## Results and Discussion
### Questionnaire Results  
Data considered in the analysis were taken from 102 people working in the small with no known hearing problems. Their average age was 27 years (\(\pm\)8.16). The sample consisted of 78 males and 26 females, whose educational levels were 48% (n = 49) and who had a university degree or were university students; 51% (n = 53) were primary school or high school graduates. The income of 79.4% (n = 78) was around average, and 20.6% (n = 21) was below average. The authors attempted to select similar numbers of participants from each type of area. However, from the playing area, only 15 participants were found; 27 participants were found from the entrance areas, 29 participants from the food court, and 31 participants from the shopping area. The employees work around 8 h a day and six days a week, and only 6.9% (n = 7) work only on the evening shift. The remainder, 93.1%, work on different shifts (morning, afternoon, or evening). In order to gather information on the subjective rating of the noise levels/loudness in the different small areas, two questions were asked. The first was used to evaluate the overall rating of loudness in the small, and the second was used to evaluate the employee's experience of acoustic comfort. The results showed that 47.1% of the employees believe that the sound-pressure levels are fair, 31.4% chose noisy or very noisy, and 21.6% chose quiet or very quiet. The average score was 3.16 out of five, which is above 3, i.e., a fair/neutral level of loudness in the small. Figure 6 displays the percentage results of the questions for each answer. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Location** & **500 Hz** & **1000 Hz** & **2000 Hz** & **Mean (s)** \\ \hline Playing Area 1 & 1.20 & 1.22 & 1.18 & 1.20 \\ Playing Area 2 & 1.16 & 1.22 & 1.21 & 1.20 \\ Playing Area 3 & 1.01 & 1.04 & 1.00 & 1.02 \\ Food Court 1 & 1.00 & 0.95 & 0.98 & 0.98 \\ Food Court 2 & 1.02 & 0.96 & 0.75 & 0.91 \\ Food Court 2 & 1.08 & 1.06 & 0.83 & 0.99 \\ Entrance 1 & 1.16 & 1.10 & 1.02 & 1.09 \\ Entrance 2 & 2.00 & 1.30 & 0.90 & 1.41 \\ Entrance 3 & 1.12 & 1.44 & 1.12 & 1.23 \\ Shopping 1 & 1.51 & 1.21 & 1.09 & 1.27 \\ Shopping 2 & 1.23 & 1.34 & 1.12 & 1.23 \\ Shopping 3 & 1.61 & 1.05 & 0.90 & 1.19 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Reverberation time in seconds. Figure 6: The subjective rating of the loudness in the small. For acoustic comfort, the results were similar to those found for the loudness rating. The majority rated the acoustic comfort as fair, 34.3% rated it as uncomfortable or very uncomfortable, and the rest 20.6% rated it as comfortable. None of the users rated the small as very comfortable. Figure 7 shows the detailed percentages. Even though the L\({}_{\text{Aeq}}\) in the small was high in comparison with other studies discussed previously [5; 12; 14]. The average score of acoustic comfort was 3.2, which is also above the neutral level of 3, indicating that the small tended to be marginally acoustically uncomfortable for users. A study done within young adults in Jordan [22] showed that 36.7% of the participants believe hearing loss and hearing problems are not a big problem or not a problem at all. This may explain the relatively marginal tendency in evaluating the small's acoustical conditions as uncomfortable. The study done by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13] resulted in an overall sound-loudness rating for six different sites, ranging between 3.20 and 3.52 out of 5, and an acoustic comfort between 2.73 and 3.41 out of 5, on a scale starting with very uncomfortable and ending with very comfortable, opposite to the scale in this study. These results, when considered as average values, indicate that the users considered the loudness and acoustic comfort at different sites as relatively fair, even though the L\({}_{\text{Aeq}}\) exceeded 70 dB. Similarly, in this study, the participants rated the sound levels and the acoustic comfort as fair in general.