www.rsisinternational.org

Page 824

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Relationship Between Workspace Ergonomics and Psychological Stress

in Lasustech Architecture Studios

Opeyemi A. Asaju, Adedeji H. Azeez, Segun J. Dada, Benedict O. Izokhae, Olalekan L. Oyeshola,

Obafemi A. Ibitoye

Department of Architecture, Caleb University, Imota, Ikorodu, Lagos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600063

Received: 15 June 2026; Accepted: 20 June 2026; Published: 06 July 2026

ABSTRACT

Lagos State University of Science and Technology’s architecture studio serves as an intensive academic and

creative environment where students spend prolonged hours engaging in design-related activities. However,

inadequate ergonomics, such as uncomfortable furniture, poor lighting, insufficient ventilation, overcrowding,

and prolonged sitting, contributed to psychological stress among architecture students. This study therefore

examined the relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress in LASUSTECH

architecture studios to improve students’ well-being and create healthier learning environments. The study

adopted a mixed-method descriptive research approach. Data were gathered through questionnaires and physical

observations, conducted with architecture students in selected studio spaces at LASUSTECH. Statistical tools

such as frequency distribution, mean score analysis, and correlation analysis were used to analyse the data

collected. The findings revealed that poor ergonomics in LASUSTECH architecture studios significantly

affected students’ psychological stress levels, leading to fatigue, anxiety, reduced concentration, emotional

exhaustion, and decreased academic performance. The study also identified the major ergonomic factors

contributing to stress among architecture students. The study concludes that workspace ergonomics plays a

significant role in enhancing students’ psychological well-being, comfort, and productivity within architecture

studios. Proper ergonomic considerations in studio planning and design are therefore essential to achieving

conducive, student-friendly learning environments. The study recommends that policymakers, university

administrators, and educational planners establish ergonomic standards for architecture studios by improving

furniture quality, lighting systems, ventilation, spatial organisation, and indoor environmental conditions within

higher institutions.

Keywords: LASUSTECH Architecture Studios, Learning Environment, Psychological Stress, Student Well-

being, Workspace Ergonomics

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The learning environment within architecture studios plays a significant role in shaping students' academic

performance, creativity, health, and overall well-being. Education in architecture is highly studio-based and

requires students to spend long hours engaging in drafting, model-making, computer-aided design, presentations,

and collaborative activities (Asaju et al., 2024). As a result, the physical conditions of architecture studios, such

as furniture design, lighting quality, ventilation, spatial arrangement, thermal comfort, and noise levels, become

critical factors influencing students' comfort and productivity.

In recent years, concerns regarding psychological stress among university students have increased considerably,

particularly in architecture schools where academic workloads, deadlines, prolonged sedentary activities, and

intensive studio culture are common (Asaju et al., 2026). Psychological stress among architecture students often

manifests in forms such as fatigue, anxiety, sleep deprivation, emotional exhaustion, reduced concentration, and

burnout (Bay-Sahin & Shah, 2026). While academic pressure has frequently been identified as a major

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 825

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

contributor to stress, the influence of workspace ergonomics on students' psychological well-being has received

less attention when compared.

Workspace ergonomics refers to the scientific design and arrangement of work environments to suit human

physical and psychological needs (Sadykova & Almasbayeva, 2024). Proper ergonomic conditions are essential

for minimising physical discomfort, enhancing efficiency, and promoting mental well-being.

In educational settings, poor ergonomic conditions such as uncomfortable seating, inadequate desk dimensions,

poor lighting, overcrowding, and insufficient ventilation may negatively affect students' physical posture,

concentration levels, and emotional stability (Abdulkadir et al., 2020). Consequently, poorly designed studio

environments may contribute significantly to psychological stress among architecture students.

Lagos State University of Science and Technology (LASUSTECH) is one of Nigeria's emerging institutions

focused on science, technology, and environmental design education. The university, formerly known as Lagos

State Polytechnic (LASPOTECH), was officially converted into a university in 2022 and currently offers

architecture programmes within its College of Environmental Design and Technology.

The architecture studios within LASUSTECH serve as major academic spaces where students undertake

intensive design-related activities for extended periods daily (Asaju et al., 2024). These studio spaces, therefore,

require ergonomic considerations that support students' physical comfort and psychological well-being.

Despite the importance of ergonomic learning environments, many architecture studios in developing

educational institutions continue to experience challenges associated with inadequate facilities, insufficient

workspace planning, overcrowding, and poor environmental conditions (Makun et al., 2024). Such conditions

may adversely affect students' mental health and academic productivity. Therefore, understanding the

relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress within LASUSTECH architecture studios

becomes necessary for improving the quality of architectural education and enhancing students' well-being.

Statement of the Problem

The architecture studio serves as an intensive academic and creative environment where students spend

prolonged hours engaging in design-related activities. However, inadequate ergonomic conditions such as

uncomfortable furniture, poor lighting, insufficient ventilation, overcrowding, and prolonged sitting periods

likely contribute to psychological stress among architecture students (Obi-George et al., 2025).

Empirical evidence suggest that many architecture studios in Nigerian institutions, including LASUSTECH, are

not optimally designed to support student comfort and well-being. Students often complain of back pain, eye

strain, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating after long studio sessions (Abdulkadir et al., 2020). These physical

discomforts may translate into psychological distress, affecting academic performance and overall student

health.

While existing literature has examined indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in relation to academic performance

(Asaju et al., 2024; Makaremi et al., 2024) and the impact of design studio environments on mental well-being

(Asaju et al., 2026; Bay-Sahin & Shah, 2026), there remains a gap in understanding the specific relationship

between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress within the unique context of LASUSTECH architecture

studios. Furthermore, limited research has focused on how ergonomic factors collectively influence stress levels

among architecture students in emerging Nigerian universities.

This study, therefore, seeks to address the following problem: What is the relationship between workspace

ergonomics and psychological stress among architecture students in LASUSTECH architecture studios?

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 826

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Aim and Objectives of the Study

Aim

This study aims to examine the relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress in

LASUSTECH architecture studios with the goal of improving students' well-being and creating healthier

learning environments.

Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are as follows:

1. Assessing the existing ergonomic conditions within LASUSTECH architecture studios.

2. Assess the levels of psychological stress experienced by architecture students in LASUSTECH

architecture studios.

3. Examine the relationship between specific ergonomic factors (furniture, lighting, ventilation, spatial

organisation, and acoustics) and psychological stress among architecture students.

4. Propose ergonomic design recommendations for improving student well-being and academic experience

in architecture studios.

Research Questions

1. What are the existing ergonomic conditions within LASUSTECH architecture studios?

2. What is the level of psychological stress experienced by architecture students in LASUSTECH

architecture studios?

3. Is there a significant relationship between ergonomics and psychological stress among architecture

students?

4. What ergonomic design recommendations can be proposed to reduce psychological stress in architecture

studios?

Research Hypotheses

H₀1:There is no significant relationship between furniture ergonomics and psychological stress among

architecture students in LASUSTECH architecture studios.

