July 29, 2011
The Porter Public Environment Assessment Group was established in winter 2011 to investigate concerns about the environmental quality of the public areas of the Dana Porter Library (DP), specifically regarding: 1. noise levels, 2. saving seats and 3. hot/aromatic food.
The noise level analysis was derived from three assessments conducted during the 2011 winter term: a user survey; scheduled staff observations; and ad hoc staff observations. Over 500 patrons filled out the survey and there were 1,915 scheduled staff observations. The user survey was not controlled for representativeness of the sample population, however the survey was made accessible only from the Library website home page, and in paper format only from within DP, so those patrons who filled them out can be fairly considered to be the ones with a vested interest in the Library. Further, there were tell-tale factors, such as the handwriting on the paper surveys, which provided a high level of confidence that responses were unique. In addition, the user survey results are corroborated by the staff observations in the essential points. For all these reasons, the combined results of the three assessments are considered to provide valuable and actionable information.
The survey showed that 43% of respondents experience noise disruption ‘often’ or ‘always,’ and another 35% experience disruptions ‘sometimes.’ Another way of looking at these numbers is that 22% of respondents ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ found noise to be disruptive, and if this 22% is combined with those who were disrupted ‘sometimes’ there is a fairly clear dichotomy of responses. This dichotomy appears to be borne out by the comments to the survey: out of 159 comments made about the noise level, approximately 50% indicated it was very disruptive while the other 50% indicated it was somewhat disruptive or not a problem. Staff observations indicate that the noise level in the building overall is generally ‘low’ from the point of view of the level of noise in any one moment, however the impact of noise disruption experienced by respondents was significant enough to merit large numbers of them taking action, including often leaving DP.
The primary sources of noise that users found to be most disruptive are the ones that are within the power of patrons to control should they choose to:
Other sources of noise, such as cell phones on vibrate; video/music with headphones on; chairs moving; people eating; keyboarding; staff working, and others, were not considered to be nearly as disruptive.
The survey indicated that disruptions occur primarily in the following areas: main floor; tables on floors 5 – 10; and, to a lesser extent, in the carrels on floors 5 – 10. Staff observations confirmed that these areas are the noisiest. Other areas that occasionally received a ‘high’ noise rating from staff are near the group study rooms, and in front of the public elevators on the 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th floors.
Noise Recommendations
Since a significant number of respondents are disrupted by noise levels, there is definite merit in taking steps to address concerns, especially as this can be done without reducing the amount of available group study space:
1.1 Separate areas into three groups by moving furniture appropriately, and use the same language used at the Davis Library: group study; quiet study; silent study:
1.2 Clearly designate areas according to the desired environment to encourage the desired behaviour. Amounts allocated to each area should be based on periods of peak occupancy, since at other times there are usually options for students seeking silence to move away from noisemakers. Anecdotally, at peak times there are more students needing individual silent study for exam preparation. Suggested designations are therefore:
1.3 There is no recommendation at this time that these areas be monitored for compliance. It is hoped that by providing clear choices patrons will choose the area that fits their needs.
1.4 Identify more precisely the sources of noise concerns on the main floor and consider means to address these without undermining the advantages of the recent renovation.
1.5 Conduct another assessment of the noise levels in DP after incorporating above recommendations to determine if reorganization changes addressed noise concerns.
Detailed charts and graphs of the survey and the staff observations are available here.
Staff observations on space saving were conducted on three days during the middle of the April exam period, and involved collecting occupancy data to determine if the DP study space available meets the demand. The results from this period indicate that study spaces available during the 2011 winter term met the demand. The highest occupancy rate observed was 67% on April 12th.
Seat Recommendations:
2.1 After incorporating the Noise Level recommendations, conduct occupancy counts for each designated area to assess if there is sufficient seating of each type. Counts should be made in late-November 2011.
2.2 If the November 2011 occupancy counts indicate that a particular type of seating is at or near 100%, repeat the counts in late-March to confirm, before making adjustments in the designation of the spaces.
Thorough assessments to identify implications of hot/aromatic food in DP were not possible to conduct in conjunction with the noise and space assessments. Brief observations were made by those staff conducting the noise and space observations, and by monitoring the waste containers. Results from these observations indicate that hot/aromatic food is not a problem at DP, however the waste containers at the end of the book ranges throughout DP were consistently found to be overflowing on Mondays – they are not large enough for the weekend hiatus in custodial work.
Food Recommendations:
3.1 Obtain cost information for replacing the smaller waste containers located throughout DP at the end of the book ranges with larger containers of the same width. Having larger containers around the floor perimeters may address the issue of overflowing garbage containers by the public elevators.
3.2 Much of the waste is recyclable. Establish a separate group to develop a complete recycling/waste management program in DP, including in staff areas. If the cost of larger bins in the first recommendation is expensive do not buy them. If the cost of the bins is not expensive, it may be prudent to buy many of them as soon as possible, while waiting for the development of a recycling program.
Susan Arruda (Chair)
Jae Min Jin
Judy McTaggart
Annie Belanger (resource)
Alex McCulloch (resource)
University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883
contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011
University of Waterloo