porter public environment assessment group open house presentation november 25, 2011

Porter Public Environment Assessment Group

Open House PresentationNovember 25, 2011

Introduction

Group Overview & Goals

Noise Results

Food & Space Saving Results

Recommendations

Questions & Discussion

Meeting Overview

• Speakers will alternate• Notes will be taken• Clarifying questions at the end of each

section• Discussion questions at the end• PowerPoint and Report available online

Introduction


Noise Results


Recommendations


Why an Assessment?

• Complaints on the rise:– Noise– Space-saving– Food

• Questions:– Do we have a problem?– If so, how severe is it?

Group Overview

• Sue Arruda, Collection Maintenance Supervisor (Porter) – Chair

• Judy McTaggart, Library Associate (Porter) • Jae Min Jin, ISR Waterloo Co-op student

• Sharon Lamont, Director, Organization Services – Group sponsor

Assessment Time

• Noise Assessment – Survey– Observational noise assessment

• Space-saving assessment • Food as an issue assessment

Deliverables

• Develop assessment criteria • Indicate extent of issues• Create best practices• Formulate recommendations• Present a report of findings

Introduction


Noise Results


Recommendations


Noise Assessment MethodsThree assessments, conducted during the 2011 winter term:

– User survey– Scheduled staff observations– Ad hoc staff observations

Results:– 532 patrons filled out the survey, – 1,915 scheduled staff observations – 11 random, unscheduled staff observations.

User Survey Analysis

User Survey Analysis

2nd fl. nea

r book s

tacks

Behind In

fo Desk

Computers N

ear C

irc Desk

1st Cen

tral A

rea

Micro Room

3rd Carr

els

Sims R

R

3rd co

mputers

5-10 carre

ls

5-10 tables

5-10 computer

s

5-10 group st

udy room

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Comparison of Noise Ratings - Frequent Users Individ.Study/Work

Noisy

Location

Surv

ey co

unt

• 174 respondents who made 558 separate comments

• 159 comments made about the noise levels

• 42 comments were suggestions/recommendations:– Removing tables on the upper floors; – Designating separate quiet and group work areas; – Banning cell phones or have them put on vibrate; – Restrict eating; – Educate students about “library etiquette”

User Survey Analysis: Comments

Main disruptive sources of noise:– Groups of 2 or more talking in carrels– Cell phone conversations– Listening to video/music without using

headphones – Skyping – Groups talking at tables near carrels – IM and cell phone ring tones

User Survey Analysis: Noise Sources

Staff Observations on Noise Levels

• Daily staff observations for noise levels:– March 24th to April 9th – Monday – Friday at 9 am, 1 pm, and 7 pm– Saturday & Sunday at 1 pm and 4 pm

• Observation model:– 30 seconds at each designated area– Listen and assess the noise level– Rate the noise level

Of the 3% or 54 high noise level observations: • 50% occurred on the main floor• 38.88% occurred in the group setting areas • 11.11% occurred in carrel areas on floors 6-10


• 11 random, unscheduled observations – between March 16th and March 31st

• Rating the disruption level experienced for the following noise sources: – Cell phones ringing– Cell phones vibrating– Moving chairs– People eating– People talking– Texting– Typing

Ad Hoc Staff Observations

Summary of Conclusions

• A pattern pertaining to noise levels in the DP library: – noise from group areas frequently distracts patrons using

the library for individual study and work.

• The majority of users experience noise disruption• The library environment is not considered to be

boisterous or unruly to the point where the noise issue is deemed severe


• The study areas on the main floor of Porter experience moderate to high disruptive noise levels due to activity in the service areas, and people talking in the group setting areas.

• Floors 6 through 10 near the group study rooms, and the carrels near the group study tables experience moderate disruptive noise levels due to group study activities.

• All other study areas in Porter were assessed as having a low disruptive noise level.


• Though many areas in Porter are generally considered as having a low disruptive noise level, most patrons using these areas experience noise disruption.

• The noise actions taken indicate that the impact of noise disruption is severe enough to merit the library taking initiatives to try and minimize noise disruption where possible.

Introduction


Noise Results


Recommendations


Space Saving

• Determine if the study space available in Porter meets the demand

• Use of staff observations and collection of occupancy data

Observations & Counts

• Staff observations occurred:– on 3 days, middle of exam period– at peak time: 3 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

• Counts taken of each occupied study space in the Library

• Recorded the number of patrons occupying 2 spaces

Findings

• Total study spaces in Porter: 1198• Occupancy rates:

– Day 1: 67% – Day 2: 56%– Day 3: 51%

In 2011 winter term, the study spaces available in Porter met the demand

Hot/Aromatic Food

• Brief observations by staff while conducting noise & space studies

• Waste containers monitored

Findings

• Hot/aromatic food does not appear to be a problem in Porter

• Waste containers at end of book ranges frequently overflowing

Introduction


Noise Results


Recommendations


Let’s talk recommendations

Sixth Floor

Tenth Floor

Suggested Designations

• 1st floor – silent study• Main floor – see recommendation 1.4• 3 floor Sims RR – silent study• 3rd floor carrels – silent study• 3rd floor computer areas – quiet study • 5th floor, east and west perimeters - group study• 5th floor south perimeter – quiet study• 5th floor computer area – quiet study• Floors 6-8 carrels – silent study• Floors 9 -10 carrels - quiet study• 10th Floor where tables are relocated - group study• Floors 6-10 group study rooms - group study

Fifth Floor

Recommendations

1.3 - No monitoring for compliance

1.4 - Identify the sources of noise concernson the main floor

1.5 - Conduct another assessment of the noise levels in DP

Recommendations

2.1 - Conduct occupancy counts for each designated area to assess if there is sufficient seating of each type – late November.

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.

3.1 - Obtain cost information for replacing the smaller waste containers with larger containers of the same width.

3.2 - Establish a separate group to develop a complete recycling/waste management program in DP, including in staff areas.

Introduction


Noise Results


Recommendations


porter public environment assessment group open house presentation november 25, 2011

Documents