H₀2:There is no significant relationship between lighting quality and psychological stress among architecture

students in LASUSTECH architecture studios.

H₀3:There is no significant relationship between ventilation/thermal comfort and psychological stress among

architecture students in LASUSTECH architecture studios.

H₀4:There is no significant relationship between spatial arrangement (overcrowding) and psychological stress

among architecture students in LASUSTECH architecture studios.

H₀5:There is no significant relationship between acoustic comfort and psychological stress among architecture

students in LASUSTECH architecture studios.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 827

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Significance of the Study

This study holds significance for several stakeholders. For university administrators and policymakers, the

findings provide evidence-based recommendations to improve studio ergonomics, potentially influencing policy

decisions regarding facility upgrades, furniture procurement, and studio design standards in Nigerian universities

(Asaju et al., 2024). For architecture students, the study aims to improve the learning environment, potentially

reducing stress levels and enhancing academic performance, comfort, and overall well-being (Bay-Sahin &

Shah, 2026). For architecture educators, understanding the relationship between ergonomics and stress can help

educators adjust studio practices, schedules, and expectations to support student mental health better. For

architects and designers, the study will contribute to the body of knowledge on designing educational spaces that

prioritise user comfort, ergonomics, and psychological well-being, particularly in hot-humid climates like Lagos

(Tonye et al., 2025; Bello et al., 2025). For future researchers, this study will serve as a baseline for further

research on workspace ergonomics and psychological stress in Nigerian architectural education contexts.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

In terms of scope, this study focuses on the relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress.

Ergonomic factors examined include furniture (seating and desk dimensions), lighting quality, ventilation and

thermal comfort, spatial arrangement (overcrowding), and acoustic comfort. Psychological stress is measured in

terms of perceived stress levels, including fatigue, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and emotional exhaustion

(Asaju et al., 2026).

Regarding delimitation, the study is limited to architecture students at Lagos State University of Science and

Technology (LASUSTECH), Imota, Lagos. Only undergraduate architecture students currently enrolled in the

programme were included. The study focuses exclusively on studio spaces used for design instruction and studio

work, excluding lecture halls, computer laboratories, and other ancillary spaces.

Operational Definition of Terms

Workspace ergonomics refers to the scientific design and arrangement of studio furniture, equipment, and

spatial layout to suit the physical and psychological needs of architecture students (Sadykova & Almasbayeva,

2024). Psychological stress means the mental and emotional strain experienced by architecture students as a

result of studio demands and environmental conditions, manifested through symptoms such as fatigue, anxiety,

reduced concentration, and emotional exhaustion (Asaju et al., 2026). Architecture studio refers to a dedicated

learning space within LASUSTECH where architecture students engage in design projects, drawing, model-

making, presentations, and collaborative activities (Asaju et al., 2024). Indoor Environmental Quality

(IEQ)means the perceived indoor experience of the studio environment, encompassing thermal comfort, visual

comfort (lighting), acoustic comfort (noise), and indoor air quality (ventilation) (Bello et al., 2025; Asaju et al.,

2024). Student well-being refers to the overall state of mental, physical, and emotional health of architecture

students as influenced by their studio environment (Bay-Sahin & Shah, 2026).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Framework

The Concept of Workspace Ergonomics

Ergonomics, derived from the Greek words "ergon" (work) and "nomos" (laws), refers to the scientific discipline

concerned with understanding interactions among humans and other elements of a system (Sadykova &

Almasbayeva, 2024). Workspace ergonomics specifically addresses the design and arrangement of work

environments to optimise human well-being and overall system performance.

In educational contexts, workspace ergonomics encompasses several key elements. Furniture ergonomics

addresses seating comfort, desk height and dimensions, and adjustability. Visual ergonomics focuses on lighting

quality, glare reduction, and task illumination. Thermal ergonomics concerns ventilation, temperature control,

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 828

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

and humidity regulation. Spatial ergonomics deals with workstation layout, circulation space, and overcrowding.

Acoustic ergonomics addresses noise control, sound absorption, and speech privacy.

Abdulkadir et al. (2020) demonstrated that furniture intervention significantly reduces musculoskeletal disorders

and improves academic performance among Nigerian students. Their study found that proper ergonomic

furniture design directly impacts student comfort, concentration, and overall learning outcomes. Similarly,

Sadykova & Almasbayeva (2024) emphasised that ergonomics in creative studio spaces requires methodologies

that account for both physical comfort and creative productivity.

The Concept of Psychological Stress

Psychological stress is defined as the mental and emotional response to perceived environmental demands that

exceed an individual's coping resources (Asaju et al., 2026). Among university students, stress manifests through

various symptoms. Cognitive symptoms include difficulty concentrating, forgetfulness, and negative thinking.

Emotional symptoms include anxiety, irritability, mood swings, and feelings of overwhelm. Physical symptoms

include fatigue, headaches, muscle tension, and sleep disturbances. Behavioural symptoms include social

withdrawal, changes in eating habits, and procrastination.

Bay-Sahin & Shah (2026) applied a psychological needs framework to optimise architectural studio spaces,

finding that studio environments significantly influence student well-being through the satisfaction or frustration

of basic psychological needs, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

The Relationship Between Ergonomics and Psychological Stress

The relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress is bidirectional and complex. Poor

ergonomic conditions create physical discomfort, which in turn generates psychological distress. Conversely,

psychologically stressed individuals may perceive ergonomic deficiencies more acutely (Hussein & Mustafa,

2023).

The conceptual pathway can be summarised as follows: poor ergonomic conditions lead to physical discomfort

such as back pain, eye strain, fatigue, and thermal discomfort. This physical discomfort then generates

psychological stress, including anxiety, irritability, reduced concentration, and emotional exhaustion. Finally,

psychological stress results in reduced academic performance and diminished well-being. This pathway is

adapted from Asaju et al. (2024) and Abdulkadir et al. (2020).

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on three complementary theories.

Person-Environment Fit Theory

The Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory posits that stress arises when there is a mismatch between an

individual's needs, abilities, and characteristics and the demands or supplies of the environment (Bay-Sahin &

Shah, 2026). In the context of architecture studios, when studio ergonomics fail to meet students' physical and

psychological needs, stress results. P-E Fit Theory provides a framework for understanding how mismatches

between students' ergonomic requirements and actual studio conditions contribute to psychological stress.

Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Framework

The IEQ framework examines four core dimensions of indoor environments: thermal comfort, visual comfort

(lighting), acoustic comfort, and indoor air quality (Bello et al., 2025; Asaju et al., 2024). Each dimension

influences occupant comfort, health, and productivity. The IEQ framework guides the assessment of studio

conditions across multiple ergonomic domains, recognising that the combined effect of multiple environmental

factors may be more significant than any single factor.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 829

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Demand-Control-Support Model

The Demand-Control-Support model suggests that psychological stress is highest in "high-strain" jobs or

learning environments characterised by high psychological demands combined with low control over the

environment (Asaju et al., 2026). Architecture students face high demands, including project deadlines, design

critiques, and technical requirements, but often have limited control over their physical studio environment. This

model highlights how studio ergonomics, as an environmental control factor, can moderate the stress effects of

high academic demands.

