants.

5.2.2.3 Odor

The response to odor was characterized by both satisfaction and indifference. While slightly more than half of the employees were "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with the odor of their offices (figure 14), about

one-third were "indifferent" (item 9c of the first questionnaire, and

item 8c of the second). Only 10 percent on the first questionnaire

were dissatisfied, and 15 percent on the second. On the second questionnaire there was an increase in the number of persons who "often" or "sometimes" noticed unpleasant odors in their offices (from lb percent

to 26 percent), however, odor remained a relatively minor problem.

On both questionnaires, there was a statistically significance difference

between floors one through three, outfitted with heat pump H.VAC systems,

and floors four through seven, serviced by central equipment systems,

in terms of satisfaction with odor. In both instances, respondents on floors one through three reported relatively more "very satisfied" and

"somewhat satisfied" responses and fewer "indifferent" responses

(figure 15). Satisfaction was particularly low on the sixth and seventh

floors. These findings are explainable in light of the physical measurements of air leakage in the building made in February 1977, which showed

that the rate at which air (and hence odor) was expelled from the building

and replaced by fresh air from the outside was much higher on floors one through three than on floors four through seven (section 3.1.2). This

does not necessarily mean, however, that the heat pump systems were superior to the central equipment systems in dissipating odor, since

the rate of air leakage is typically higher on the lower floors of a building due primarily to the frequent opening of outside doors and

the stack effect.

5.2.2.4 Ventilation

On the first questionnaire response to ventilation was mixed, with nearly

equal amounts of positive and negative sentiment (41 percent satisfied,

43 percent dissatisfied). Following the summer months, however, there was a general depline in satisfaction (34 percent satisfied, 53 percent

dissatisfied), and an increase in the number of persons who "often"

felt "uncomfortably stuffy" from 22 percent to 32 percent (item 12 of

the first questionnaire and item 11 of the second).

The decrease in satisfaction on the second questionnaire was found in

varying degrees on all floors (figure 16). Some individuals mentioned

that there was poor air circulation in the building during the summer. Many respondents were also bothered by cold drafts from the ventilation

systems, particularly during the winter months on the second and third

floors.

43
= CO

CO o

UJ

00

J I I I

u

•a

•Hm

01 •H

4J

CO

CO

o

J3

3

O

O e^.

•rl dJ u a

CO -H

<U <+-i 3 M-l cr o

0) 3o u

O M-i UJ O

(U M

CO o o o

a,

CO 01

(UM

3

60

•H

CO m 9 CO CM

^

QHUSIIVS lN33d3d

44
— Mai , #^ «^ ... I

: <5 CO

> CO CO CO = COI

52 1*2

CO

>-CO

o

CO

>-CO

•H

c_> 3 <: O >

01u o

CO

(U 13

•H 4-1 U-lCO H-i •H O

4-1 to c

CO o

•H

4J o O

c

3

4-1 <4-l O CO < CO

CD

C e- o 0) •H o

4J •H

CO m

(U3 o

cr u

<u 3o

4-t O m 4-t o

<u j-i CO o

C B o o 0) a 4-1 CO CO d)

4-1 CO

(U3

60

•H

CO CM

3SN0dS3d JO A3N3nD3HJ

45
46
A statistical comparison of the response on floors one through three with

the response on floors four through seven revealed no difference in satisfaction with ventilation on either questionnaire (figure 17). On the

second questionnaire, however, after summer conditions had been experienced, feelings of stuffiness were significantly more common on floors

four through seven than on floors one through three (figure 18). These

data, like the odor data, are in agreement with the physical data on air leakage; however, this implies nothing about the subjective

acceptability of the different types of HVAC systems for the same reason mentioned earlier (section 5.2.2.3).

5.2.2.5 Temperature

Occupant response to temperature in the building was extremely negative

on both questionnaires and on all floors (figure 19). On the first

questionnaire, 75 percent were dissatisfied with the temperature of their

offices; on the second questionnaire, 83 percent. Over 80 percent on both questionnaires reported that they were "often" or "sometimes" uncomfortably cold (item 10 of the first questionnaire and item 9 of the second). As figure 20 shows, persons on floors one through three were more often bothered by cold temperatures than persons on floors four through

seven. This was especially a problem for occupants of the second and

third floors. Overheating was also a problem, particularly during the summer on the fourth through the seventh floors (figure 21). Some persons

were bothered by fluctuations in temperature during the course of the

day, while others noted variations depending on the location within an

office. The latter complaint was most common on the first three floors,

where cold drafts near windows were a problem (item 32, appendix C, and

item 30e, appendix D). These results are consistent with the results

of the thermographic measurements of the building, which showed more cold surfaces on the first three floors than on the other floors,

particularly on the east and west exterior walls (section 3.1.2).

5.2.2.6 Windows

The windows in the building were a very negatively perceived design

feature (figure 22). Only 12 percent of the respondents on the first

questionnaire and 17 percent on the second were satisfied with the

size of their windows. More than 80 percent thought the windows were

too small (item 34 of the first questionnaire, item 26 of the second)

and that they offered an insufficient view of the outside world (item 27

of the first questionnaire, item 28 of the second). The windows were perceived as being "poorly proportioned," "narrow," and "irregular"

(item 27 of the second questionnaire). Cold drafts near windows were

"often" a problem for 30 percent of the respondents on the first questionnaire (item 32) and 25 percent on the second (item 30e). Very few

people had experienced problems with glare, overheating, or outside

noise from their windows (items 30, 31, and 33 of the first questionnaire, and items 30a, 30d, and 30b of the second). A comparison of

floors shows that the level of satisfaction was consistently low,

although there was more variability among floors on the second

questionnaire (figure 22).

47
4-1 •H 14-1 & O

0) O

>~. >^

Q)U M-l CO O

T3 C

0) o

•H •H

4-1 O

•H

4-1 CO M-l cn

CO

12O cn

CO

4-1 - 3

O CL) CJ <i •H

H-l

4-1O

C

O 5-1 •H

4-1 O

CO >,

d)d

cr O

0) o

4-1 •H

4-1 o CO e

4-1 tH 0) •H 4-1 01 4-J cn u c

c: CD o > a

w <

0) >

Pi 4-1

•H

CO

3SN0dS3U JO A3N3nD3HJ

48
CO o

00 to

CO

Lbl ooO

LU

CO

CO

>-COo

CO

CO £ CO

UJ >-

cj 00U

J . L

J3

CO

4-J

l-l OBoucB

a>

CO S

0) 4J

CO

CO

u

•H 4-1O

to a s : -u C O O

•H

C

u o

CO -H D CJ cr c3 W CO O CO •u CO

OJ : CO c^' C >^ O U-i D. 4h

CO

D

(U -u Pd CO

00

•H

CO CM

3SN0dS3tl JO A3N3n03ilJ

49

COoCO

00

CO

o

UJ

CO

COm

CO

CO

z CO

UJ >- " CO

CO

CM

I I

vj

4-1 m

0

0

tu

>->

i~H0 •4-1

4-J c0

00 •H

•M M

Q) c

Zi cu

4-) CO •H

CO

C/} (U0

(U

1

•H U P 0

CO n (Ml 0

0

4) r^

<u 0 (U Q u 4-1 (U

(U 3

4J

CO

CO 0 >^ c CO 0

a u

CO <

>

• 0

(U3

00

•!-(

CM OCO CM

BSNOdSBU JO A3N3nD3HJ

51
CO

</5 oo

00

to

CO

>-CO

o

4-)

3 O

S o

4J C

dJ o

4.) M o

cu a

> 3

<u m

u nJ •H

CO

CO CO O : a ^•• .s <U

O JJ •H p

Qi. CO 4H

<u a

3 O

c

4J H

(U O CU

3

O

CU

COC

O

CO ^ <d

CU CO >

Pi B X

CO

>- ^

CO o< 5 ^

9 CO CM

BSNOdSBH JO A3N3nD3UJ

52
53
From a design standpoint, a comparison of the response on the second

floor with that on the others is of~ interest, in order to assess the

effect of its larger window area (12 percent of the east, west, and

south exterior walls, as compared with six percent on the other floors)

on user satisfaction. As figure 22 shows, satisfaction with the size

of the windows on the second floor was greater than the average for

the other six floors but was exceeded by the first floor on the first

questionnaire and the fourth floor on the second. Floor-by-floor analysis

of related questions on both questionnaires shows that the second floor

ranks highest by a slight margin on providing a good view of the outside world and on having windows that are "about right" in size (items 27

and 34, appendix C, and items 28 and 26, appendix D). Despite the

slightly higher level of satisfaction with the windows on the second

floor, however, the majority of persons on that floor still considered

the windows to be inadequate.

Facing page:

The fifth floor of the Norris Cotton

Building features "systems fuimiture"

with built-in task lighting.

54
6. DISCUSSION

A crucial question to be considered is, "How does user acceptance of the

energy efficient design features in the Norris Cotton Building compare

with acceptance of the more conventional design features found in other

office buildings?" In other words, to what extent, if any, has the

comfort of those who work in the Norris Cotton Building been sacrificed

to achieve energy savings? In general, the thermal environment and

the windows appear to be less satisfactory than in other open-plan

office buildings, while the lighting and acoustical environment compare

55
rather well. Further comparisons reveal a number of similarities between

the results of this study and those obtained from studies of more conventional buildings. For instance, many of the aspects which occupants

particularly liked have largely to do with the way the building looks

(e.g., appearance, newness, cleanness), while dislikes are more apt to

concern the way it functions (e.g., temperature, ventilation, windows).

This agrees with the results reported by Brookes (1972) and Elder et al.

(1979), as does the finding that the desire for privacy is strong in

open-plan offices (item 4 of both questionnaires).

An analysis of the response to the specific design features in the Norris

Cotton Building also shows some areas of general agreement with the

response obtained in other studies. For example, the finding that

lighting was the most satisfactory design feature studied is consistent

with the results of Wolgers (1973), Boyce (1974), and Elder et al.

(1979). On all but the fourth floor most respondents were satisfied

with the lighting, despite the variety of lighting systems installed

in the building.

The fact that the fourth floor high pressure sodium lighting system

installation was uniquely perceived as providing an insufficient amount

of light to work by despite the fact that illumination levels on that

floor were among the highest in the building is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it agrees with the finding of Aston and Bellchambers

(1969) that people require more light in order to be satisfied if they

do not like the way the light renders colors. Second, it underlines the

importance of qualitative as well as quantitative factors in determining

user satisfaction (e.g., the kind of light or noise in an office and

how it is distributed).

It is possible that if the environment in which the high pressure sodium

lighting was used had been more carefully controlled as Williams (1975)

recommends (section 2.3.1), occupant response to the lighting might not

have been so negative. In particular, the use of transition zones at

fourth floor entries might have mitigated the negative response. Also,

occupant complaints of glare might have been reduced if better contrast

rendition had been provided in some locations on the fourth floor (see

table 3). Furthermore, because of the particular nature of the work

performed on the fourth floor (physical examinations which included

tests requiring accurate color discriminations for diagnosis), the poor

color rendition of the high pressure sodium lamps was possibly a more serious problem there than it would have been on floors where routine

office work was performed.

