37 Office Noise Statistics

by

These office noise figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.

Key Office Noise Statistics

The main findings are:

  • The Italian survey analyzed 1,078 completed responses: 597 from shared offices and 481 from open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • A simulated open-plan office experiment compared 39 LAeq low noise with 51 LAeq high noise (two experimental sessions).
  • In the Italian survey, mean noise-annoyance score was 2.54 in shared offices versus 3.07 in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • In the 55 dBA experiment, 68% were dissatisfied with noise in the noise condition versus 4% in the comparison condition (laboratory experiment; adult experimental subjects).
  • More than 70% of open-plan respondents said they would reduce their voice volume if advised by a noise-monitoring system with lighting feedback (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • Shared offices were defined as 2–5 occupants, while open-plan offices had more than 5 occupants (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • The high-noise condition was 12 LAeq dB(A) above the low-noise condition (two experimental sessions; simulated open-plan office).
  • The corresponding modal annoyance score was 2 in shared offices and 3 in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • Noise increased reported fatigue in the 55 dBA experiment at p<0.05 (laboratory experiment; adult experimental subjects).
  • The sound-masking intervention raised background sound by 13.2 dB(A) at company 1 and 10.2 dB(A) at company 2 (two- to three-month intervention; two organizations).
  • About 55% of respondents worked in shared offices and 45% in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • A separate workplace comparison reported cell offices had a noise level 15 LAeq dB lower than shared/open-plan offices before relocation (activity-based and traditional workplaces).
  • Mean work-productivity item score was 3.06 in shared offices and 3.44 in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy).
  • Noise increased difficulty concentrating in the 55 dBA experiment at p<0.05 (laboratory experiment; adult experimental subjects).
  • About 70% of workers in both office types identified difficulty concentrating as the main feeling caused by irrelevant speech noise (survey period reported by study; Italy; shared and open-plan offices).

Contents

Office noise statistics: how common distraction and annoyance are

  • The Italian survey analyzed 1,078 completed responses: 597 from shared offices and 481 from open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • Shared offices were defined as 2–5 occupants, while open-plan offices had more than 5 occupants (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • About 55% of respondents worked in shared offices and 45% in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • About 70% of workers in both office types identified difficulty concentrating as the main feeling caused by irrelevant speech noise (survey period reported by study; Italy; shared and open-plan offices). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • Loss of concentration was reported by 69% of shared-office workers and 66% of open-plan workers as the main consequence (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • Stress or another self-estimated mental-health effect was the main consequence for 4% of shared-office workers and 6% of open-plan workers (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • Emotional or social effects were the main consequence for 6% of shared-office workers and 9% of open-plan workers (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • Physical symptoms such as tiredness, overstrain or headaches were the main consequence for 4% of shared-office workers and 9% of open-plan workers (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • In the same survey, annoyance scores correlated with productivity and wellbeing items at Spearman coefficients of at least 0.50, with p<0.01, in both office types (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • The field study of office sounds found 99% of 88 employees reported impaired concentration from at least one office-noise component (field study published 2005; two office sites). (Office noise and employee concentration:…)

Cross-sectional online survey; not a representative national prevalence estimate.

Study classification, not a universal office-design standard.

Sample composition, not workforce prevalence.

Self-estimated consequence of irrelevant speech; wording and response options are study-specific.

Self-report and cross-sectional association.

Self-reported category; not a clinical diagnosis or prevalence estimate.

Self-reported response category.

Self-reported symptoms; does not establish causation.

Correlation is not causation; scores are questionnaire measures.

Small two-site field sample and subjective report.