Review of Empirical Studies

Ergonomic Conditions in Architecture Studios

Several studies have examined ergonomic conditions in architecture studios across different contexts. Asaju et

al. (2024) assessed Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) among 175 architecture students at Caleb University,

Lagos. Their findings revealed that studio temperature had the highest impact on academic performance,

followed by lighting quality. They also found that female students, with 23.6% achieving First Class, performed

better academically than male students, with only 5.0% achieving First Class, suggesting potential gender

differences in environmental sensitivity.

Obi-George et al. (2025) examined thermal comfort and its impact on student performance in architectural

studios. Their research emphasised that thermal conditions significantly influence students' ability to concentrate

and perform complex design tasks. Prolonged exposure to uncomfortable temperatures leads to fatigue, reduced

attention span, and increased stress.

Makun et al. (2024) evaluated interactive spaces for enhanced learning in architecture department buildings in

Niger State, Nigeria. They found that spatial organisation, circulation patterns, and furniture arrangement

significantly affect student engagement and learning outcomes. Poorly organised studios with inadequate

workspace per student contributed to overcrowding and increased stress levels.

Tonye et al. (2025) investigated lighting and circulation systems in Lagos community centres. While their focus

was on community centres rather than educational spaces, their findings on lighting quality, security concerns,

and eye strain are relevant to studio environments. The study demonstrated that lighting significantly influences

user comfort, security perception, and overall satisfaction, with 70% of respondents rating lighting as good or

excellent, though 35% reported security concerns at night and 50% experienced frequent eye strain.

Psychological Stress Among Architecture Students

Asaju et al. (2026) specifically examined the effect of design studio environments on the mental well-being of

architecture students in selected Nigerian universities. Their study, published in a Springer volume on sustainable

built environment research, found significant correlations between studio environmental quality and students'

mental health outcomes. Students in studios with poor environmental conditions reported higher levels of

anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and burnout.

Bay-Sahin & Shah (2026) applied a psychological needs framework to optimise architectural studio spaces.

Their SAGE Open study demonstrated that studio environments designed to support autonomy, competence,

and relatedness significantly enhanced student well-being. Key environmental factors included adequate

personal workspace, control over lighting and ventilation, opportunities for social interaction, and freedom to

personalise workspaces.

Hussein & Mustafa (2023) assessed architecture students' self-reported well-being based on the quality of the

learning environment in design studios. Their research confirmed that perceived environmental quality directly

influences students' psychological well-being and academic satisfaction.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 830

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Ergonomic Interventions and Stress Reduction

Abdulkadir et al. (2020) conducted a landmark study on furniture intervention and its effects on musculoskeletal

disorders and academic performance among students in North-West Nigeria. Their intervention study

demonstrated that ergonomic furniture improvements significantly reduced physical discomfort and improved

concentration. Students who received ergonomic chairs and adjustable desks reported lower stress levels and

better academic outcomes.

Makaremi et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review of the impact of classroom environments on student well-

being in higher education. Published in Building and Environment, their review synthesised findings from

multiple studies and confirmed that indoor environmental quality factors—including thermal comfort, lighting,

acoustics, and air quality—collectively influence student well-being. The review highlighted the need for

integrated approaches to classroom design that consider multiple environmental factors simultaneously.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE GAPS

Based on the reviewed literature, several gaps have been identified. There is a geographic gap, as limited research

exists on LASUSTECH architecture studios specifically. There is a contextual gap, with few studies examining

emerging Nigerian universities that have been recently converted from polytechnics. There is an integrative gap,

as most studies examine IEQ factors in isolation rather than their combined effect on psychological stress.

Evidence from Asaju et al. (2024) suggests potential gender differences, but there has been limited exploration

of this area. Finally, there is an intervention gap, with few studies proposing specific, actionable ergonomic

recommendations for architecture studios.

Conceptual Model for the Study

Based on the theoretical framework and empirical review, this study is guided by a conceptual model in which

workspace ergonomics serves as the independent variable and psychological stress serves as the dependent

variable. The independent variables comprise five ergonomic factors: furniture ergonomics (measured by seat

comfort, desk height, adjustability, and back support), lighting quality (measured by illumination level, glare,

task lighting, and daylight access), ventilation and thermal comfort (measured by air movement, temperature,

humidity, and stuffiness), spatial arrangement (measured by workstation size, overcrowding, and circulation

space), and acoustic comfort (measured by noise levels, distractions, and sound privacy).

The dependent variable, psychological stress, is measured through five indicators: fatigue, anxiety, reduced

concentration, emotional exhaustion, and irritability. Two moderating variables are also recognised: gender,

based on findings from Asaju et al. (2024) suggesting gender differences in environmental sensitivity, and year

of study, as well as hours spent in the studio. This conceptual model is adapted from Asaju et al. (2024, 2026),

Abdulkadir et al. (2020), and Tonye et al. (2025).

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study adopts a mixed-method descriptive research design, combining quantitative and qualitative

approaches to examine the relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress in

LASUSTECH architecture studios (Tonye et al., 2025). The mixed-method approach is appropriate because it

allows for quantitative data to measure ergonomic conditions, stress levels, and statistical relationships, while

also enabling qualitative data to capture lived experiences, perceptions, and contextual insights from students.

This design aligns with recommendations from Makaremi et al. (2024), who emphasised that comprehensive

assessment of learning environments requires both objective measurements and subjective user feedback.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 831

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Study Area

The study is conducted at the Lagos State University of Science and Technology (LASUSTECH), Imota,

Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria. LASUSTECH was formerly known as Lagos State Polytechnic (LASPOTECH)

before its conversion to a university in 2022. The institution is selected because it offers architecture programmes

within its College of Environmental Design and Technology, and its architecture studios serve as major academic

spaces where students spend extended hours daily. As an emerging university converted from a polytechnic, the

institution faces unique infrastructural challenges, and limited research has been conducted on studio

environments in recently converted Nigerian universities.

Target Population

The target population comprises all undergraduate architecture students enrolled in the Department of

Architecture at LASUSTECH during the 2025/2026 academic session. The estimated population distribution

includes approximately 50 students at the 100 level, 60 students at the 200 level, 55 students at the 300 level, 55

students at the 400 level, and 40 students at the 500 level, giving a total population of approximately 250 students.

This distribution is based on typical architecture programme enrollment patterns in Nigerian universities (Asaju

et al., 2024).

Sample Size and Sampling Technique

The sample size for this study is calculated using Yamane's formula (1967): n = N / (1 + N(e)²). With a population

(N) of 250 and a margin of error (e) of 0.05 or 5 per cent, the calculation yields a sample size of approximately

154 respondents. To account for potential non-response and incomplete questionnaires, an additional 10 per cent

is added, resulting in a target sample of 170 respondents (Asaju et al., 2024; Tonye et al., 2025).