Another interesting point about the lighting is that, as in other studies

(Manning, 1965; Wells, 1965; Markus, 1967), those preferring natural

light greatly outnumbered those preferring artificial light (item 20,

first questionnaire and item 17 of the second). On both questionnaires,

about 95 percent indicated a preference for at least some daylight in

their offices. The vast majority, however, indicated a preference for

a combination of daylight and artificial light, in agreement with the

56
study by Elder et al. (1979) of a building in which the amount of

daylight was much higher than in the Norris Cotton Building. The magnitude of the difference in satisfaction between the second and sixth

floors (figure 10) suggests the possibility that when the ratio of

natural to artificial light is low, a relatively modest increase in the

amount of daylight might substantially improve satisfaction. This

possibility could not be tested under the conditions studied here,

however, since the increase in daylight on the second floor was accompanied by an increase in both view and illumination level. Laboratory

studies isolating the effects of daylight, view, and illumination level on user satisfaction are needed.

In general, the noise climate in the Norris Cotton Building appears to

be no worse than in other buildings with predominantly open-plan offices.

In the open-plan office space in the building, roughly equal numbers were satisfied and dissatisfied with the noise level (figure 11), as

in the studies by Wolgers (1973) and Elder et al. (1979). More than

60 percent on both questionnaires said their offices never became too

noisy to work in. By comparison, Boyce (1974) found that on a threepoint scale (often, seldom, and never), about 50 percent reported that

their work was "often" disturbed by noise, while less than 10 percent

sard that they were "never" disturbed by it.

The finding that occupants in the open-plan offices had experienced

more work disruption due to noise than had occupants in the partitioned

offices is typical of the results of other studies, but the fact that

satisfaction with the noise level was statistically different according

to office type on the first questionnaire but not on the second is not

readily explained. It may reflect an adaptation to the noisiness of

the open-plan offices over time, or it may be due to an actual decrease

in the amount of noise, although no physical data were available to

confirm that a decrease actually occurred. The finding that on the

first questionnaire only eight percent were not especially bothered by

particular noises (item 18) while on the second questionnaire 30 percent

were not annoyed (item 16) also indicates an improvement in occupants'

perceptions of the auditory environment.

The results of this study agree with the findings that conversational

noise is the most disturbing type of noise in open-plan offices

(Brookes, 1972; Nemecek and Grandjean, 1973; Elder et al. , 1979) and

that most noise disturbances are internally generated (Nemecek and

Grandjean, 1973; Elder et al. , 1979). Despite the downtown location

of the Norris Cotton Building, only five percent of the respondents

considered outside noise a problem. The sealed, double-glazed windows

and limited amount of exterior glazing might have contributed to this

finding.

There are very few data with which to compare the response to odor.

Elder et al. (1979) measured satisfaction with odor on the same

57
five-point scale used in the present study with very similar results.

Both studies found mainly "satisfied" and "indifferent" responses to

odor, with relatively little dissatisfaction.

Although the response to odor on floors one through three showed a statistically significant difference from the response on floors four

through seven on both questionnaires, these differences reflect shifts

between the "satisfied" and "indifferent" categories of response. The

percentage of respondents who were dissatisfied was approximately the same for both groups (figure 14). Thus the relatively slower rate of

air exchange measured on floors four through seven did not seem to

result in any serious odor problems on those floors.

Although survey studies of other office buildings have often uncovered

problems with the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems

(Wolgers, 1973; Boyce, 1974; Elder et al. , 1979), with the exception of

the latter study, the extent of negative opinion in the Norris Cotton

Building appears to be atypical. It would appear that the main reason for the negative response is that temperatures are simply felt to be

too cold, particularly during the heating season. Appendices F and G

show that this complaint was about twice as common as any other about

the temperature. At the time of the first questionnaire survey in March

1977, Federal guidelines were in effect specifying thermostat settings

not to exceed 68°F (20°C). As the study by Gagge and Nevins (1976)

shows, temperatures of 68°-70°F (20°-21°C) can be made acceptable to

80 percent of suitably clothed persons. However, their study indicates

that for optimum satisfaction, there should be a direct rather than an inverse relationship between temperature and air movement (i.e.,

increased air movement should accompany higher rather than lower temperatures). In the Norris Cotton Building, physical measurements (Hunt,

1979) showed an average ventilation rate of about 40-50 cubic feet

per minute (cfm) per person — two or three times the 15-25 cfm per

person recommended for offices by ASHRAE.* If the building could be

operated at the ventilation levels recommended by ASHRAE, there might

thus be greater acceptance of the temperatures in it. For the higher

temperatures experienced during the summer months, it might be necessary

to increase the ventilation rate, particularly on the fourth through

the seventh floors, to maintain the level of acceptance. Since "comfortable temperature" is considered the most important office feature

by the occupants of the building (item 8, first questionnaire and item 7 of the second), the potential for increasing overall satisfaction with

the office environment by improving thermal comfort is great.

The very negative response to the windows contrasts with the results

of Boyce (1974) and Elder et al. (1979), but is predictable in light

of the scale model studies of preferred window size conducted by

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers

58
Ne'eman and Hopkinson (1970), Keighley (1973b), and Ludlow (1976). These

studies indicate that six percent glazing of the exterior wall — the

approximate percentage in most of the Norris Cotton Building -- is

insufficient for the majority of people.

Although the second floor windows covered 12 percent of the exterior

wall — twice the amount found on the other floors — only 17 percent

of the persons on the second floor were satisfied with the window size

on the first questionnaire, and 28 percent on the second questionnaire.

One reason why opinion was not more positive on this floor may be the

way in which the window area is distributed. As figure 3 shows, the

additional window area on the second floor is concentrated near the

ceiling; at eye level the windows are very narrow. Although this type

of placement increases daylight penetration, studies have shown that view

is a very important window benefit for people (Collins, 1975, pp. 53,

76), and that a view which provides a horizontal scan rather than a vertical one is preferable (Ne'eman and Hopkinson, 1970; Keighley,

1973a; Ludlow, 1976). The view quality on the second floor is further

restricted by the six-foot overhang above the windows on that floor,

which decreases both daylight penetration and sky view. While a view

of the sky may not be the most important aspect of a view, Markus

(1967) suggests that a good view must contain three elements — foreground, middle ground, and sky. If people feel that the design of their

windows provides them with a good view, they can apparently be satisfied

by smaller windows than when their visual information about the outside

world is limited.

59
Facing page:

The ouhioal shape and windowtess

north facade of the Norris Cotton

Building help minimize sua?face heat

loss.

60
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

User acceptance of the energy efficient design features of the Norris

Cotton Building was studied by administering a questionnaire to em- ployees shortly after occupancy of the building and again eight months

later after both winter and summer conditions had been experienced.

In general, the most positive design feature was the lighting, but

reaction to the high pressure sodium lighting system installation

61
was strongly negative. There was some indication that color rendition,

glare, and amount of daylight may affect satisfaction.

Reaction to the thermal environment was extremely negative throughout

the building. Ventilation levels in the building were considerably

in excess of ASHRAE recommendations and may have exaggerated the

effects of low temperatures during the winter months. Lower ven- tilation levels on the four upper floors were associated with more complaints of stuffiness, particularly during the summer.

Opinion on noise levels and disturbances was slightly more positive

than negative overall, but about evenly divided in the open-plan

offices. Response was very negative on the sixth floor, possibly

due to the use of white noise generators. Voices were the most

disturbing source of noise.

Most respondents were dissatisfied with the small windows in the

building. The windows were also perceived to be too narrow to provide

a sufficient view. The increased window area on the second floor did

not substantially improve acceptance.

In summary, the Norris Cotton Building appears to compare favorably

with other open-plan office buildings in the areas of lighting and

acoustics, but unfavorably in terms of the windows and the thermal

environment. Occupants rated the building much higher in appearance

than the previous offices they had, slightly higher in terms of

suitability for performance of their jobs, and slightly lower with

respect to comfort.

Finally, it should be remembered that the Norris Cotton Building was created as a laboratory in which a variety of energy conservation

measures could be tested. Because of its experimental nature, it was not expected that user acceptance would be high in all instances.

The purpose of the building evaluation studies being carried out by

the National Bureau of Standards is to determine the energy efficiency

of the various design alternatives, and to learn what employee reaction

to each of these alternatives will be. The knowledge gained from these

studies will assist architects and engineers in designing buildings

which will conserve energy and provide comfortable environments for

their users.

Facing page;

A eomputeri-zed monitoring and

aontvol system provides information

on the performance of the systems

in the Norris Cotton Building,

62
FIR HRE AURH TBL TROUBLE 23 SUB BST £L£C «0f?

SUPPLY m

mm UP HODE

RET AIR HODE

PET AIR .TEtIP

^ RET AIR FLOH

ii m m m?

n SUP AIR TEMP

15 SUP AIR DWPT

I? OUT AIR TEKP

19 OUT AIR FLOW

21 TOI EXH DUPT

23 OA TEtt EXCH

25 TOI TEK EXCH

27 CHW RET TEMP

29 CHW SUP FLOW

m SUP AIR

OH

NO

YES

71.8 DEG

16861 CFM

62.4 DEG

57.3 DEG

16.7 DEG

22.2 DEG

0 CFH

22.2 DEG

29.5 DEG

30.8 DEG

84.5 DEG

8 GPM

REQUESTED BY^ CRT

RETURN FAN

OUTDOOR MODE

LOW LIM ALM

RET AIR DHPT

EXH AIR FLOW

MIX AIR DHPT

SUP AIR ADJ

SUP AIR FLOW

OUT AIR DHPT

TOI EXH TEMP

TOI EXH FLOH

OA DEH EXCH

CHH SUP TEMP CHW DIF TEMP

ON

NO

NOR

21.2 DEC 7148 CF« 21.4 DEG

0 DEG

15771 CFH 7.7 DEG S8.2 DEG

8 CF«

7.5 DEC 72.5 DEC 11.6 DEC

8. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

One major shortcoming in today's design process is that buildings are seldom evaluated after they are built and occupied. Consequently, not

enough is known about the extent to which buildings serve their intended

users and function as envisioned by the designer. There is a need to

identify, develop, and apply user information as an integral part of the

design process.

63
The development of user information and the identification of linkages

between user behavior and design decisions must become part of an overall design process model (including such factors as site selection and

economic analysis; operations and building programming). To meet this

general objective, the following activities should be pursued:

* Exploration of means to improve interaction between designers,

users, and clients that will produce information needed to ensure a building design responsive to the needs of all building users.

• Further work, to revise, test, and standardize measurement methods

when collecting data on user needs and building performance

requirements.

• A detailed study of the building design process to better identify

linkages between design decisions and their ultimate influence on building users.

