Designing activity-based workspaces: satisfaction, productivity and physical activity

ABSTRACT

Activity-based working (ABW) provides office workers with a variety of indoor workspaces purposively designed to accommodate different tasks. Despite an increased use of ABW, studies focusing on its impact and the resultant office design are yet to follow suit. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by providing empirical evidence from studies conducted before and after relocation from contemporary open-plan offices to ABW spaces. Results from post-occupancy evaluation (POE) surveys (n = 896 responses), spot measurements of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and step-count monitoring (one case study; n = 20 participants) before and after relocation are reported. A total of 10 workspaces participated (six combi and four ABW) in this study. Design features were documented and analyzed. While there were limited differences in the measured IEQ conditions between office layouts investigated here, ABW workspaces yielded significantly higher satisfaction results on key IEQ dimensions, perceived productivity and health. Office layout was also found as a significant (or nearly significant) predictor of occupants’ lightly active and sedentary time but did not affect occupants’ daily step counts and distance they travelled. These results highlight the significance and impact of office layout and human-centred approach to design on occupants’ satisfaction, perceived productivity and incidental physical activity opportunities.

KEYWORDS:

• activity-based working
• behaviour
• facilities management
• green buildings
• indoor environmental quality (IEQ)
• physical activity
• post-occupancy evaluation (POE)
• workplace
• workspace design

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to all organizations and occupants for dedicating their time to participate in this study. The authors also thank Dr Renata De Vecchi, Ms Paula Strapasson and Ms Helena Trevi for their assistance during data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 BOSSA Nova specifications: Air temperature: range = 10–40°C; resolution = 0.1°C; accuracy = ±0.5°C; Air speed: range = 0.01–2 m/s; resolution = 0.01 m/s; accuracy = ±3%; Humidity: range  = 0–100%; accuracy = ±2%; Illuminance: range = 0.01–299,900 lx; accuracy = ±2%; Sound pressure meter (class 2): range, A-weighting = 25–138 dB; C-weighting = 33–138 dB, Z-weighting = 38–138 dB, C-weighting peak sound level = 55–141 dB, Z-weighting peak sound level = 60–141 dB.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Sydney’s DVC Research Bridging Support Grant [number G192926] and Cachet Group [grant number G192167]. The BOSSA tool was funded by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects scheme [grant number LP1102000328] and other industry grants [numbers G192516, G192638, G191320, G191146, G191140, G190789, G190774, G183216, G182162, G182161, G181426 and G181428].