A stratified random sampling technique was employed. The population was stratified by year of study (100-500

level), and respondents were randomly selected from each stratum in proportion to the stratum's size. The

proportional allocation is as follows: from the 100-level population of 50, 33 students were sampled; from the

200-level population of 60, 39 students were sampled; from the 300-level population of 55, 36 students were

sampled; from the 400-level population of 55, 36 students were sampled; and from the 500-level population of

40, 26 students were sampled.

Instruments for Data Collection

Three instruments were used for data collection: a structured questionnaire, a physical observation checklist, and

a semi-structured interview guide.

The structured questionnaire were developed, comprising five sections. Section A gathers demographic

information, including gender, age, level of study, and hours spent in the studio. Section B assesses ergonomic

conditions across furniture, lighting, ventilation, spatial arrangement, and acoustics, adapted from Abdulkadir et

al. (2020) and Tonye et al. (2025). Section C measures perceived psychological stress using an adapted version

of Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). Section D examines the relationship between ergonomics and stress,

adapted from Asaju et al. (2026) and Hussein & Mustafa (2023). Section E includes open-ended comments and

suggestions for qualitative input. A 5-point Likert scale was used with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree

(1) to Strongly Agree (5).

The physical observation checklist was developed to objectively assess ergonomic conditions in LASUSTECH

architecture studios (Tonye et al., 2025). The checklist documented furniture characteristics, including seating

type, adjustability, desk dimensions, and condition; lighting conditions, including natural light access, artificial

lighting, glare, and uniformity; ventilation features, including windows, fans, air conditioning, and air

movement; spatial arrangement, including workstation size, spacing, circulation, and overcrowding; and acoustic

conditions, including noise sources, sound absorption, and distractions.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 832

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

The semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct interviews with a subset of approximately 15 to 20

students to gather in-depth qualitative data on their lived experiences of studio ergonomics and psychological

stress (Asaju et al., 2026; Tonye et al., 2025). Sample interview questions include: How would you describe

your typical experience working in the architecture studio? What physical discomforts do you experience during

or after studio sessions? How does the studio environment affect your concentration and stress levels? What

changes would you recommend to improve studio ergonomics?

Validity and Reliability of Instruments

Content validity was established by subjecting the questionnaire to expert review by three academics from the

Department of Architecture, Caleb University. Experts assessed the relevance of items to research objectives,

the clarity and appropriateness of language, and the coverage of all ergonomic and stress dimensions. Construct

validity was ensured by adapting established instruments, with ergonomic assessment items adapted from

Abdulkadir et al. (2020) and Tonye et al. (2025), and psychological stress items adapted from the Perceived

Stress Scale (PSS-10).

For reliability, the questionnaire was pilot-tested on 30 architecture students from a comparable institution, such

as Caleb University, to assess reliability (Asaju et al., 2024). Cronbach's alpha (α) was calculated using SPSS,

and a coefficient of α ≥ 0.70 was considered acceptable. The ergonomic conditions scale recorded a Cronbach's

alpha greater than 0.75, the psychological stress scale greater than 0.80, and the impact assessment scale greater

than 0.70.

Data Collection Procedure

The data collection procedure followed a structured sequence. In week one, ethical approval and institutional

permission was obtained. In week two, a pilot study was conducted with 30 students at Caleb University. In

week three, the questionnaire was revised based on pilot feedback. In weeks four and five, questionnaires were

administered to 170 respondents stratified by level, and physical observations of studio spaces were conducted.

In week six, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 to 20 students. In week seven, the collected data

was compiled and organised. Questionnaires were administered in person during studio sessions with permission

from studio instructors, and completed questionnaires were collected immediately to maximise the response rate,

targeting 90 per cent or higher.

Method of Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 or later, along with thematic analysis for

qualitative data. The analysis methods are aligned with each research objective.

For the first objective, to identify existing ergonomic conditions within LASUSTECH architecture studios,

descriptive statistics, including frequency distribution, mean scores, and standard deviation, were used. For the

second objective, to assess the levels of psychological stress experienced by architecture students, descriptive

statistics, including frequency distribution, mean scores, and percentages, were used. For the third objective, to

examine the relationships between ergonomic factors and stress, inferential statistics using the Pearson

correlation coefficient (r) were employed. For the fourth objective, to identify the major ergonomic factors

contributing to stress, multiple regression analysis was used. For the fifth objective, to propose ergonomic design

recommendations, thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews and open-ended responses was

conducted.

For descriptive statistics, frequency distribution and percentages were calculated for demographic variables,

mean scores were used to rank ergonomic factors by perceived impact, and standard deviation was used to assess

response variability.

For inferential statistics, Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (r) was used to test hypotheses. The correlation

coefficient (r) ranges from -1.0 to +1.0, and the p-value significance level was set at p < 0.05 (95 per cent

confidence level). Correlation strength was interpreted as follows: 0.00 to 0.19 indicates a very weak

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 833

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

relationship, 0.20 to 0.39 indicates a weak relationship, 0.40 to 0.59 indicates a moderate relationship, 0.60 to

0.79 indicates a strong relationship, and 0.80 to 1.00 indicates a very strong relationship. Multiple regression

analysis was used to identify which ergonomic factors, as independent variables, are the strongest predictors of

psychological stress, the dependent variable.

For qualitative data analysis, interview transcripts and open-ended responses were analysed using thematic

analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). The process involves familiarisation with the data, generating

initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final

report.

Ethical Considerations

This study adhered to ethical research principles. Informed consent was obtained by providing participants with

a clear explanation of the study purpose and requiring signed consent forms before participation. Voluntary

participation was ensured, allowing students to withdraw at any time without penalty. Anonymity and

confidentiality was maintained as questionnaires did not collect names, and data was stored securely and reported

in aggregate. Institutional approval was from LASUSTECH administration and the Department of Architecture.

Minimisation of harm was ensured as the study poses no physical or psychological risks beyond normal academic

activities.

Limitations of the Methodology

The following limitations are acknowledged. Self-report bias may occur, but this was mitigated by combining

self-report data with objective physical observations and interviews. The single institution focus means findings

may not generalise to all Nigerian universities, but this is clearly stated as a delimitation. The cross-sectional

design captures relationships at one point in time, so a longitudinal study is recommended for future research.

The study relies on the perceived stress scale rather than physiological measures such as cortisol, which

represents a limitation in objective stress measurement.

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS

Introduction

This section presents the analysis of data collected from architecture students at Lagos State University of

Science and Technology (LASUSTECH) regarding the relationship between workspace ergonomics and

psychological stress in the architecture studio. A total of 170 questionnaire responses were targeted, with the

actual distribution of respondents across academic levels reflecting the stratified sampling design. The analysis

is organised into four sections: demographic characteristics of respondents, analysis of research questions,

analysis based on research objectives, and a summary of key findings.

Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics

A total of 170 architecture students participated in the study, drawn proportionally from all five levels of the

undergraduate architecture programme at LASUSTECH. Table 4.1 presents the distribution of respondents by

level of study.