* Development of a feedback mechanism so information about a building's operation may be incorporated in the design of new buildings

and the operation of existing ones.

64
y. REFERENCES

1. Aston, S.M. , and Bellchambers , H. E., Illumination, colour rendering

and visual clarity. Lighting Research and Technology , 1969, (4),

pp. 259-261.

2. Boyce, P.R., Users' assessments of a landscaped office. Journal

of Architectural Research , 1974, 3^ (3), pp. 44-62.

3. Brookes, M.J,, Office landscape: Does it work?. Applied Ergonomics , 1972, 3 (4), pp. 224-236.

4. Collins, B.L. , Windows and People: A Literature Survey , NBS

Building Science Series 70, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1975.

5. Cooper, J.R., Hardy, A.C., and Wiltshire, T.J., Occupier attitudes

to solar control glasses. Journal of Architectural Research , 1974, 3 (3), pp. 29-43.

6. Elder, J., Turner, G.E., and Rubin, A.I., Post-Occupancy Evaluation:

A Case Study of the Evaluation Process , NBSIR 79-1780, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

7. Fanger, P.O., Thermal comfort in indoor environments. Paper in

B.W. Mangum and J.E. Hill (eds.). Thermal Analysis — Human

Comfort — Indoor Environments , NBS Special Publication 491,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

8. Flynn, J.E., The effects of light source color on user impression

and satisfaction. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society , 1977, b (3), pp. 167-179.

9. Gagge, A. P., and Nevins, R.G. , Effect of Energy Conservation

Guidelines on Comfort, Acceptability and Health , Final report

of Contract #CO-04-51891-00 of Federal Energy Administration,

March 1976.

10. Goodrich, R. , Office environment post-occupancy evaluation: A

dialogue with Ronald Goodrich, Man-Environment Systems , 1978, 8^ (4), pp. 175-19U.

11. Harris L. , & Associates, Inc., The Steelcase National Study of

Office Environments: Do They Work? , Grand Rapids, Mich.

:

Steelcase Inc., 1978.

12. Humphreys, M.A., and Nicol, J.F., An investigation into thermal

comfort of office workers. Journal of the Institution of Heating

and Ventilating Engineers , 1970, 38_y pp. 181-189.

65
13. Hunt, CM., Ventilation measurejients in the Norris Cotton Federal

Office Building in Manchester, NH. , ASHRAE Transactions , 1979,

Vol. 85, Part I.

14. Jacobs, M. , New energy efficient office building provides living

laboratory, Dimensions/NBS , 1977, _6_1 (2), pp. 2-8.

15. Keighley, E.G., Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in

offices — A study of window shape. Journal of Building Science , 1973, _8 (4), pp. 311-320 (a).

16. Keighley, E.G., Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in

offices — A study of multiple apertures and window area. Journal of Building Science , 1973, 8 (4), pp. 321-331 (b).

17. Kraemer, Sieverts & Partners, Open-Plan Offices , translated by

J.L. Ritchie, London: McGraw-Hill (UK), 1977.

18. Lloyd, D.M. , The environment in action, Ghapter 3 in A.F.G.

Sherratt (ed.). Integrated Environment in Building Design , New

York: Wiley, 1974.

19. Lozar, G.G., Establishing Habitability Factors for the Design of

Office Environments , Ghampaign, 111.: U.S. Army Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory, 1978.

20. Ludlow, A.M., The functions of windows in buildings. Lighting

Research and Technology , 1976, _8 (2), pp. 57-68.

21. Manning, P. (ed.). Office Design: A Study of Environment , Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1965.

22. Markus, T.A. , The function of windows: A reappraisal. Building

Science , 1967, _2, pp. 97-121.

23. Ne'eman, E. , Visual aspects of sunlight in buildings. Lighting

Research and Technology , 1974, _6 (3), pp. 159-164.

24. Ne'eman, E. , and Hopkinson, R.G., Critical minimum acceptable

window size: A study of window design and provision of a view. Lighting Research and Technology , 1970, _2, pp. 17-27.

25. Ne'eman, E. , and Longmore, J., Physical aspects of windows:

Integration of daylight with artificial light. Proceedings

of CIE Conference, Windows and Their Function in Architectural

Design , Istanbul, October, 1973.

26. Nemecek, J., and Grand jean, E. , Results of an ergonomic

investigation of large-space offices. Human Factors , 1973,

15_ (2), pp. 111-124.

66
27. Rensberger, R.A. (ed.), The Norris Cotton Building: "A Living

Laboratory in Energy Conservation ," U.S. Department of Commerce

Pamphlet LC 1093, March 1978.

28. Rlchtmyer, I.E., May, W.B. , Hunt, CM., and Hill, J.E., Thermal

Performance of the Norris Cotton Federal Office Building in

Manchester, New Hampshire , Paper presented at the DoE/ASHRAE

Conference on Thermal Performance of Exterior Envelopes of

Buildings, Orlando, Fla. , December 3-5, 1979.

29. Ruys, Windowless Offices, M.A. Thesis, Seattle: University of

Washington, 1970.

30. Wells, B.W.P., Subjective responses to the lighting installation

in a modern office building and their design implications,

Building Science , 1965, 1^, pp. 57-68.

31. Williams, H.G. , High pressure sodium lighting in offices for

reduced energy use, Ind. Appl. Soc. (IAS) Annual , 1975,

pp. 81-87.

32. Wolgers, B., Study of office environment — Attitudes to office

landscapes and open-plan offices. Build International , 1973,

6 (1), pp. 143-146.

33. Yonemura, G.T., Hattenburg, A.T. , and Tibbott, R.L., Luminous

Efficacy of Lighting Systems Installed in Norris Cotton Federal

Office Building, Manchester, New Hampshire , Letter report to

Department of Energy, April 1978.

67
I
Appendix A

Cover Letter, Questionnaire #1, Percentage Summaries of

Responses to Questionnaire #1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D C. 20234

March 21, 1977

MEMORANDUM FOR: All Employees in the Norris Cotton Federal Building

From: Jacqueline Elder

Research Psychologist

National Bureau of Standards

Subject: Norris Cotton Federal Building — Building Environment

Questionnaire

The Norris Cotton Federal Building has a number of energy conserving

design features. In evaluating these features it is important to

determine not only their engineering and economic performance but also

to determine employee reaction to them. The attached questionnaire has

been developed for this purpose.

We would appreciate it if you would complete this questionnaire at your

earliest convenience. You will not be identified so please do not put

your name on the questionnaire. You should rate the characteristics

of the office in terms of your own feelings. Please do not confer

with anyone as we would like to know how you feel.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions about

your office. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call

Jackie Elder or Belinda Collins at 301-921-2177.

69
PERCENTAGE SUMMARIES OF RESPONSES

NORRIS COTTON FEDERAL BUILDING - Number of BUILDING ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 111 Responses

(N) 1. Is there anything you particularly like about the Norrls Cotton Federal

Bulldltg?

N /"/ Yes 66%

265 /"/ No 34

If yes , what do you like? Location (21). Appearance (U) . Newness (Q1

Cleanness (7). Atmosphere (6). Design (4)

2. Ts there anything you particularly dislike about the Norris Cotton Federal

Building?

/"/ Yes 83

273 /-/ No 17

If yes , what do you dislike? Temperature (32), Elevators (26), Parking (1 8)

,

Windows (18), Ventilation (17), Lack of Cafeteria (13), Heavy Front Doors (11),

Lighting (11).

3. How does your office or work area In this building compare with the last

office you had?

Suitability for

a. Appearance b. Comfort

/_/ Better 80 /"/ Better 35 /_/ Better 38

274 /"/ Same 11 271 /"/ Same 24 272 O Same 31

/"/ Worse 9 /"/ Worse 41 /"/ Worse 31

4. Would you like to change your present office In any way?

/"/ Yes 71

272 /"/ No 29

If yes , how? Temperature (15). More privacy (14). Windows (13).

Lighting (8). More space (8). Less noise (6)

70
Please read all the categories and then check the kind of office you are In.

/_/ A private office enclosed with full height walls. 14

/_/ An office, enclosed with full height walls, shared with one other person.

/_/ An open office (no dividers or furniture that blocks the view) shared

with 2 or more other people. 30

/_/ An individual space enclosed (or mostly enclosed) by dividers, plants

or file cabinets etc. in an otherwise open office. Have little or no view of other workers. 16

/_/ Have some dividers, plants, file cabinets that tend to break up an open office but do not enclose the work space. Can readily see other workers. 32

In your last office, how many people shared your room or work area?

/_/ Had an office alone 22

/_/ Less than A people 28

/"/ 5-10 people 33

/"/ 11-20 people 12

/_/ More than 20 people 6

How many people share your current room or work area?

/ / Have an office alone 19

/_/ Less than A people 29

/"/ 5-10 people 29

/"/ 11-20 people 10

/"/ More than 20 people 13

Check the three physical features that are most important to you in making

an office a pleasant place for you to work.

/~/ Comfortable temperature 81 /_/ Privacy 25

/_/ Good light 68 fj Plenty of space 16

/~/ Freedom from noise 3A IZJ General environment ~ (colors, carpet, decoration) 20 /"/ Good ventilation 32 _

/_/ Other (please specify) 2 Ilk window 23

71
9. About how satisfied are you vlth the following aspects of your office?

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

N

satisfied satisi led Indifferent dissatltifled dissatisfied

277 a. Lighting n Ul n 20 o 6 o 17 O 15

277 b. Noise level n 23 o 27 n 8 o 25 O 17 273 c. Odor of office n 38 n 16 n 35 o 6 O 4

275 d. Ventilation ij 16 n 25 n 15 n 2A n 19

276 e. Temperature O 4 n 15 IJ 5 n 28 IJ A 7

266 f

.

Vindow size n A n 8 o 23 n 20 ri AA

10. Does it ever get cold enough to make you feel uncomfortable?

/"/ Often 59

279 /"/ Sometimes 2A

/_/ Only occasionally 11

/_/ Never 6

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

11. Does it ever get warm enough to make you feel uncomfortable?

/"/ Often 17

229 /"/ Sometimes 23

/_/ Only occasionally 2A

/_/ Never 36

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

12. Does it ever seem uncomfortably stuffy?

/_/ Often 22

/_/ Sometimes 29

259 /_/ Only occasionally 20

/"/ Never 29

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

72
13. Does it ever seem uncomfortably humid? - /"/ Often 6

/~/ Sometimes H

221 rj Only occasionally i^ rj Never 70 rj Don't know/no opinion

\k. Do you ever notice unpleasant odors in your office or work area?

