1 / 39

Porter Public Environment Assessment Group

Porter Public Environment Assessment Group . 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. Why an Assessment?.

darcie
Download Presentation

Porter Public Environment Assessment Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Porter Public Environment Assessment Group Open House PresentationNovember 25, 2011

  2. 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

  3. Why an Assessment? • Complaints on the rise: • Noise • Space-saving • Food • Questions: • Do we have a problem? • If so, how severe is it?

  4. 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

  5. Assessment Time • Noise Assessment • Survey • Observational noise assessment • Space-saving assessment • Food as an issue assessment

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

  7. Noise Assessment Methods Three 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.

  8. User Survey Analysis

  9. User Survey Analysis

  10. User Survey Analysis

  11. User Survey Analysis

  12. User Survey Analysis: Comments • 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”

  13. User Survey Analysis: Noise Sources 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

  14. 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

  15. Staff Observations on Noise Levels

  16. Staff Observations on Noise Levels 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

  17. Ad Hoc Staff Observations • 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. Space Saving • Determine if the study space available in Porter meets the demand • Use of staff observations and collection of occupancy data

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. Hot/Aromatic Food • Brief observations by staff while conducting noise & space studies • Waste containers monitored

  25. Findings • Hot/aromatic food does not appear to be a problem in Porter • Waste containers at end of book ranges frequently overflowing

  26. Let’s talk recommendations

  27. Sixth Floor

  28. Tenth Floor

  29. Tenth Floor

  30. Suggested Designations • 1stfloor – 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

  31. Fifth Floor

  32. 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 DP

  33. 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.

More Related