Table 4.1: Distribution of Respondents by Level of Study

Level of Study

Frequency

Percentage (%)

100 Level

19.4

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 834

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Level of Study

Frequency

Percentage (%)

200 Level

22.9

300 Level

21.2

400 Level

21.2

500 Level

15.3

Total

170

100.0

The distribution shows that the largest proportion of respondents were from the 200 level (22.9%), followed by

the 300 and 400 levels (each 21.2%), then 100 level (19.4%), and finally 500 level (15.3%). This distribution

aligns with the target sample and reflects the typical enrolment pattern in the department.

Regarding daily studio usage, Table 4.2 shows that the majority of students spend between 5 and 10 hours daily

in the studio, with a significant proportion also working overnight.

Table 4.2: Average Number of Hours Spent in Studio Daily

Hours per Day

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Less than 2 hours

4.7

2 – 4 hours

12.9

5 – 7 hours

45.9

8 – 10 hours

28.2

More than 10 hours

8.2

Total

170

100.0

As shown, nearly three-quarters of respondents (45.9% + 28.2% = 74.1%) spend between 5 and 10 hours in the

studio daily. A further 8.2% spend more than 10 hours daily, indicating prolonged exposure to the studio

environment.

When asked whether they work overnight in the studio, 62.4% of respondents (106 students) answered “Yes,”

24.7% (42 students) answered “Sometimes,” and only 12.9% (22 students) answered “No.” This finding

confirms that overnight studio work is common among architecture students at LASUSTECH, increasing their

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 835

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

exposure to potentially poor ergonomic conditions during late hours when natural lighting is absent and fatigue

is heightened.

Physical Observation Findings

Physical observations were conducted within selected LASUSTECH architecture studios to objectively assess

existing ergonomic conditions.

Table 4.3 Physical Observation Assessment of Studio Environment

Parameter

Observation

Furniture Type

Fixed wooden chairs and tables

Adjustable Furniture

Not available

Seating Comfort

Poor

Desk Suitability

Moderate

Natural Lighting

Moderate

Artificial Lighting

Inadequate in some areas

Cross Ventilation

Limited

Indoor Temperature

High during afternoon periods

Workspace Density

High

Circulation Space

Restricted

Noise Sources

Student discussions and external activities

Storage Facilities

Inadequate

Interpretation

The observation findings support questionnaire responses indicating poor ergonomic conditions within the

architecture studios.

The absence of adjustable furniture, limited ventilation, high occupancy density, restricted circulation space, and

inadequate artificial lighting were identified as major environmental deficiencies. These conditions likely

contribute to physical discomfort and elevated stress among students.

Analysis of Research Questions

This section addresses each of the research questions formulated for the study, using descriptive statistics derived

from the questionnaire responses.

Research Question 1: What are the existing ergonomic conditions within LASUSTECH architecture

studios?

To answer this question, respondents rated various ergonomic factors using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly

Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). The results are presented under five sub-headings: furniture ergonomics, lighting

quality, ventilation and thermal comfort, spatial arrangement, and acoustic comfort.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 836

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Furniture Ergonomics

Table 4.4: Distribution of Responses on Furniture Ergonomics (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

Studio chairs are comfortable for long hours

of work

34.1

28.2

20.6

11.2

5.9

2.27

Desk height is suitable for drafting and

computer work

25.9

30.6

22.4

14.1

7.1

2.46

Studio furniture supports good sitting posture

31.8

29.4

21.2

12.4

5.3

2.30

I experience body pain after long studio

sessions

4.7

10.6

18.8

32.9

3.79

Furniture arrangement allows easy movement

within the studio

27.1

32.4

22.9

12.9

4.7

2.36

The findings reveal that most respondents disagreed that studio chairs are comfortable (62.3% combined

disagree, mean 2.27). Similarly, desk height was deemed unsuitable by 56.5% (mean 2.46), and furniture posture

support was rated poorly by 61.2% (mean 2.30). Conversely, a large majority (65.8%) agreed or strongly agreed

that they experience body pain after long studio sessions (mean 3.79). Furniture arrangement was also rated

negatively, with 59.5% indicating that movement is restricted. Overall, furniture ergonomics in LASUSTECH

architecture studios are inadequate and contribute to physical discomfort.

Lighting Quality

Table 4.5: Distribution of Responses on Lighting Quality (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

Natural lighting in the studio is adequate

20.0

28.8

25.3

18.2

7.6

2.65

Artificial lighting is sufficient for studio

tasks

24.1

31.2

24.7

14.1

5.9

2.47

I experience eye strain while working in the

studio

7.1

14.1

22.4

31.8

24.7

3.53

More than half of respondents (48.8% combined disagree) found natural lighting inadequate (mean 2.65), and

55.3% found artificial lighting insufficient (mean 2.47). Importantly, 56.5% agreed or strongly agreed that they

experience eye strain while working (mean 3.53). Poor lighting quality is a significant ergonomic deficiency in

the studios.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 837

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Ventilation and Thermal Comfort

Table 4.6: Distribution of Responses on Ventilation and Thermal Comfort (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

The studio has adequate ventilation

31.8

34.1

20.0

10.6

3.5

2.20

Studio temperature is comfortable during

working hours

27.6

35.3

21.8

11.2

4.1

2.29

Heat within the studio causes discomfort

5.3

10.0

18.8

34.7

31.2

3.77

Ventilation was rated poorly, with 65.9% disagreeing that the studio has adequate ventilation (mean 2.20).

Thermal comfort was also poor (62.9% disagree, mean 2.29).

However, 65.9% agreed that heat causes discomfort (mean 3.77). High temperatures and poor air circulation are

major issues.

Spatial Arrangement and Overcrowding

Table 4.7: Distribution of Responses on Spatial Arrangement (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

The studio provides adequate personal

workspace

32.9

34.7

18.2

10.0

4.1

2.18

The studio is overcrowded during peak

periods

4.1

8.8

15.9

35.3

35.9

3.90

Workspace arrangement supports

collaborative learning

16.5

24.7

28.2

20.6

10.0

2.83

Lack of space affects my comfort and

concentration

5.3

11.8

20.0

34.1

28.8

3.69

A large majority (67.6%) disagreed that adequate personal workspace is provided (mean 2.18). Conversely,

71.2% agreed that the studio is overcrowded during peak periods (mean 3.90).

Furthermore, 62.9% agreed that lack of space affects comfort and concentration (mean 3.69). Overcrowding is

a critical ergonomic problem.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 838

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Acoustic Comfort

Table 4.8: Distribution of Responses on Acoustic Comfort (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

External noise distracts me during studio

work

8.8

14.7

22.9

31.2

22.4

3.44

Noise contributes to my stress while

working

7.1

12.9

21.8

34.1

24.1

3.55

Noise levels in the studio are manageable

20.0

30.6

24.7

16.5

8.2

2.62

More than half (53.6%) agreed that external noise distracts them (mean 3.44), and 58.2% agreed that noise

contributes to stress (mean 3.55). Only 24.7% found noise levels manageable. Acoustic comfort is suboptimal.

Research Question 2: What is the level of psychological stress experienced by architecture students?

Psychological stress was measured using ten statements derived from the Perceived Stress Scale and additional

impact statements. Table 4.9 presents the distribution.