/"/ Often 7

r_l Sometimes 9 261

ri Only occasionally 20

/"/ Never 64 rj Don't know/no opinion

15. What do you do if your office gets too cold? Dress warmly (75), Complain (13) . Nothing (12), Leave work station (8), No comments (4)

279 too warm? No cpmments (46), Nothing (27), Remove warm clothing (20),

Complain (5), Leave work station (2)

too stuffy? No comments (50), Nothing (29), Leave work station (9),

Complain (6) , Remove warm clothing (3)

too humid? No comments (69), Nothing (21), Complain (4), Leave work station ( 2)

Remove warm clothing (2)

16. How does the noise level in this office compare with that of other offices

in which you have worked?

rj More noise in present office 39

274 r_l About the same 34 rj Less noise in present office 26

17. Does your office ever become so noisy that you find it difficult to work?

/"/ Yes 38

269 O No 62

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

73
N

276

247

16. What noises do you notice most as you work? (Check as many as apply.)

/"/ None 8

/_/ Office machines 39

/"/ Outside noise 5

/_/ Telephones 40

/"/ Voices 59

/ / People walking around 17

/"/ Other (please specify) 32 (HVAC (18)*, White noise (12))

19. Do you prefer working by natural light, artificial light or a combination of

natural and artificial?

/_/ Prefer natural 22

/"/ Prefer artificial 4

/_/ Prefer combination 74

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

20. In general, do you think the light level, artificial and natural combined,

is about right for your work?

/"/ About right 68

256 /"/ Too little light 28

/_/ Too much light 4

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

21. With the artificial light, does the color of objects In the room seem:

/"/ Natural 75

226 Q Unnatural 25

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

22. With the artificial light, does the complexion of office occupants seem:

/"/ Natural 75

232 /"/ Unnatural 25

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

*18% of 276

74
270

23. Does the artificial light ever cause enough glare to bother you?

/"/ Often 15

/_/ Sometimes 22

/_/ Only occasionally 16

/"/ Never A 7 rj Don't know/no opinion

24. Do you have any other comments about the lighting?

No comments (60), Dislike it (7), Like it (6), Too little (6),

279 Causes eyestrain (A) , Need more daylight (A)

25. How important is It to you to have a window in your office or immediate work

area?

/_/ Very Important 40

272 /_/ Moderately Important 42

/_/ Not important 18

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

26. Do you have a window or windows in your office or work area?

/"/ Yes 69

278 /"/ No 31

If yes , answer questions 24 through 35.

If no , skip to question 36.

27. Are you able to see as much of the outside world as you would like from

your desk?

/"/ Yes 18

190 /_/ No 82

/~/ Don't know/no opinion

75
N

19A

28. Which of the fol] owing best describe the v

to you? (Check as many as apply.)

/_/ satisfying 12

/"/ limited 72

/_/ simple 9

/_/ pleasant 11

/_/ confined 35

/"/ dim 10

/_/ stimulating 1

l~l cluttered 13

ew out of the window closest

'_/ open

J bright

/ uncluttered

/ frustrating 16

/ complex 1

7 boring

/ unpleasant

'_/ spacious

22

16

2

193

29. Do you ever work using only the light from the windows?

/"/ Often 1

I'^l Sometimes 2

/_/ Only occasionally 3

/"/ Never 9A

/ / Don't know/no opinion

188

162

30. How about the light from the windows, does it ever cause enough glare to bother you?

IJ Often 3

/_/ Sometimes 6

/_/ Only occasionally 7

I"! Never 84

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

31. Does your office ever become too hot because of the sunshine coming in the

windows?

/7 Often 0

/_/ Sometimes 4

/_/ Only occasionally 2

/_/ Never 94

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

76
32. Do you ever notice cold drafts near the windows?

/"/ Often 30

^

/_/ SometlmcB 13

17g /_/ Only occasionally H

/"/ Never A 6

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

33. Do you think the noise level near the window is noticeably greater than

in other areas of the room?

/"/ Often 0

153 /_/ Sometimes 1

/_/ Only occasionally 10

/"/ Never 89

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

34. How about the size of your window, is it:

/"/ About right 13

17A 0 Too big 0

/"/ Too small 87

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

35. Do you think your window is:

/_/ About the right proportions 22 fj Too high for its width 78

/_/ Too wide for Its height 0

/ / Don't know/no opinion

77
36. Listed below are some of the advantages of windows. Check the three that are most Important to you.

N /~/ Let you tell time of day 7 rj Let sunshine in 59 rj Let you know what the weather le 59 rj Let in warmth 13

/ / Let you see what's going on outside 17 238

r_l Provide a way for fresh air to enter ^5 rj Give a change of view to break monotony 57

r_l Provide light for plants 7 rj Make a room seem more spacious 30

/_/ Other (please specify) 6

37. Listed below are some of the disadvantages of windows. Check the three that

you feel are the biggest disadvantages.

n Let in too much heat in summer n Let in too much cold air in winter 66 n Cause glare A5 n Reduce privacy 12 n Let in outside noises 50 n Limit ways furniture can be arranged 26

n Give too much sunlight 16 n Present 9 hazard (might get broken) 19 n Present a hazard (person might fall) 10 n Other (please specify) 8

38. Do you have any other comments about the windows? No comments (61) .

Too small (12). Want them to open (10). Like the idea of having windows (8)

279 Too few (5)

78
39. Which of the following activities are a normal part of your job? (Check

each one you usually do as a part of your Job.) N

278 IZI Reading 9^

/"/ Writing (including shorthand) 83

/"/ Typing ^5

/_/ Using other keyboard machines (calculator, key punch, computer

terminal, etc.) 37

/"/ Filing k\

l_l Working with numbers 66

/_/ Making drawings 3

/_/ Laboratory work ^

/"/ Using the telephone

l_l Interviewing or holding small meetings

/_/ Supervising the work of others

/_/ Other (please specify) 6

40. In general, how much time do you spend in your office or iinmediate work area?

/_/ All the time (7-8 hours a day) 67

278 /_/ Most of the time (A-6 hours a day) 26

/_/ Very little (less than A hours a day) ^

/ / Other (please specify)

Al. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the,,.,

Norris Cotton Federal Building? No comments (SQ-^.l^oor parking (10).

279 Uncomfortable temperature (8), Need cafeteria (8), Elevators malfunction (8),

Like building (A) , Front doors too heavy (A)

Please go on to the next page

79
The following information Is needed for data analysis only . It will not be

used to Identify any individual respondent.

42. How long have you worked in the Norrls Cotton Federal Building?

Which floor is your office on?

Floor number Kl^). 2(17), 3(14), 4(11),

5(18), 6(16), 7(9)

44. Where was your last office?

JJumber Street

City State

45. Sex

267 fj Male 58

46. Age

268

o Female 42

IJ 17-25 16 n 26-35 35 n 36-50 25 ri Over 50 24

47. In general terms, what type of job do you have? (For example, clerk typist,

supervisor, physician, etc.)

Thank You Very Much

80
Appendix B

Cover Letter, Questionnaire #2, Percentage Summaries of

Responses to Questionnaire #2

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

November 1977

MEMORANDUM FOR: All Employees in the Norris Cotton Federal Building

From: Jacqueline Elder

Research Psycholooist

National Bureau of Standards

Subject: Norris Cotton Federal Building -- Building Environment

Questionnaire #2

Last flarch I sent a questionnaire to you asking you to evaluate some of the design features of the Norris Cotton Building and to indicate

the effect of these features on vour working environment. Now that

you have occupied the building for about a year and have experienced

both winter and summer weather conditions, I would like to repeat

the questionnaire.

I would appreciate it if you would complete the attached questionnaire

at your earliest convenience. You will not be identified so please do

not put your name on the questionnaire. You should rate the

characteristics of the office in terms of your own feelings. Please

do not confer with anyone as I would like to know how you feel.

Thank you verv much for taking the time to answer these questions about

your office. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call

Jackie Elder at 301-921 -2177".

81
PERCENTAGE SUMMARIES OF RESPONSES

NORRIS COTTON FEDERAL BUILDING - Number of BUILDING ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE #2

Responses

(N) 1. Is there anything you particularly like about the Norris Cotton Federal

Building? N

213

218

/_/ Yes 61 % O No 39

If yes , what do you like? Location (28), Appearance (lA) , Newness (8).

Lighting (7), Atmosphere (6), Cleanness (6)

Is there anything you particularly dislike about the Norris Cotton Federal

Building?

/"/ Yes 79 rj No 21

If yes , what do you dislike? Temperature (49). Elevators (18),

Parking (17), Ventilation (14). Windows (12). Lighting (11). Lack of

cafeteria (10), Heavy front doors (7)

3. About how satisfied are you with the following aspects of the building?

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

satisfied satisfied Indifferent dissatisfied dissatisfied

220 a. Parking /"/ 24 H 19 O 8 IJ 18 IJ 31

219 b. Elevators /J7 9 ri 19 O 13 O 32 lO 11

218 c. Eating Facilities /"/ 4 IJ 12 U 15 O 19 U 50

221 d. Exterior _ _ _ _ _

Appearance /_/ 47 /_/ 19 /_/ 26 /_/ 4 /_/ 4

Please comment No comments (51), Poor parking (24. including lack of parking

space (16) and paying for parking (8)). Inadequate eating facilities—malnlv

too small (24), Elevators -malfunction (19)

4. Would you like to change your present office in any way?

/"/ Yes 65

/"/ No 35

If_ies, how? Temperature (20), Morp privary (^U\ mnH^^c m) , Lighting (10). More space (8) , Less noise (8) , Ventilation (8)

216

82
5. Please read all the categories and then check the kind of office you are In.

N 15 /_/ A private office enclosed with full height walls.

218 _

6 /_/ An office, enclosed with full height walls, shared with one other person.

27 /_/ An open office (no dividers or furniture that blocks the view) shared

with 2 or more other people.

20 /_/ An Individual space enclosed (or mostly enclosed) by dividers, plants

or file cabinets etc. In an otherwise open office. Have little or no view of other workers.

32 /_/ Have some dividers, plants, file cabinets that tend to break up an open office but do not enclose the work space. Can readily see other workers.

6. How many people share your current room or work area?

21 rj Have an office alone

27 /_/ Less than 5 people

26 /_/ 5-10 people

11 /"/ 11-20 people

13 /_/ More than 20 people

7. Check the three physical features that are most important to you in making

an office a pleasant place for you to work.

212 /_/ Comfortable temperature 80 /"/ Privacy 20

/"/ Good light 70 /^Z Plenty of space 13

/_/ Freedom from noise 33 /_/ General environment 1^ (colors, carpet, decoration)

219

/_/ Good ventilation A2

l~l A window 27 /_/ Other (please specify)

83
8. About how satisfied re you with the folloving aspects of your office?

Very Sonewhat Somewhat Very

satisfied satisfied Indifferent dissatisfied dissatisfied N

219 a. Lighting IJ Al IJ 32 o 1 o 13 o 13

217 b. Noise level IJ 19 IJ 3A n 12 o 20 o 15

216 c. Odor of office u 31 IJ 22 IJ 32 o 9 o 6

216 d. Ventilation IJ 12 n 22 n 12 o 11 o 26

215 e. Temperature IJ 2 IJ 12 o 3 ri 32 ri 51

20A f

.

Window size IJ 6 IJ 11 rj 20 n Ik rj 40

217 9. Does it ever get cold enough to make you feel uncomfortable?

