Open House Presentation November 25 2011 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 ID: 234549
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Porter Public Environment Assessment Gro..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Porter Public Environment Assessment Group
Open House Presentation
November 25, 2011Slide2Slide3
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 onlineSlide4Slide5
Why an Assessment?
Complaints on the rise:
Noise
Space-saving
Food
Questions:
Do we have a problem?
If so, how severe is it?Slide6
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 sponsorSlide7
Assessment Time
Noise Assessment
Survey
Observational noise assessment
Space-saving assessment
Food as an issue assessmentSlide8
Deliverables
Develop assessment criteria
Indicate extent of issues
Create best practices
Formulate recommendations
Present a report of findingsSlide9Slide10
Noise Assessment Methods
Three assessments,
conducted during
the 2011
winter
term:
User survey
S
cheduled
staff
observations
A
d
hoc staff observations
Results:
532 patrons filled
out the
survey,
1,915
scheduled staff
observations
11 random, unscheduled staff observations.Slide11
User Survey AnalysisSlide12
User Survey AnalysisSlide13
User Survey AnalysisSlide14
User Survey AnalysisSlide15
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: CommentsSlide16
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 SourcesSlide17
Staff Observations on Noise Levels
Daily staff observations for noise levels:
March 24
th
to April 9
th
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 levelSlide18
Staff Observations on Noise LevelsSlide19
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
Staff Observations on Noise LevelsSlide20
11 random, unscheduled observations
between March 16
th
and March 31
st
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 ObservationsSlide21
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
T
he
library environment is not considered to be boisterous or unruly to the point where the noise issue is deemed
severeSlide22
Summary of Conclusions
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. Slide23
Summary of Conclusions
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. Slide24Slide25
Space Saving
Determine if the study space available in Porter meets the demand
Use of staff observations and collection of occupancy dataSlide26
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 Slide27
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 Slide28
Hot/Aromatic Food
Brief observations by staff while conducting noise & space studies
Waste containers monitoredSlide29
Findings
Hot/aromatic food does not appear to be a problem in Porter
Waste containers at end of book ranges frequently overflowing Slide30Slide31
Let’s talk recommendationsSlide32
Sixth Floor Slide33
Tenth Floor Slide34
Tenth Floor Slide35
Suggested Designations
1
st
floor – silent study
Main floor – see recommendation 1.4
3 floor Sims RR – silent study
3rd
floor carrels – silent study
3
rd
floor computer areas – quiet study
5
th
floor, east and west perimeters - group study
5
th
floor south perimeter – quiet study
5
th
floor computer area – quiet study
Floors 6-8 carrels – silent study
Floors 9 -10 carrels - quiet study
10
th
Floor where tables are relocated - group study
Floors 6-10 group study rooms - group
studySlide36
Fifth Floor Slide37
Recommendations
1.3 - No monitoring for compliance
1.4 - Identify the
sources of noise
concerns
on
the main floor
1.5 - Conduct
another assessment of the
noise
levels in
DPSlide38
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.Slide39