Table 4.9: Distribution of Responses on Psychological Stress Indicators (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

I feel mentally exhausted after studio work

5.3

11.2

18.8

34.7

30.0

3.73

I find it difficult to concentrate in the studio

7.6

14.1

22.9

32.4

22.9

3.49

I experience headaches or fatigue during

studio work

8.2

15.9

24.1

31.2

20.6

3.40

I feel overwhelmed by studio demands

4.7

10.6

18.2

36.5

30.0

3.77

Studio conditions negatively affect my mood

6.5

12.9

21.2

34.1

25.3

3.59

I experience stress due to prolonged studio

hours

5.3

10.0

17.6

35.9

31.2

3.78

Poor studio conditions reduce my motivation

to work

7.1

13.5

20.0

33.5

25.9

3.58

All stress indicators had mean scores above 3.40, indicating moderate to high levels of psychological distress.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 839

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

The highest mean was for stress due to prolonged studio hours (mean 3.78) and feeling overwhelmed by studio

demands (mean 3.77).

Over 60% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with each of these statements. The studio environment

clearly contributes to elevated psychological stress among architecture students.

Research Questions 3–4: Relationships between ergonomic factors and psychological stress

These questions examined whether specific ergonomic factors (furniture, lighting, ventilation, spatial

arrangement) are related to psychological stress. Table 4.10 presents responses to direct impact statements.

Table 4.10: Perceived Impact of Ergonomic Factors on Psychological Stress (N=170)

Statement

(%)

Mean

Poor furniture design increases my stress

levels

6.5

12.4

20.6

34.1

26.5

3.62

Poor lighting contributes to mental fatigue

5.9

11.8

21.8

35.9

24.7

3.62

High studio temperature affects my

emotional well-being

4.7

10.0

18.2

37.1

30.0

3.78

Overcrowding contributes to anxiety and

discomfort

3.5

8.2

16.5

35.3

36.5

3.93

Noise negatively affects my concentration

and mood

4.7

10.6

20.0

36.5

28.2

3.73

All factors received high agreement percentages. Overcrowding had the strongest perceived impact (mean 3.93,

71.8% agreeing), followed by temperature (mean 3.78), noise (mean 3.73), and both furniture and lighting (mean

3.62 each).

These findings indicate significant positive relationships between poor ergonomic conditions and psychological

stress.

Pearson Correlation Analysis

To determine the relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress, Pearson Product-

Moment Correlation analysis was conducted at a significance level of p < 0.05.

Table 4.11 Pearson Correlation between Ergonomic Factors and Psychological Stress

Ergonomic Factor

r-value

Sig. (p-value)

Relationship Strength

Furniture Ergonomics

0.612

0.000

Strong Positive

Lighting Quality

0.547

0.000

Moderate Positive

Ventilation/Thermal Comfort

0.683

0.000

Strong Positive

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 840

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Spatial Arrangement (Overcrowding)

0.741

0.000

Strong Positive

Acoustic Comfort

0.591

0.000

Moderate Positive

Interpretation

The analysis revealed significant positive relationships between all ergonomic factors and psychological stress

among architecture students. Spatial arrangement (overcrowding) exhibited the strongest relationship with

psychological stress (r = 0.741, p < 0.05), followed by ventilation and thermal comfort (r = 0.683, p < 0.05).

Furniture ergonomics also showed a strong relationship (r = 0.612, p < 0.05), while lighting quality (r = 0.547,

p < 0.05) and acoustic comfort (r = 0.591, p < 0.05) demonstrated moderate positive relationships.

Hypotheses Testing

The hypotheses were tested using Pearson Product-Moment Correlation at a significance level of 0.05.

Table 4.12 Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis

p-value

Decision

CONCLUSION

H₀₁

0.000

Reject H₀

Significant relationship exists

H₀₂

0.000

Reject H₀

Significant relationship exists

H₀₃

0.000

Reject H₀

Significant relationship exists

H₀₄

0.000

Reject H₀

Significant relationship exists

H₀₅

0.000

Reject H₀

Significant relationship exists

Interpretation

The results indicate that all null hypotheses were rejected because their p-values were less than the 0.05 level of

significance. Therefore, furniture ergonomics, lighting quality, ventilation/thermal comfort, spatial arrangement,

and acoustic comfort all have significant relationships with psychological stress among architecture students in

LASUSTECH architecture studios.

Multiple Regression Analysis

To identify the strongest predictors of psychological stress and to address Objective 4, a multiple linear

regression analysis was conducted with psychological stress as the dependent variable and the five ergonomic

factors (furniture ergonomics, lighting quality, ventilation and thermal comfort, spatial arrangement, and

acoustic comfort) as independent variables. Tables 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15 present the model summary, ANOVA

results, and regression coefficients respectively.

Table 4.13: Model Summary

Model

R²

Adjusted R²

Std. Error of the Estimate

0.836

0.699

0.690

0.472

Source: SPSS Output, 2025.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 841

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

The model summary (Table 4.13) indicates that the five ergonomic factors collectively explain 69.9% of the

variance in psychological stress (R² = 0.699, Adjusted R² = 0.690), with a multiple correlation coefficient of R

= 0.836, indicating a strong predictive relationship between workspace ergonomics and psychological stress.

Table 4.14: ANOVA

Model

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

Sig.

Regression

84.94

16.99

76.19

.000

Residual

36.57

164

0.223

Total

121.51

169

Source: SPSS Output, 2025.

The ANOVA results (Table 4.14) confirm that the overall regression model is statistically significant (F(5, 164)

= 76.19, p = .000), indicating that the five ergonomic factors jointly and significantly predict psychological stress

among architecture students at LASUSTECH.

Table 4.15: Regression Coefficients

Variable

Std. Error

Beta (β)

Sig.

(Constant)

0.423

0.187

–

2.261

.025

Furniture Ergonomics

0.187

0.058

0.198

3.224

.002

Lighting Quality

0.163

0.061

0.168

2.672

.008

Ventilation / Thermal Comfort

0.221

0.065

0.231

3.400

.001

Spatial Arrangement

0.289

0.062

0.298

4.661

.000

Acoustic Comfort

0.174

0.059

0.179

2.949

.004

Source: SPSS Output, 2025. Dependent Variable: Psychological Stress.

The coefficients table (Table 4.15) reveals that all five ergonomic factors are statistically significant predictors

of psychological stress. Spatial arrangement emerged as the strongest predictor (β = 0.298, t = 4.661, p = .000),

followed by ventilation and thermal comfort (β = 0.231, t = 3.400, p = .001), furniture ergonomics (β = 0.198, t

= 3.224, p = .002), acoustic comfort (β = 0.179, t = 2.949, p = .004), and lighting quality (β = 0.168, t = 2.672,

p = .008). These findings confirm that overcrowding and thermal discomfort are the most critical ergonomic

contributors to psychological stress in LASUSTECH architecture studios, while lighting, though significant,

exerts the smallest individual effect within the combined model.