/"/ Often 66

/_/ Sometimes 21

/_/ Only occasionally H

/"/ Never 2

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

218 10. Does it ever get warm enough to make you feel uncomfortable?

/_/ Often 23

/_/ Sometimes 25

/_/ Only occasionally 27

/_/ Never 25

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

11. Does it ever seem uncomfortably stuffy?

/"/ Often 32 212 _

/_/ Sometimes 29

/_/ Only occasionally 25

/"/ Never 15

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

84
12. Does it ever seen uncomfortably humid?

J, 7 /"/ Often

192 2.5 /~/ Sometimes

2A /~/ Only occasionally

5A /"/ Never

/~/ Don't know /no opinion

13. Does it ever seem uncomfortably dry?

22 /"/ Often

29 /_/ Sometimes

22 /_/ Only occasionally

27 /"/ Never

/ / Don't know/no opinion

182

1 A. Do you ever notice unpleasant odors in your office or work area?

S/~/ Often

18 /~/ Sometimes

2ll~l Only occasionally

Never

l~l Don't know/no opinion

15. Does your office ever become so noisy that you find It difficult to work:

39 O "ifes

207 61 O

l~l Don't know/no opinion

85
16. What uolseB bother you »06t ae you work? (Check as aany as apply.)

N /J7 None 30 220 _

/_/ Office machines 20

/_7 Outside ooise 5

/J7 Telephones 23 in Voices AA

/~7 People walking around 13

/"/ Mechanical noise 20 /7 Other (please specify) 13 (HVAC (7), White noise (4))

17. Do you prefer working by natural light, artificial light or a combination of natural and artificial?

197

18.

20A

188

186

19 IJ Prefer natural

5 n Prefer artificial

76 n Prefer combination

n Don't know/no opinion

In general, do you think the lig

Is about right for your work?

66 n About right

30 IJ Too little light

A n Too much light

n Don't know/no opinion

With the artificial light, does

72 n Natural

28 n Unnatural

o Don't know/no opinion

With the artificial light, does

76 n Natural

2A n Unnatural

O Don't know/no opinion

86
21. Does the artlflcUl light ever cause enough gUre to bother you?

N

212 17 rj Often

23 /_/ Sometlaes

15 rj Only occasionelly

45 /"/ Never

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

22. Are you able to turn off the overhead or built-in llght6 near your desk?

34 tj Yes

66 O No

If yes , do you ever do so?

8 71

218

/_/ Often

o Some tines

8 IJ Only occasionally

79 IJ Never IJ Don't know/no opinion

23. Do you have any other conments about the lighting?

221 No comments (68). Dislike it (9). Like it (7). Too little (6).

Too much glare (5) . Too uneven (4)

24 . How Important is It to you to have a window is your office or immediate work

area?

45 l~l Very important

37 /_/ Moderately Important

19 l~l Not important

216 ~

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

Why ? No comments (57), Lessens caged feelings (13), Stre weather (13),

Dayllghting (9), View (9), Break monotony (5), Fresh air (5)

87
25. Do you have vlndow or «rlndows in your office or work area?

N. _

220 /_/ Yes 75

/"/ Wo 25

If yes . Answer all questions.

If no , skip to question 31.

26. Bow about the size of your window. Is It?

157 /"/ About right 19

/"/ Too big 0

/"/ Too atnall 81

/__/ Don't know/no opinion

27. Place a check nark on the line closest to the adjective that best describes

your window. (A check on the middle line Indicates no opinion.)

126 a) large 2 2 A 17 75 small

151 b) narrow 88 7 3 0 1 wide

127 c) satisfactory 12 7 13 23 A6 unsatisfactory

118 d) irregular 40 9 27 9 14 regular

12-1 e) well proportioned 9 6 22 15 48 poorly proportioned

28. Are you able to see as much of the outside world as you would like from

your desk?

IJ Yes 15 IJ Mo 85

/_/ Don't know/no opinion

88
29. Place check mark on the line closest to the adjective that beet descrlbeE

the view froa the window nearest to you. (A check on the middle line indicates no opinion.) N

126 a) pleasant 25 17 33 11 lA tmpleaeant

123 b) llBlted 63 19 8 6 4 open

120 c) satisfying 11 lA 32 20 23 frustrating

115 d) complete h 3 24 28 41 incomplete

117 e) dim 31 11 32 19 8 bright

110 f) divided 27 18 33 8 14 whole

30. Are you ever annoyed by the following mspects of the window or windows in your work area?

Only

Often Sometimes Occasionally Never Don't know/no opinion

143 a) Clare 1 /_/ 10 IJ 12 IJ 78 IJ

144 b) Noise 2 IJ 1 IJ 3 IJ 94 IJ

141 c) Sunshine 2 IJ 7 IJ 20 IJ 71 IJ

135 d) 0%'erheating In summer 4 o 5 IJ 13 IJ 78 IJ

138 e) Cold drafts in winter 25 IJ 13 IJ 14 IJ 48 IJ

139 f) Inability to open 58 IJ 9 IJ 5 IJ 28 o

147 %) Inability to change Venetian

blind setting /_/ 43 IJ 13 IJ 12 IJ 32 u

31. Do you have any other comments about the windows? No comments yii) , 211 Too small (10), Dislike them (6), Blinds malfunction (5), Too few (5),

Can't open (4), Like them (3)

89
32. Which of the following •ctlvltles are a normal part of your job? (Check

each one you usually do as a part of your job.)

K /"/ Reading 92

/~/ Writing (Including shorthand) ^3

/"/ Typing 48

220 / / Using other keyboard machines (calculator, key punch, computer " terminal, etc.) ^0

/~/ Filing 44

/ / Working with numbers 74

/_/ Making drawings 5

/_/ Laboratory work 1

/_/ Using the telephone

/_/ Interviewing or holding small meetings 55

/ / Supervising the work of others 27

/ / Other (please specify) 3

33. In general, how much time do you spend in your office or Imnedlate work area?

221 67 /_/ ^1 time (7-6 hours a day)

26 /"/ Most of the time (4-6 hours a day)

4 /_/ Very little (less than 4 hours a day)

2 /~/ Other (please specify)

34. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the

Morris Cotton Federal Building? No comments (65), Uncomfortable temperature (12),

Poor ventilation (6), Dislike building (5). GSA unresponsive (4), Like building (3) 221

Please go on to the next page

90
The following Infonutloc Ic needed for data analysis only . It will not be

used to Identify any Individual respondent.

J, 35. How long have you worked In the Norris Cotton Federal Building?

218 1 year or longer (88), 6-12 mos. (7), 2-5 mos . (3), 1 mo. or less (2)

36. Which floor Is your office on?

221 Floor number 1(13) , 2(21) , 3(15)

.

4(10), 5(19), 6(19), 7(1)

37. Sex

217

57 /_/ Male

A3 o Female

Age

lA n 17-25

38 u 26-35

24 n 36-50

2A n Over 50

39. In general terms, what type of Job do you have? (For example, clerk typist,

supervisor, physician, etc.)

Thank You Very Much

91

Appendix C

Floor-by-Floor Analysis of First Questionnaire Results

Floor

Question Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Yes 27 35 27 23 37 18 9

No 10 11XX 6 12X L0 26 13

2 Yes 28 41 38 26 39 35 20

No 10 6 2 4 11 9 4

3a Better 34 42 26 30 51 23 13

Same 2 2 7 1 0 11 8

\\\J 1 OCT 0 0 10 4

3b Better 24 14 6 11 30 3 6

Same 5 13 7 7 10 17 6

Worse 9 20 24 11 11 25 12

DC L LCI 73 1

7

X / »(J 14XT^ 25 5 11

Same 8 16 16 7 10 17 10

Worse 7 13 12 10 16 23 4

4 Yes 20 31 27 22 37 37 19

No 18 16 11 8 13 7 6

5 a 7 2 7 13 4 1 5

b 1 0 3 9 1 2 5 c 18 22 11 4 10 12 5

d 8 3 2 1 15 9 7 e 4 20 17 2 20 20 4

6 Alone 6 4 5 6 24 9 5

Less than 4 8 15 8 15 10 4 16

5-10 8 19 19 8 12 20 3

11-20 8 5 3 0 4 12 0

More than 20 9 4 2 1 0 0 1

93
Appendix C (continued)

Floor

Question Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Alone 4 2 8 12 16 6 5

Less than 4 6 8 6 15 18 9 17

5-10 9 13 21 2 13 18 3

11-20 9 2 5 1 0 9 1

More than ZO 11 11 0 0 1 3 0

8 Comfortable temperature 31 39 34 22 30 34 21

Good light 25 31 31 25 26 26 13

Freedom from noise 12 16 9 9 21 17 5 Good ventilation 14 12 9 16 5 19 10

A window 5 12 12 5 5 11 10

Privacy 5 8 5 8 24 11 5

Plenty of space 10 6 7 4 8 3 3

General environment 12 10 7 4 9 4 6

Other 0 1 0 0 1 1 2

9a Very satisfied 26 30 14 0 22 15 10

Somewhat satisfied 6 12 8 1 12 10 6

Indifferent 3 3 4 1 1 4 1

Somewhat dissatisfied 4 2 7 7 10 10 6

Very dissatisfied 0 0 7 21 5 6 3

9b Very satisfied 13 13 16 14 3 1 3

Somewhat satisfied 16 17 10 8 12 5 7 Indifferent A4 o 4 4 z

7 Somewhat dissatisfied 4 12 9 1 19 16 9

Very dissatisfied 2 2 1 3 13 21 4

9c Very satisfied 16 24 25 12 17 6 5 Somewhat satisfied 8 9 3 7 10 4 3

Indifferent 10 10 7 5 22 26 16

Somewhat dissatisfied 4 2 4 3 0 3 1

Very dissatisfied 0 0 0 3 2 5 1

94
Appendix C (continued)

Question Response 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

9d Very satisfied 10 8 7 6 9 3 0

Somewhat satisfied 12 14 6 7 16 10 5 Indifferent 5 10 7 5 9 4 2

Somewhat dissatisfied 9 7 10 7 11 15 8

Very dissatisfied 3 7 9 4 6 13 11

9e Very satisfied 4 0 0 4 2 2 0

Somewhat satisfied 9 5 1 3 11 9 3

Indifferent 0 4 0 3 3 2 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 13 12 9 6 16 14 8

