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

2. IntroductionGroup Overview & GoalsNoise ResultsFood & Space Saving ResultsRecommendationsQuestions & Discussion

3. 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

4. IntroductionGroup Overview & GoalsNoise ResultsFood & Space Saving ResultsRecommendationsQuestions & Discussion

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

6. 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

7. Assessment Time Noise Assessment –Survey –Observational noise assessment Space-saving assessment Food as an issue assessment

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

9. IntroductionGroup Overview & GoalsNoise ResultsFood & Space Saving ResultsRecommendationsQuestions & Discussion

10. 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.

11. User Survey Analysis

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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 level

18. Staff Observations on Noise Levels

19. 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 Levels

20. 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 Observations

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. IntroductionGroup Overview & GoalsNoise ResultsFood & Space Saving ResultsRecommendationsQuestions & Discussion

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

26. 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

27. 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

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

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

30. IntroductionGroup Overview & GoalsNoise ResultsFood & Space Saving ResultsRecommendationsQuestions & Discussion

31. Let’s talk recommendations

32. Sixth Floor

33. Tenth Floor

35. Suggested Designations 1 st floor – silent study Main floor – see recommendation 1.4 3 floor Sims RR – silent study 3 rd 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 study

36. Fifth Floor

37. 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

38. 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.

39. IntroductionGroup Overview & GoalsNoise ResultsFood & Space Saving ResultsRecommendationsQuestions & Discussion