Analysis Based on Research Objectives

Objective 1: Identify existing ergonomic conditions

As detailed in Section 4.3.1, the existing ergonomic conditions are predominantly poor. Key findings include:

 Furniture: Uncomfortable chairs, unsuitable desk heights, poor posture support, restricted movement

(mean scores 2.27–2.46 for positive statements; 3.79 for body pain).

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 842

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

 Lighting: Inadequate natural and artificial lighting, frequent eye strain (means 2.47–2.65 for adequacy;

3.53 for eye strain).

 Ventilation & thermal comfort: Inadequate ventilation, uncomfortable temperatures, heat-induced

discomfort (means 2.20–2.29 for adequacy; 3.77 for discomfort).

 Spatial arrangement: Insufficient personal workspace, severe overcrowding, space-related comfort

issues (means 2.18 for workspace; 3.90 for overcrowding).

 Acoustic comfort: Distracting external noise, noise-related stress, unmanageable noise levels (means

2.62 for manageability; 3.44–3.55 for negative impacts).

Objective 2: Assess levels of psychological stress

Psychological stress levels are high. The majority of respondents reported mental exhaustion (64.7% agreed),

difficulty concentrating (55.3%), headaches/fatigue (51.8%), feeling overwhelmed (66.5%), negative mood

effects (59.4%), stress from long hours (67.1%), and reduced motivation (59.4%). Mean scores ranged from 3.40

to 3.78 on a 5-point scale, indicating that stress is a pervasive issue among architecture students.

Objective 3: Examine relationships between ergonomic factors and stress

Strong perceived relationships exist between each ergonomic factor and psychological stress. Overcrowding

showed the strongest association (mean 3.93), followed by thermal discomfort (3.78), noise (3.73), and both

furniture and lighting (3.62). These results suggest that improving any of these ergonomic conditions would

likely reduce student stress levels.

Objective 4: Identify major ergonomic factors contributing to stress

Based on the mean scores in Table 4.9, the major ergonomic factors contributing to psychological stress, ranked

from highest to lowest impact, are:

1. Overcrowding (mean 3.93)

2. High studio temperature (mean 3.78)

3. Noise (mean 3.73)

4. Poor furniture design (mean 3.62)

5. Poor lighting (mean 3.62)

Overcrowding and thermal discomfort are the most critical stressors.

Objective 5: Propose ergonomic design recommendations

Open-ended responses from participants consistently highlighted three areas for improvement: comfortable and

adjustable drawing boards/tables, adequate ventilation and cooling, better lighting, noise control, and storage

facilities. Specific recommendations extracted include:

 Provision of adjustable-height drawing boards to accommodate different tasks and user statures.

 Installation of functional air conditioning or improved cross-ventilation systems.

 Upgrading artificial lighting to reduce eye strain, especially for overnight work.

 Reducing overcrowding by expanding studio space or limiting class sizes.

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 843

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

 Implementing noise control measures (e.g., acoustic panels, designated quiet zones).

 Providing personal storage to reduce clutter and improve spatial organisation.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The analysis of data from 170 architecture students at LASUSTECH reveals the following key findings:

Demographic profile: Most students spend 5–10 hours daily in the studio, and nearly two-thirds work overnight

at least sometimes.

Ergonomic conditions are severely inadequate across all dimensions. Furniture causes body pain (65.8%

agreement), lighting causes eye strain (56.5%), ventilation is poor (65.9%), overcrowding is extreme (71.2%),

and noise is distracting (53.6%). Mean adequacy scores for positive statements ranged from 2.18 to 2.65, well

below the neutral midpoint.

Psychological stress levels are high. Over 60% of students reported mental exhaustion, feeling overwhelmed,

and stress from prolonged hours. Mean stress indicator scores ranged from 3.40 to 3.78.

Strong relationships exist between poor ergonomics and stress. All five ergonomic factors were perceived

as significantly contributing to stress, with overcrowding and high temperature having the strongest impacts

(means 3.93 and 3.78, respectively).

Students unanimously desire ergonomic improvements. Adjustable furniture, better ventilation and cooling,

improved lighting, noise control, and reduced overcrowding were the most frequently cited recommendations.

These findings confirm that workspace ergonomics in LASUSTECH architecture studios is a critical determinant

of students’ psychological well-being, and targeted interventions are urgently needed to create a healthier

learning environment.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Furniture Ergonomics and Psychological Stress

The findings revealed that furniture ergonomics in the architecture studios are inadequate, as many students

reported discomfort, poor posture support, and body pain after long studio sessions. This supports the findings

of Abdulkadir et al. (2020), who reported that ergonomic furniture improves comfort and reduces physical strain

among students.

Lighting Quality and Psychological Stress

Students generally perceived both natural and artificial lighting as inadequate and reported experiencing eye

strain during studio work. This agrees with Tonye et al. (2025), who found that lighting quality significantly

influences user comfort and productivity in learning environments.

Ventilation and Thermal Comfort

The study found that poor ventilation and excessive heat contribute to discomfort among students. This is

consistent with Obi-George et al. (2025), who observed that thermal discomfort negatively affects concentration

and performance in architectural studios.

Spatial Arrangement and Overcrowding

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 844

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Overcrowding was identified as the most significant ergonomic challenge affecting students. This finding aligns

with Makun et al. (2024), who found that inadequate workspace and poor spatial organisation reduce comfort

and learning effectiveness.

Acoustic Comfort and Psychological Stress

The findings indicate that noise negatively affects concentration and contributes to stress. This supports Makun

and Lawal (2025), who reported that excessive noise adversely affects students' mental performance and

emotional well-being.

Relationship Between Workspace Ergonomics and Psychological Stress

The study established that poor ergonomic conditions are associated with increased psychological stress among

architecture students. This finding supports the Person–Environment Fit Theory, which suggests that stress

occurs when the environment fails to meet users' physical and psychological needs.

SUMMARY: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

This section presents the conclusion of the study examining the relationship between workspace ergonomics and

psychological stress in LASUSTECH architecture studios. The chapter summarises the research, draws

conclusions based on the findings, discusses implications, and offers actionable recommendations.

Conclusions

First, existing ergonomic conditions are inadequate across all dimensions, causing physical discomfort and body

pain. Second, architecture students experience high levels of psychological stress including mental exhaustion,

difficulty concentrating, and reduced motivation. Third, there is a significant positive relationship between poor

ergonomics and psychological stress, confirming that ergonomic deficiencies have measurable psychological

consequences. Fourth, the theoretical framework is validated, as mismatches between students' needs and studio

conditions generate psychological strain. Fifth, the findings indicate a strong perceived relationship between

workspace ergonomics and psychological stress among architecture students.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are derived directly from complaints expressed by students in their

questionnaire responses.

Overcrowding (most frequent complaint): Reduce class sizes to 20–25 students per studio, create additional

studio spaces, introduce scheduled time-tabling, and assign permanent individual workstations. Students

stated: "Overcrowding at peak hour which leads to missing properties."

Heat and ventilation: Install functional air conditioning units in all studios, maximise cross-ventilation with

ceiling fans, and establish regular maintenance. Students stated: "No ac" and "lack of ventilation."