Very dissatisfied 13 26 30 13 18 18 13

yt Very satisfied 3 3 0 2 2 1 0

Somewhat satisfied 5 5 4 1 2 2 2 Indifferent 10 15 7 7 16 6 1

Somewhat dissatisfied 10 11 7 4 12 5 5

Very dissatisfied 11 13 20 12 15 30 17

10 Often 20 35 36 16 30 15 14

Sometimes 14 7 3 4 14 16 9

Only occasionally 4 5 0 7 3 9 2 Never 1 0 1 4 4 5 1

11 Often 3 13 1 1 6 10 5 Sometimes 14 6 6 3 9 11 3

Only occasionally 2 10 4 6 14 12 7 Never 14 11 17 12 14 8 7

12 Often 5 10 5 5 6 18 9

Sometimes 16 10 7 9 13 14 6

Only occasionally 6 9 5 8 13 5 6

Never 11 16 15 6 14 7 5

95
Appendix C (continued)

Floor

Question Response 1

7 rJ/I4

cD 0

7

/

13 Often 2 0 1 2 1 6 1

Sometimes 6 5 2 3 1 4 3

uniy occa.siona.iiy oo D

7J

•t J

co

7z

IN ever ID Zl91 1 7 1 / 9 1 Zl 1 9 IZ

14 Often 2 3 1 3 2 5 2 Sometimes 1 0 4 o z Only occasionally 5 6 3 11 10 14 4

Never 23 32 32 11 33 19 16

iO More 0

1 7 1 / QO

cJ 9nzu 4U 1 9 IZ

Same 1 7 1 / lo Qy lo rD y

T o c c l.cbb 1 C

J. D 7 1 u 11 7/ 1 9 1 L n

u

cD

1 7 1 es 7/ 14 D71 04 ZD9A Qy No 31 30 33 22 16 17 17

io None t:o

7 Z 7/ 1 u 1 Office machines 7/ 9AZO 0 9Qzy 7/ 71 Outside noise 3 4 2 3 2 0 0

Telephones 16 21 17 8 30 12 8

voices ^9jZ 9"^ Zo 1 n 1 u 40 91Zl 11

People walking around cD 4

QO7/ 14 /I4

c: O utner rD

rD/iD

1 n lU oy 77O / 10

19 Prefer natural 5 3 8 10 14 7 8

Prefer artificial 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 Prefer combination 24 34 26 21 30 31 16

20 About right 29 35 24 6 35 26 20

Too little light 3 5 13 19 14 15 2 Too much light 2 2 2 1 0 1 2

96
Appendix C (continued)

Question Response 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

21 Natural 29 34 25 0 42 27 12

Unnatural 4 5 6 30 3 3 6

22 Natural 29 36 25 2 42 28 13

Unnatural 5 5 6 27 5 4 5

23 Often 1 2 6 17 7 6 2

Sometimes 10 6 5 5 14 11 8

Only occasionally 7 6 3 2 8 8 8

Never 19 31 24 7 21 19 7

25 Very important 12 21 26 6 9 18 17

Moderately important 17 22 7 13 28 22 5

Not important 10 3 5 11 13 3 4

26 Yes 32 42 31 17 25 30 16

No 7 5 8 14 Z6 15 lu

27 Yes 2 11 6 5 6 4 1

No 29 30 26 11 19 25 15

29 Often 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sometimes 0 1 0 1 0 2 0

Only occasionally 1 2 3 0 0 0 0

Never 31 38 30 16 25 27 15

30 Often 0 0 0 U U U U

Sometimes 2 6 1 0 1 L U

Only occasionally 1 2 4 1 2 3 0

Never 29 26 27 15 22 22 16

31 Often 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sometimes 1 2 0 0 0 2 1

Only occasionally 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

Never 11 34 24 16 21 16 14
Appendix C (continued)

Floor

Question Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 Often 9 11 19 7 4 2 1

Sometimes 4 6 5 3 2 4 0

Only occasionally 6 2 1 3 1 3 3

iNC V i. 4 18XO 1X 7/ 1

1

J- X

33 Often 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sometimes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Onlv DPra s i DDfl 1 1

V

\^iiA,y \_ do X wJ 1 ci _L X y 4^ 5 0 2 0 2 Never 22 26 23 12 20 23 10

34 About right 5 8 1 1 3 2 2 Too big 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tnn <^Tna 1 1 24 29 28 1 3 20 26 X1 2

35 About right 8 8 4 1 6 3 1 Tnn h i crVi 20 1

7

X1 2 1X ^12 1X 9ZJ 1X 0\J Too wide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 All the time 31 39 23 20 30 26 18

Afost of the time 6 3 14 9 20 11 8

Very little 2 3 1 1 0 2 0

Other 0 2 2 1 0 6 0

45 Male 20 33 11 25 31 23 12

Female 19 14 26 6 19 17 11

46 17-25 5 9 13 3 5 4 4

26-35 15 20 12 12 11 12 13

36-50 13 6 3 10 15 14 5 Over 50 6 12 9 6 18 11 2

98
Appendix D

Floor- by-Floor Analysis of Second Questionnaire Results

Question Response 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

1 Yes 16 32 20 14 27 19 2 No 12 15 13 8 14 21 0

2 Yes 14 38 29 20 32 37 2 No 15 9 5 3 9 5 0

3a Very satisfied 13 5 10 8 9 6 1

Somewhat satisfied 7 8 8 2 4 11 1

Indifferent 0 4 4 3 2 5 0

Somewhat di ssat i sfi ed 6 10 5 4 6 9 0

Very dissatisfied 3 20 7 6 21 11 1

3b Very satisfied 5 5 3 4 2 1 0

Somewhat satisfied 7 7 10 8 5 3 2 Indifferent 9 7 2 1 5 5 0

Somewhat dissatisfied 4 17 9 9 15 15 0

Verv dissatisfied 3 11 9 1 16 18 1

3c Very satisfied 0 0 3 3 1 1 0

Somewhat satisfied 7 2 10 4 2 1 0

Indifferent 3 6 3 6 4 10 1

Somewhat dissatisfied 9 3 6 5 9 8 1

Very dissatisfied 9 36 11 5 26 22 1

3d Very satisfied 15 23 20 15 18 12 0

Somewhat satisfied 6 12 4 3 10 5 1

Indifferent 7 5 7 4 11 20 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 0 2 2 0 2 2 0

Very dissatisfied 0 3 1 1 1 3 0

99
Appendix D (continued)

Question Response 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

4 Yes 13 34 19 15 25 32 3

No 16 11 15 8 17 8 0

5 a 5 3 7 12 3 2 1

b 2 2 2 7 1 0 0 c 18 16 9 1 10 5 0

d

73 5 5 0 18 11 1 e 1 21 11 1 11 24 0

D Alone 4 3 y ii 11 oo 1 Less than 5 5 11 3 11 20 8 2

5-10 3 14 LL 0 8 11 0

11-20 9 3 0 0 3 10 0

More than 20 8 16 0 0 0 5 0

7 Comrortable temperature O Q ^ 1. zy 1 7

1 / ZD Zb 11 Good light 11 26 26 16 23 35 1 Freedom from noise 11 19 5 5 12 18 0

Good ventilation 10 21 10 10 19 18 1

A windo\v 4 lU 13 7 9 12 L Privacy 1 8 3 4 14 11 1

Plenty of space 2 4 6 3 9

•73 0

General environment 8 5 7 1

o8 1 0

Other 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

oa Very satisfied 29 12 1 14 9 z Somewhat satisfied 0 13 1 /I 14 2

T O 18 16 0

Indifferent 0 0 2 u 1 0 U

Somewhat dissatisfied 1 3 4 5 5 10 1 Very dissatisfied 0 1 2 14 5 7 0

8b Very satisfied 11 6 10 5 7 2 1

Somewhat satisfied 13 14 13 10 16 6 1

Indifferent 2 6 5 4 2 5 1 Somewhat dissatisfied 1 13 4 3 12 11 0

Very dissatisfied 2 5 2 0 6 18 0

100
Appendix D (continued)

Question Response 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

8c Very satisfied 10 12 18 7 13 6 0

Somewhat satisfied 5 16 7 5 8 7 0

Indifferent 7 11 7 6 17 19 3

Somewhat dissatisfied 5 2 2 2 2 6 0

Very dissatisfied 2 5 0 2 1 3 0

8d Very satisfied 6 4 6 4 2 5 0

Somewhat satisfied 9 13 5 3 9 6 2 Indifferent 1 6 5 3 5 7 0

Somewhat dissatisfied 5 7 13 4 16 13 1 Very dissatisfied 8 15 5 7 10 11 0

Be Very satisfied 0 0 2 1 2 0 0

Somewhat satisfied 6 4 2 1 6 4 2 Indifferent 0 1 0 1 0 5 0

Somewhat dissatisfied 15 11 7 4 15 15 1 Very dissatisfied 8 30 23 14 18 17 0

8£ Very satisfied 2 5 0 3 2 0 0

Somewhat satisfied 4 7 2 2 4 3 0

Indifferent 5 10 8 2 11 5 0

Somewhat dissatisfied 10 6 12 2 10 8 0

Very dissatisfied 8 15 12 7 12 24 3

9 Often 17 34 27 18 22 24 1

Sometimes 11 11 4 1 11 8 0

Only occasionally 1 1 3 1 7 8 2 Never 0 0 0 1 2 2 0

10 Often 5 8 2 10 15 9 1

Sometimes 10 6 5 6 12 15 1

Only occasionally 8 11 12 1 12 14 1

Never 6 22 15 4 3 4 0

101
Appendix D (continued)

Question Response 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

11 Often 11 13 4 9 19 11 1

Sometimes 10 14 10 4 10 13 0

Only occasionally 4

00

o0

/:0 13 11 L Never 4 11 8 2 1 5 0

12 Often 1 3 0 3 5 1 0

Sometimes 8 2 3 6 4 6 0

Only occasionally •7O iU 0 0 11 y L Never 13 28 18 4 22 18 0

13 Often 2 12 2 3 15 6 0

Sometimes 5 13 6 6 11 9 3

Only occasionally c.0

£.0cD

QOQO7 u Never 10 11 12 1 7 8 0

utten i b n

U

A4 L 4

n

U

Sometimes 6 13 3 2 3 9 0

Only occasionally 5 12 6 5 10 6 1

Never 15 14 23 10 26 17 1

15 Yes 6 21 4 5 17 27 0

No 21 22 28 17 25 11 3

16 None 13 11 17 11 8 5 1

Office machines 4 10 5 1 17 8 0

Outside noise 2 4 1 3 0 0 0

Telephones 9 7 8 5 13 8 0

Voices 7 28 9 7 26 19 1

People walking around 2 2 3 7 9 5 0

Mechanical noise 2 8 3 5 7 18 1

Other 3 4 2 2 6 12 0

102
Appendix D (continued)

Floor

Question Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Prefer natural 4 6 4 9 7 7 0

Prefer artificial 2 4 1 1 2 0 0

Prefer combination 21 32 25 10 29 30 3

18 About right 26 37 22 3 25 18 3

Too little light 3 4 8 19 14 14 0

Too much light 0 0 1 0 3 4 0

19 Natural 23 36 19 1 27 27 3

Unnatural 1 6 7 21 11 6 0

20 Natural 24 35 21 2 30 27 2

Unnatural 1 7 4 20 6 7 0

21 Often 1 2 3 13 10 7 0

Sometimes 4 9 7 7 7 14 1

Only occasionally 4 6 5 0 6 9 1

Never 18 26 17 3 20 11 1

22 Yes 7 12 8 7 35 2 3

No 21 34 26 16 8 39 0

22 Often 0 1 0 1 3 1 0

Sometimes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

Only occasionally 1 0 0 2 3 0 0

Never 7 10 8 3 25 1 2

24 Very important 12 23 16 9 12 23 2

Moderately important 7 17 11 8 20 15 1

Not important 10 5 7 5 11 2 0

25 Yes 27 39 29 15 24 31 0

No 2 8 5 8 19 10 3

103
Appendix D (continued)

Floor

Question Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 About right 3 10 4 4 5 4 0