Office noise levels and acoustic conditions in open-plan workplaces

  • A simulated open-plan office experiment compared 39 LAeq low noise with 51 LAeq high noise (two experimental sessions). (Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance…)
  • The high-noise condition was 12 LAeq dB(A) above the low-noise condition (two experimental sessions; simulated open-plan office). (Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance…)
  • A separate workplace comparison reported cell offices had a noise level 15 LAeq dB lower than shared/open-plan offices before relocation (activity-based and traditional workplaces). (Objective measures of cognitive performance…)
  • The Chinese survey found about 30%–50% of interviewees rated various indoor and outdoor office noise sources as disturbing or very disturbing (survey period reported by study; China). (A social survey on the…)
  • The Hong Kong office measurements reported open-office sound levels of approximately 55–65 dB(A) over the day and week (measurement period reported in source; Hong Kong open office). (A social survey on the…)
  • The same Hong Kong comparison reported enclosed-office readings of approximately 40–45 dB(A) (measurement period reported in source; Hong Kong enclosed offices). (A social survey on the…)
  • The difference between the reported Hong Kong open-office lower bound and enclosed-office upper bound was approximately 10 dB(A) (measurement period reported in source; Hong Kong offices). (A social survey on the…)
  • In the sound-masking field study, background sound increased from 28.7 to 41.9 dB(A) at company 1 (two- to three-month intervention; company 1 open-plan floor). (Level-adaptive sound masking in the…)
  • At company 2, background sound increased from 32.4 to 42.6 dB(A) during sound masking (two- to three-month intervention; company 2 open-plan floor). (Level-adaptive sound masking in the…)

Controlled simulation, not a measurement of all occupied offices.

Difference calculated directly from the two reported experimental conditions.

Study-specific office types and relocation context.

Range across noise sources and survey settings; not one pooled prevalence.

Source is a conference paper and measurements are office-specific.

Office-specific measurements; not a standard target level.

Simple comparison of reported range endpoints; not a matched mean comparison.

Intervention-floor field study; source does not establish a universal optimum.

Intervention-floor field study.

Office noise statistics on concentration, productivity and cognitive performance

Scale is study-specific; means are not dB measurements.

Study-specific ordinal response scale.

Higher score direction depends on the questionnaire coding; self-rated outcome.

Self-rated, study-specific item.

Student sample with normal hearing and vision; not office-worker prevalence.

Short controlled exposure.

Short-term laboratory result at a realistic simulated noise level.

Office noise, fatigue and wellbeing outcomes in workplace studies

  • In the 55 dBA experiment, 68% were dissatisfied with noise in the noise condition versus 4% in the comparison condition (laboratory experiment; adult experimental subjects). (The effects of moderate heat…)
  • Noise increased reported fatigue in the 55 dBA experiment at p<0.05 (laboratory experiment; adult experimental subjects). (The effects of moderate heat…)
  • Noise increased difficulty concentrating in the 55 dBA experiment at p<0.05 (laboratory experiment; adult experimental subjects). (The effects of moderate heat…)
  • At 22°C, 26°C and 30°C, forehead sweating was observed in 4%, 36% and 76% of subjects, respectively, in the combined heat/noise experiment (two-hour exposure; adult experimental subjects). (The effects of moderate heat…)
  • The corresponding proportions feeling warm were 0%, 21% and 65% at 22°C, 26°C and 30°C (two-hour exposure; adult experimental subjects). (The effects of moderate heat…)
  • In the Italian survey, the interpersonal-relationship mean score was 2.71 in shared offices and 2.98 in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • The modal interpersonal-relationship score was 2 in shared offices and 3 in open-plan offices (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)

Condition comparison; sample and exposure duration are study-specific.

Significance does not quantify effect size or establish long-term harm.

Short-term subjective outcome.

This is a temperature comparison included in a noise study, not an office-noise-only effect.

Temperature-related context, not an isolated noise estimate.

Study-specific self-rated scale.

Study-specific ordinal response scale.

Office noise coping strategies and sound-masking results

  • More than 70% of open-plan respondents said they would reduce their voice volume if advised by a noise-monitoring system with lighting feedback (survey period reported by study; Italy). (A Cross-Sectional Survey on the…)
  • The sound-masking intervention raised background sound by 13.2 dB(A) at company 1 and 10.2 dB(A) at company 2 (two- to three-month intervention; two organizations). (Level-adaptive sound masking in the…)

Stated willingness, not observed behavior.

Differences calculated from the source’s before/during values; not a recommendation for a target level.

Table of contents