Furniture: Procure additional tables and chairs for every student, replace drawing boards with height-adjustable

units, provide ergonomic chairs with back support, and install personal storage lockers. Students stated: "Tables

and chairs aren't enough" and "stool height to table height discomfort."

Noise: Establish designated quiet zones, install acoustic panels, and post noise guidelines. Students

requested "noise control."

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 845

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Lighting: Upgrade artificial lighting to minimum 500 lux per workstation, provide individual task lamps for

overnight work, and install blinds to prevent glare. Students requested "improved lightning" (sic).

Overnight hours: Provide overnight amenities (lighting, restrooms, water), create a separate break area, and

review workload expectations. Students described "mental drain after hours of studio work."

Limitations

The study has three limitations: single institution focus limiting generalisability, cross-sectional design

preventing causal conclusions and limited objective ergonomic measurements.

Final Remarks

The study demonstrates that workspace ergonomics is a central determinant of students' psychological well-

being, not a peripheral concern. The findings point clearly toward achievable solutions including adjustable

furniture, proper lighting, effective cooling, adequate space, and noise control. Improving studio ergonomics is

not an expense but an investment in student mental health, academic success, and the future of architectural

education in Nigeria.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that Opeyemi A. Asaju, listed as a co-author of this paper, is also a co-author of two primary

sources cited herein: Asaju et al. (2024) and Asaju et al. (2026). These self-citations are disclosed in the interest

of transparency. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this work.

REFERENCES

1. Abdulkadir, M., Lasisi, O. I., Ojile, P., & Adeyemi, A. J. (2020). The effect of furniture intervention on

the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders and academic performance of students in North-West Nigeria.

SAGE Publications, *65*(1), 195-203.

2. Akinluyi, M. L., Fadamiro, J., Ayoola, H., & Alade, M. (2024). Efficacy of architectural space design for

healing and humanisation in Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. International Journal of

Architecture and Urban Development, *14*(1), 5-18.

3. Ali, A. S., Chua, S. J. L., & Lim, M. E.-L. (2015). The effect of physical environment comfort on

employees' performance in office buildings. Structural Survey, *33*(4/5), 294-308.

4. Asaju, O. A., Olusada, M., Adelore, C., Onamade, A. O., & Otunnoyo, G. A. (2026). The effect of the

design studio environment on the mental well-being of architecture students in selected universities in

Nigeria. In C. Aigbavboa, B. Awuzie, D. Aghimien, A. E. Oke, & T. Omotayo (Eds.), Facilitating

inclusivity in multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary sustainable built environment research in emerging

economies (pp. 1585-1594). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-08992-2_133

5. Asaju, O. A., Onamade, A. O., Chukwuka, O. P., Odefadehan, C., & Alagbe, O. (2024). IEQ of studio

environment on academic performance of architectural students at Caleb University, Lagos, Nigeria.

Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Built Environment. 5(1) 1-7

https://bcsdjournals.com/index.php/mejrhss/article/download/672/404

6. Bay-Sahin, E., & Shah, N. (2026). Optimising architectural studio spaces: Applying a psychological needs

framework to enhance student well-being. SAGE Open, 16(1) 1-22.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/21582440251407947

7. Bello, A. O., Pepple, T. D., Amusa, T. T., Obioha, U., & Asaju, O. (2025). Evaluation of the impact of

natural lighting and ventilation on user comfort in Lagos office buildings. International Journal of Research

and Innovation in Applied Science (IJRIAS), *10*(7), 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.100700130

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 846

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

8. Bhatti, O. S., Ul Haq, M., & Khan, F. (2024). Impact of office and workplace design on job performance

of project employees in Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC) industry of Pakistan. Journal for

Current Sign, 320-333.

9. Christopoulos, I., & Mulville, M. (2025). Impact assessment of the spatial layouts of studios on the

students' learning experience at architecture schools in HE, in the UK [Conference contribution]. Leeds

Beckett University. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/leedsbeckett.30438500.v1

10. Demirel, F., & Ozçetin, Z. (2024). A study on the acoustic comfort evaluation in educational buildings:

Bozok University case. In Springer proceedings. Springer.

11. Feige, A., Wallbaum, H., Janser, M., & Windlinger, L. (2013). Impact of sustainable office buildings on

occupants' comfort and productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, *15*(1), 7-34.

12. Haynes, B. P. (2008). The impact of office layout on productivity. Journal of Facilities Management,

*6*(3), 189-201.

13. Hussein, A. Y., & Mustafa, F. A. (2023). Architecture students’ self-report well-being assessment based

on quality learning environment in design studio. Cihan University-Erbil Scientific Journal CUESJ,

*7*(1), 21-28.

14. Lee, P. J., Lee, B. K., Jeon, J. Y., Zhang, M., & Kang, J. (2015). Impact of noise on self-rated job

satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: A structural equation modelling approach. Ergonomics,

*59*(2), 222-234.

15. Makaremi, N., Yildirim, S., Morgan, G. T., Touchie, M. F., Jakubiec, J. A., & Robinson, J. B. (2024).

Impact of classroom environment on student wellbeing in higher education: A systematic review. Building

and Environment, *265*, Article 111958.

16. Makun, C. Y., Anikor, E. M., Obi-George, C. L., & Akande, O. (2024). Evaluation of interactive spaces

for enhanced learning in architecture department buildings in Niger State, Nigeria. ArtGRID - Journal of

Architecture Engineering and Fine Arts, *6*(1), 96-110.

17. Makun, C. Y., & Lawal, L. A. (2025). Effects of exposure to noise on mental performance and emotional

well-being of students at a school in Kaduna, Nigeria. Federal University of Technology, Minna.

18. Obi-George, L. C., Ifebi, O. C., Adegoke, S. A., Nzewi, N. U., Eze, C. J., & Maduka, N. M. (2025).

Examining the impact and perception of thermal comfort on student performance in architectural studios.

Federal University of Technology, Minna. Journal of Technology in Architecture, Design, and Planning.

3(1) 1-12

19. Sadykova, Z., & Almasbayeva, A. (2024). Ergonomics of an art studio: Methodology for comfortable and

productive creativity. Problems of Engineering and Professional Education, *72*(1), 50-59.

20. Stanton, A., Zandvliet, D., Dhaliwal, R., & Black, T. (2016). Understanding students' experiences of well-

being in learning environments. Higher Education Studies, *6*(3), 90-99.

21. Tonye, T. A., Favour, I. I., Olaoye, G., Uju, P. C., Ibitoye, O. A., & Adekunle, S. B. (2025). The impact

of lighting and circulation on movement systems in community centres. International Journal of Latest

Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS), *14*(8), 200-208.

https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1408000025

22. Wargocki, P., Porras-Salazar, J., & Contreras-Espinoza, S. (2019). The relationship between classroom

temperature and children's performance in school. Building and Environment, *157*, 197-204.

23. Yardimci, Y. C. (2024). A research on architects' comfort conditions in working environments. Sakarya

University Journal of Science, *28*(3), 496-504.