Too big 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Too small 23 27 24 10 17 26 0

28 Yes 5 8 1 3 4 3 0

No 22 30 25 12 20 25 0

30a Often 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Sometimes 1 7 . 4 0 1 1 0

Only occasionally 2 4 4 0 1 6 0

Never 20 23 17 11 20 20 0

30b Often 1 0 0 0 0 2 0

Sometimes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Only occasionally 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Never 21 31 24 12 22 26 0

30c Often 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Sometimes 0 5 4 1 0 0 0

Only occasionally 7 8 2 0 6 5 0

Never 16 19 18 10 16 21 0

30d Often 2 0 0 3 0 0 0

Sometimes 1 0 1 0 0 5 0

Only occasionally 3 3 2 2 4 4 0

Never 18 30 17 7 18 15 0

30e Often 5 9 13 5 0 3 0

Sometimes 5 5 2 2 1 3 0

Only occasionally 3 6 0 3 4 3 0

Never 10 13 8 2 17 16 0

104
Appendix D (continued)

Question 1 2 3

Floor

4 5 6 7

30f Often 11 18 19 6 9 17 0

Sometimes 2 5 2 0 3 1 0

Only occasionally 1 0 1 2 1 2 0

Never 9 8 3 1 11 7 0

30g Often 7 15 17 4 7 13 0

Sometimes 3 6 3 2 2 3 0

Only occasionally 5 3 1 1 3 5 0

Never 9 10 4 5 12 7 0

33 All the time 21 40 22 14 27 23 2

Ntost of the time 7 5 11 7 14 13 1

Very little 1 1 1 1 1 4 0

Other 0 1 0 1 1 2 0

37 Male 13 33 15 17 22 23 2

Female 16 14 19 6 21 18 1

38 17-25 3 4 11 1 7 3 1

26-35 12 22 10 10 14 14 1

36-50 9 8 4 8 10 13 0

Over 50 5 13 9 4 12 8 1

105

r-J LD ^ (V! Csl 1—I 1—I (VI + + I 1

00 1—I o 1 + + +

o o ^ Cvl 00

r-- csi ro LO Ln

r-l' rSl r-l CO CTl t~- vD o

LT) LO

(VI r-~- (VI LO cvj o f—I (V] r-t '^r o I--- o o ^ ^

Co

rH .rH d) 03 •H

4-1 +-< -r-l •H ^-'

t/i 03 ^ .—1 u 03 "cC 4-"

•--1 <X) m CO •H C ri £ •H *-> 1/1 -rH H ^ OC

03 +-< 'rH +J D XI -H

Ul C "O 03 (-J M f= ^ OJ 1—

i

<U I/) 03 (-. o t—

I

+-1 fj +j in 03 u •H +j x: 03

03 03 O rt -rH 4-1 U ^

Sl ^ u-i jz; -d rH 3 03 3 o:

i-J ^ E M

>, (y -H QJ 14-1 4-1 3 3 CO 3

s- S T3 E OJ <D <U o o o t-J C (-> o c o o !- ^H ^ o o 0! C CO > 'JD »^ -yi > Or a. "< H f—

'

Z :3 Z

CO 0) to rH d> c t/) X !- o c l-J CO 03

•rH o

!/) o <y

•/) CO vT rH >, flJ dJ

dJ (J o (-> di >

E U ^- dJ (-> o o o

•H O y. ^ - c M (- o O i

dJ O X

E ^

d) o •yi

.(-1 > o QJ O O

1H_ o o CO o o o c z z H U Z H H

c

dJ

M C

•H -H 3 4-> x: 3

O -H

1)U c03 dJO

•rH M-l Mh o

in •H ^H M 3

03 O

lA X

3 M-( O O

x;

,

H O

I—

I

c

.-H O

3 CO

CO 'H c x

>.! ^ o

I—

I

ca 03 03 C •H

•H !-, (J O •H ^ l+H O (-> •H 3 -C -M DO Si

>-i -H CO

d) 1-H <+H T)

0) i-H £

03 rt 0.-HO i-l 3 -i-l CO O Uh ^H X-H 3 P »-> O S- CO Q CO C

r-i 3

d) O

> X)

dJ 03

in

*-> -rH X00 -

•rH -O ^ dJc

d) •rH x; X

OJ rC

d)o

-3

E

o

u

d)o

T3

g

c

dj

o 4_) . . •M *-l u X E X E X

c OO OJ 00 dJ oc

•rH rH H QJ d> •H X; 03 rH t/l rH in rH

C^- 3 <-< E rH in rH 3 3 !-> !- 03 O 03 CO O

O 03 O H O •rH §

>,

>v C 3 U !- u u

•H •H a. •H ^

O T3 ^H •HH d) l4H 3 <HH d> -d C 3 •H X •rH u • rH X cO O M M (-> u M 4-1 X o ^H o

1—t rH 03 C 03 CO X

03 03 in •H 0)

>H -rH O dJ dJ u dJ o

(U u X m X • rH X 4-1 C -H M -I-H M ^•tH 4-1 OJ <+H .I-l U l+H o

C50-H x; X <U X o in ^H M 00 ^-> •r-, *-> OJ CO C ^ 'H • H X H <HH Do rH

1—1 CO s o o CJO

107
o

cc

^ t-~- 'S- i-n

I + + 1 1

OOi-nror3-i~ooror-~«*

1X1 oo (VI 00 cn O 1 (VI 00 (V)

(Vl (VI (VI ^ to ^ LTl to .—( ^

T3 -T3 CU <U

^-1 •H

•H M-l o

(/I (/) X) s~

•ri H Q) 03 o;

(-> -H (fl ID 03 03 M-l (D O t/1 (/I lyl C C O e dj H (/) (/) 'H •H in •H c OJ t/l l-l H +J x: •H

(yi -3 C -d 03 u o Ul T—1 ^ U) O

ly (/I 03 c (U 03 03 X C u u +J t/1 e c 3 <J t/i 03 n (U 03 -H <D o •rH (U

f) j:: U-i JZ 'O (D •a ^ 1/1 <u C

U •H t-H ?3 >, aj H OJ tH (/I OJ (J e !- C <4-i •(-> r-H 'H o o x: ii (U o c o o 0) o O M-i 0) O (II o +-> > OO >- 2 O 5 H > S O

ocd

•M3O

O

t-l-l

OJ r—

(

(U>

<1> Zi I—

1

'3

<u

!/l H

0

0

(N- 03 <L) U

TD •H0

t/l H ^1 U 3

03 0

t/i X

3 I+H 0 0

x:

!->

i-j u

<D 0 O,

1/1 03

3

O

>v

CD

UlC

Oc'/) (D

D (VI

c

o

03 XM s

!- 3 0

t/l 0

•H0 (-> c t/l 03 0 4-1 1)

t/l !->

t/l •H U

3 ;H

<+-l e c 3 M-l 0 0 0

(D •H X

U •p

• iH Ul (D 3

•U (L> U 0

m 0

no &

03 X

> +-1 t3

0) 3 CU 0

0 H

ID r-l X M-l !-> U 3 Ul (J •H 0 0 •H (U t3 +-> a 03 Ul 0 M-l Ul Ul 03 •H 0

^ T3 to 3 M

3 •H 0 C

0 •!-> 0 ^ -H X-H c 3

^-J 0

t/l 13 +-> 3 .-1 0) c 0 r-H (S 4^ X 0 < M-*

T3

lU •H

(U Ul T3

•H •H (U

t-l-l M -H T3 Ul 03

(D -r-t Ul Ul

• rH +-< Ul -H

•(J H 4-1

t/l Ul c T3 03 •H (Li Ul M (-' tn 03 03 CU 03 -H

Ul -C3 X (U -H i

0 0 C > 00

108
o

oo o g

c

o

o.

(/> o o

cc:

1—

(

+ + + I

:t3 C

OH

t/l

I/) ca o u

H o

C !-> !-

<U (U X <D

4-J E --I >

1+4 O C QJ O C/^ O Z

O

O

O

O

U (U >

o o

6

i-. at

o

+->

o

hO t~-.

1

I 1 + +

in •/) C -d

•H OJ (/) P -M ^ -t-J l/l 03 rt OJ r3 -H

(/; ri: >4-< _s T3 X (LI '-I O X

OJ O C O OJ > C/) 1-1 OO >

COc

3o

I—

1

o

OJ M §

•H

+J

03 1—

1

3 H

M

C

O OJ x>

OJ

nj OJU

•H

OJ <4-l

<+-! o

10 u

D

03

(/•, 3 M-( O Oo

0

O

t/1 03

O O LO —( 1—1 + + I

OJOO

LO Ln CTl O CTi t—

1

r-j Osl ^ CnI (%1 Osl (VI

^3O

-d

OJ tr, -T3 X •H .H OJ 1—4 <-H +-> -H 1—

1

t3 (/I 03 <+-! 03

OJ •H U~; IT, C H +-> J) -H O

4-1 03 •H 4-J

o

•H

+->

!/l 8-^

r-^ O

c +-> s- OJ OJ X o

4- 6 ^ >

o c o O X O Z

D

+-> 03(-

OJc.e

OJ

OJ

10c

octo

M-i3

n)

s

Oo

OJ

109
Mlc

c8

0)

t-~- l-O o ^

(jj 5-

n3C

O

•H

t/l

(D U

e o

• rt o

c ^ P E >

O C OJ o c/: o z

O <N1 t-O + + +

03C

O

•H

to

I/) 03 O U

•S o

CM e ^ >

M-i o c oj o c/o o z

T—

1

t—

1

D <u O 0)

14-1 M-) 3 3

O o

03 eg e

o O M i-J

OC3

o o

c c

(U (1) T3

rHO

UM M

(L) <DCCi>-

(U

V- ^

0) jO 0) -Q > 03 > 03

0) <U -l-i

l-J o M o

•H M-l H <4-l S e

to o c/) O

<s § a §

(1)

co

1^ ro (VI "g- LTi vO

I + I + + I

O rvi CO

rH f—I r~.

