## Results and Discussion
### Variations Based on Location in the Mall  
The results of the L\({}_{\rm{Aeq}}\) in the different locations within the mall varied significantly, as shown above. The highest levels were found in the playground, and the lowest levels were found in the shopping area. When evaluating the answers to the question rating the overall noise level in the mall based on the different locations (Figure 11), the difference in the responses was statistically significant at \(p<0.05\) (F = 2.76), using a one-way ANOVA. However, the subjective rating of loudness did not match the actual sound-pressure-level measurements. The employees in the shopping area and the entrances rated the loudness as higher than neutral (3.23 and 3.48, respectively), even though the sound there was the lowest. The employees in the playing area and food court evaluated the noise levels as neutral or less than neutral (3.0 and 2.86, respectively), even though the L\({}_{\rm{Aeq}}\) there were the highest. The statistical analysis using a one-way ANOVA for the questions related to acoustical comfort showed no statistical difference between the answers collected from the four locations (\(p=0.51\), F = 0.78). Similarly, the answers for the ability to work in noisy places showed no significant differences between the four different locations (\(p=0.22\), F = 1.48).  
A comparison between the subjective rating of loudness with the corresponding reverberation time at the different locations showed a match between the results (Figure 12). The highest reverberation time was found at the entrances and the shopping areas, where the employees rated the loudness higher, followed by the playing area and the food court, where the employees rated the loudness lower. The linear correlation coefficient = 0.76. Even though the Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates a  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Problem**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Location**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Entrances** & **Shopping Area** & **Food Court** & **Playing Area** \\ \hline Speech intelligibility & 25.9\% & 35.5\% & 55.2\% & 33.3\% \\ Stress & 44.4\% & 32.3\% & 31.0\% & 20.0\% \\ Headache & 48.1\% & 51.6\% & 37.9\% & 53.3\% \\ Reduced efficiency & 18.5\% & 38.7\% & 13.8\% & 20.0\% \\ Temporal hearing loss & 3.7\% & 3.2\% & 0.0\% & 6.7\% \\ Cardiac Diseases & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 6.7\% \\ Sleep disorder & 3.7\% & 9.7\% & 3.4\% & 6.7\% \\ Others & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: The dominant problems and health issues due to loud sounds, evaluated based on the different locations in the mall.  
Figure 11: The rating of loudness based on the location in the mall. Error bars indicate STD.  
positive relation, the \(p\)-value was 0.1258 (\(p>0.05\)). More investigations with a higher number of data points are necessary to validate if this tendency can be of statistical significance.  
While evaluating the relation between the subjective loudness rating and the corresponding L\({}_{\text{Aeq}}\) in the four areas, there is an inverse relationship, with a low linear correlation coefficient = 0.39. These results showed slight reduction in the loudness rating with the increment in the sound-pressure levels (Figure 13). The rating of the loudness here is unusual given the increase in the sound-pressure level is around 10 dB. We believe other factors may influence the subjective rating of loudness; these factors may include personal reasons, like the satisfaction with the working conditions, or environmental reasons, like relative humidity, temperature, lighting, and type of noise [13; 19]. Figure 13 is based on the relation between the subjective rating of loudness with the overall L\({}_{\text{Aeq}}\). Further investigation with different frequency bands or L\({}_{\text{A90}}\) may better explain the responses.