Ki vo r- 00

u

o ^ & c E

03 -i-l l-J O r-H CL CD E +-' •S 03

OJ U -O

0; O >

CU o2

<-!-. O O CO

0) o

rH O

rH 1—I sO

rH I—

I

+ + + I

^ U~t OO

O -g- (VI Tl03C

O

•H

l/l

t/1 o3

• 1=1 o

c u

(U <D (U M E rH > i-H O C (L» O C/D (3 2

Mh c (U o o

•H P •|H 14H U c^- u

o i-H OJ 03 <u -a O 13 D. <U o. c H 1/1 >- t/1 c^- •H 03 03 03 03 3 3 +-I OJ o 3 '.n 60^ DC t03 >- O CD c ^- C 03 •H o •H

(D 03 c O 3 2 3 AS > 0) •H O o u

03 J- +-> 3 rH >- rH O

in O ^ 3 rH 3

3 Mh X O O O o O O O <4H Mh

•H -73 E 3

+-1 O C ^ O 0) C <U O

t/1 •H U !- x: -H §

^

3 Mh u M

& (h e

(D

t/1 X 3 c

O 03 o (/) ^ o

(-> -H 03 -r-i T3 (/I !h 13 C 13 3 <U

(D -H <U O i

<D -r) X 3 >^13 1 c tn rH o O C 3

•H 3 g.H

•H 3 o o S o

+H 3 OS C u o 03 c^- 3

03 (U 3 u o ^ o

<D <U rH O OJ 13 d) (DO •M O > J3 >, > C > 3 C

^-1 -H 03 CTJ 03 OJ •^^ (U O 'H O Mh (/) 3 ^ 13 -IH 3 oi 3 C 03 E O 3 !- o O <U • O -H (U O O >,'a >, 3 -C X 3 1—

1

(H ^

3 3 0) Sh (U 03 (U dl (U o o a

O >-i MH rH < 3 < o u < 6

110
o

c

LT) o to r^]

I + + O UO + I +

vD O -O + I o r^j o \0 'S- 'a- + + 1 + I

LO oo 0~i O I—

I

r—I 00

f—I o LD o 1-n c~o O f-l o ^a- o r-H Cv] CnJ

5-: C .—I O CTi r—I 00 00 to O 'Srsi (XI

03CO

•H

t/1

If) n3

(L) U

S U

•rH O

C +-I (U (U >, o

+J E rH >

<4^ O C 01 O C/0 o z

§

•H

J)

•J) CO

CD U H o

c +-> s- OJ <L) X CD

•i-j e ^ > i+j o C (U C CO o z

•H 1—1

.-I e

3

o o o

oH

C

O

CI.

\ o

o o 2 H

e

4-' E ,3 C ^ ^

<D rt C =

o <u AS 'y) i-J --I - rH C

C

r3 H cj a ea —1 J

-a

<D 3 •H O T3 <+-( T3 OJ l/l a

C H •H OJ •H li-i M rH 3 o -J) CO <-M 0 c/1 10 H i-> Ifl •H o CO +-> IJ

(/I 'yi C -5 CO

CO (L> l-J +-1 +-> to -o CO CO <U CO H

3 2 O •H (U >N T5 E O C O > c/) C/2 >

a;

4-1 o tou

+j -a u

o -o

to O

CO U

CSC CH CO 3 <D O

.—1 cO O ^ M-l S-r o

<L> 3D X O

T3 C O to i

§

o OJ p

a 3 C X o

•o 3

0) c

-H C < 3 •H

to30

T3C

3

0) •H

+->

t/1 •H t-l 3

3' 0

CO T3C t/1 •H M

3u

3

0 0 X u

<+-i 0 ^ OJ 0

•r-l to

1-1 > M CO 3 x: 0

XI 3

CO 0

3

Ho &

(JO c

i

I—

1

rH>2

to

+-> •H 3

3 0

•0 3 C 0XS

(D

CO U

•H

0) tw

(/I •H U

•P 3

CO 0

CO3 t+-i 0 0

X. M

*-> U

3 (D 0 D.

to

CO

111
\
Appendix F

Occupant "Likes" and "Dislikes" on First Questionnaire

(N=265=100"«)

Number of Number of

Likes Responses Dislikes Responses

Location r r bb Temperature ob Appearance 70 a . General complaints 11 Newness 24 b. Too cold 44 Cleanness 18 c. Poorly regulated 25 Atmosphere 1/ d. Too warm

r3 Design 11 Slow, unreliable elevators /U

Lighting 1 n IV Parking 'to Consolidation of agencies 10 a. General complaints lo

Adequate space y b . Lack of parking space Oft £.0 Garage for parking 7 c. Paying for it 0 Comfortable environment 7 Windows 47 Clean restrooms •7/ a. General complaints 1 Being part of an exp)eriment 0 b . Too few ZU Snack bar 0 c . Can ' t be opened 1 7 1 / Pleasant working environment rb d. Too small Q Use of solar energy

rb Ventilation A C Parking b a. General complaints

Nice furniture 4 b. Excessive drafts lU

Carpeting 4 c. Too erratic r0 Quietness 4 Lack of a cafeteria Ob

Office layout 4 Heavy front doors 30 Energy conserving features 3 Lighting 29 Fellow workers •7J a . Fourth floor lb

Maintenance 3 b. Other floors 1 A 14 Temperature 3 Noise 1/ Nice facilities I Lack of space y Display in lobby 2 Appearance 9 Sound construction 2 Poor location 8 Drinking fountains 1 Locked stairway on first

Color of walls 1 floor 7 Elevators 1 Lack of health facilities 7 Water 1 Office layout 5 Telephones after hours 1 Computerized control of

Good security 1 building 4 Facilities for handicapped 1 Restrooms 4 Size 1 Working conditions 3 Everything 1 Lack of maintenance 3 Lack of public telephones 3 Parking garage 3 Atmosphere 3 Lack of control over Venetian blinds 3 Lack of privacy 3 False fire alarms 2 Lack of an employee lounge 2 Security 2 Clocks 1

113
Appendijc F . (continued)

Number of Number of

Likes Responses Dislikes Responses

Carpeting 1 Uncomfortable environment 1 Loading dock 1 Poor approach for handicappped 1 Rough exterior walls 1 Cold lobby 1 Leaky basement 1 Lack of emergency exits 1 Lack of directory 1 Employee facilities 1

114
Appendix G

Occupant "Likes" and "Dislikes" on Second Questionnaire

(N=213=100%)

Number of Number of

Likes Responses Dislikes Responses

Location 60 Temperature 105 Appearance 29 a. General complaints 12 Newness 16 b. Too cold 54 Lighting 15 c. Poorly regulated 27 Atmosphere 13 d. Too warm 12 Cleanness 12 Slow, unreliable elevators 39 Design 9 Parking 57 Adequate space 6 Ventilation 31 Parking 6 Windows 26 Fifth floor furniture 5 Lighting 23 Office layout 5 a. Fourth floor 11 naTQap -fnv naTkiriQ 4 b Ol"bp"r f1 noT^ 12 Energy conserving features 4 Lack of a cafeteria 21 Quietness 3 Heavy front doors 16 Facilities 3 Noise 10 Snack bar 2 Design 8 Good security 2 Lack of humidity 8 Comfortable environment 2 Lack of space 7 Everything 2 Lack of health facilities 7 Consolidation of agencies 1 Building systems 5 Privacy 1 Appearance 4 GSA store 1 Lack of daylight 4 Carpet ing 1 Lack of emergency exits 4 Maintenance 1 Blocked stairway 3 HVAC System 1 Office layout 3 Automatic doors 1 Lack of maintenance 3 Location 2 Atmosphere 2 Lack of privacy 1 GSA management 1 Access for visitors 1 Exterior lighting 1

115
NBS-n4A (REV. 2-8C) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO. SHEET (See instructions) NBS BSS 130 January 1981

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

User Acceptance of an Energy Efficient Office Building — A Study of the Norris

Cotton Federal Office Building

5. AUTHOR(S)

Jacqueline Elder, Robert L. Tibbott

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see in struct/on

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State. ZIP)

Office of Building & Community Systems

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20582

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80-600188

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) The General Services Administration built the Norris Cotton Federal Office

Building in Manchester, New Hampshire, and chose it as a "demonstration project for

studying the effectiveness of energy conservation techniques in the design and

operation of a contemporary office building." User acceptance of both the

innovative and conventional design features in the buildirig was measured by

administering a questionnaire to employees shortly after occupancy of the building

and again eight months later. The most positively rated feature overall was the

lighting, but reaction to the high pressure sodium lighting system as installed

in the Norris Cotton Building, was strongly negative. Response to noise levels and

disturbances was about evenly divided, but workers in open-plan offices were less

satisfied with the noise climate than workers in partitioned offices. Most

respondents were dissatisfied with the temperature and ventilation conditions and

the small windows in the building. In general, the occupants rated the building

much higher in appearance than their previous offices, slightly higher in terms

of suitability for performance of their jobs, and slightly lower with respect to

comfort. A literature review of recent survey studies of the office environment

is included.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Energy conservation; lighting; man/environment research; noise; office building;

post-occupancy evaluation; questionnaire; temperature; ventilation; windows

13. AVAILABILITY

[x3 Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[x~\ Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. Q Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

122

15. Price

$4.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1980 O— 334-459/6990
There's

anew

look

/J ^^X^ IX ... the monthly / / / magazine of the Nation-

^^^^s^^^^^^^lf^/ Bureau of Standards.

f ^^^^^ / Still featured are special ar- ^^^^^^^j^/ tides of general interest on

\ / current topics such as consumJ/ er product safety and building ^•^^"^ / technology. In addition, new sections are designed to . . . PROVIDE

SCIENTISTS with illustrated discussions

of recent technical developments and

work in progress . . . INFORM INDUSTRIAL

MANAGERS of technology transfer activities in

Federal and private labs. . . DESCRIBE TO MANUFACTURERS advances in the field of voluntary and

mandatory standards. The new DIMENSIONS/NBS also

carries complete listings of upcoming conferences to be

held at NBS and reports on all the latest NBS publications,

with information on how to order. Finally, each issue carries a page of News Briefs, aimed at keeping scientist and consumalike up to date on major developments at the Nation's physical sciences and measurement laboratory.

(please detach here) SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

Enter my Subscription To DIMENSIONS/NBS at $11.00. Add $2.75 for foreign mailing. No additional postage Is required for mailing within the United States or its possessions. Domestic remittances should be made either by postal money order, express money order, or check. Foreign remittances should be made either by international money order, draft on an American bank, or by UNESCO

Jj coupons. Send Subscription to:

11

NAME-FIRST, LAST

I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I

O Remittance Enclosed (Make checks payable

to Superintendent of Documents)

D charge to my Deposit Account No.

COMPANY NAME OR ADDITIONAL ADDRESS LINE

I I I I I i I I 11 I I I I 11 I I I I I II

STREET ADDRESS

i i i I I I I I I I ! II II II I M II I I I I I I I I I I I I

ZIP CODE _L±-

MAIL ORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

PLEASE PRINT

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$13; foreign $16.25. Single copy, $3 domestic: $3.75 foreign. NOTE; The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers, students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERiODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports wt^ich are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR 's—from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield. VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by E

ecutive Order 11717(38 FR 12315, dated May II, 1973) and Pan

-

of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22I6I,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-215

SPECIAL.FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK