Content uploaded by Maryam Salihu Muhammad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maryam Salihu Muhammad on Jul 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
AN EVALUATION OF OCCUPANTS’ SATISFACTION AND COMFORT WITH HOUSING
FACILITIES: LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
ALIYU AHMAD ALIYU1, MARYAM SALIHU MUHAMMAD1, MOHAMMED GIRGIRI
BUKAR1, AND IBRAHIM MUSA SINGHRY1
1Department of Estate Management and Valuation, Faculty of Environmental Technology,
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, P.M.B. 0248, Bauchi, Bauchi State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
POE is a general term for a broad range of activities aimed at understanding how buildings
perform once they are built, and how satisfied building users are with the environment that
was created. There are few studies that evaluate more than indoor climate and operational
aspects. They cover general satisfaction and the concept “comfort” in these studies is used in a
wider sense than “thermal comfort”. It may for example include comfort in relation to light,
architecture and aesthetics. This article is based on an extensive review of related literature
that describes user experiences with different types of housing facilities, focusing on indoor
climate, air quality, technical operation, user attitudes, and general satisfaction. Energy
efficient buildings are often rated better than conventional buildings on indoor climate, but
when investigating more thoroughly, the users have different concerns. The varying results
from the user evaluations reflect that the quality of the buildings differs. The fact that
occupants do not have control over artificial light in the building creates a major threat to
human eyes in the long run. There seems to be a lack of control of noise in the office building,
as the majority of the occupants complained about the distraction from other office cubicles
The aspects of aesthetics, serenity, lighting, ventilation, acoustics, and humidity, were not
perceived differently by the occupants However, user concerns may also be a result of
inappropriate use. Perceived personal control and sufficient information on operation and use
is crucial for an overall positive experience of the building. In order to unearth far reaching
perspectives and contribute substantially to knowledge, a future multidisciplinary research is
recommended. Further research in the area of social dynamics of comfort and comfort-related
behaviour represents a new and exciting area of inquiry. It would be interesting to do
research that compares the levels of housing satisfaction of occupants that reside in state-
subsidised houses with different designs and layout.
Keywords: Comfort, Housing Facilities, Occupant Satisfaction, Post Occupancy Evaluation
and User Satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
According to Behlou (1991), post occupancy evaluation (POE) is a systematic evaluation of
completed and occupied settings. It has its origins in academically based studies in the
1960s and the 1970s when evaluators were curious about how 'users' behaved in and
reacted to buildings and was part of a larger effort to define the design process in terms of
rational models derived from information gained through research.
Post occupancy evaluation is "an examination of the effectiveness for human users of
occupied designed environments" (Zimring and Reizenstein, 1980). It is the process of
evaluating buildings in a systematic manner after they have been occupied for some time
(Preiser, Rabinowitz and White, 1988). The POE approach uses the occupants' needs as the
criteria by which the building is judged, bases its conclusions on user impressions, and
employs survey and interview methods (Behlou, 1991)
According to Woon, et. al (2015), POE of building performance is vitally needed to
ensure that building performance of government and public buildings and facilities is
sustained (Nawawi and Khalil, 2008). Although the importance of POE has been recognised
by many, obstacles still exist in its widespread adoption. The success of a project
depends on a combination of many events and interactions, planned or unplanned, over
the life of a facility, with changing participants and processes in a constantly changing
environment (Rohaniyati Salleh, 2009). While numerous studies are bound on the barriers
and solutions, benefits and costs, techniques and process, there have been no POE
studies encountered on what are the CSFs that need to be considered and
concentrated on post occupancy evaluation of building performance (Riley, Moody and Pitt,
2009). There are latest studies on POE and CSFs. These studies do not relate to the CSFs for
POE (Woon, et. al, 2015). A survey conducted by Neo (2013) has discovered that
international POE experts acknowledge the absence of studies on CSFs for POE and
further emphasises the importance of CSFs for POE projects.
According to Rockart (1979) as cited by Woon, et. al (2015), critical success factors are
“the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure
successful competitive performance for the organisation, and should receive constant
and careful attention from the management”. The correlation between CSFs and project
success has long been recognised. The effectiveness of project delivery has been attributed
to consideration on CSF studies. According to Yasin and Egbu (2010), as part of the
strategic planning process in the Facilities Management industry specifically in conducting
performance evaluation of building performance, the identification of CSFs is essential.
This is in alignment with the statement by Bullen and Rockart (1981) wherein CSFs
are recognised as a necessary input to the strategic planning process ( Woon, et. al,
2015).
Understanding on the CSFs for performance evaluation of building performance forms
a strong foundation when carrying out POE projects (Yasin and Egbu, 2010). Therefore,
a structured approach was devised and applied to systematically review the factors
that lead to the success of POE of building performance; the driving research question
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
being 'What are the factors that influence the success of POE of building performance?
(Woon, et. al, 2015),
The 1960s witnessed the growth of research focusing on the relationship between human
behaviour and building design which led to the creation of the new discipline of
environmental design research and the formation of interdisciplinary professional
associations such as the Environmental Design Research Association in 1968 (Behlou,
1991). The field of POE has expanded from the academic to the professional world. While it
is still a maturing field, there appears to be a growing commitment towards the inclusion of
POE in the building process (Behlou, 1991). Today POEs are conducted as part of the
specialised services being offered by a growing number of consultants as well as a select
number of progressive architectural and planning firms (Behlou, 1991). This has resulted in
a shift in emphasis from studies that reflect the interest of evaluators to studies reflecting
the needs of building program managers, facility managers, facility programmers, architects
and others (Zimring et al, 1988).
In the 1980s as stated by Behlou (1991), POE developed into a discipline of its own and the
1980s witnessed a number of advances in theory, method, strategy and application of POE.
The growth of POE is indicated by the recent formation of relevant international
organisations in different parts of the world, such as the 'International Association for the
Study of People and their Physical Surroundings' (IAPS) based in Europe, the 'People and
the Physical Environment Research Association' (PAPER) based in Australia, New Zealand
and South East Asia and the 'Man-Environment Research Association' (MERA), which is a
Japanese organization (Behlou, 1991). It is against this background that this study intends
to extensively review relevant literature on post occupancy evaluation with a view to
identify research gap and suggests avenues for future research opportunities.
CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
POE is a general term for a broad range of activities aimed at understanding how buildings
perform once they are built, and how satisfied building users are with the environment that
was created (Hewitt, Higgins, Heatherly and Turner, 2005). POE is a systematic collection
and evaluation of information about the performance of the building in use. By conducting
POE, individual can measure the energy consumption of a building, and will also try to
establish the level of comfort and satisfaction of the occupants of the residential building.
By taking these factors into account, it will enable a research to identify and improve the
design, performance and fitness of the building in accordance with its purpose ( Chikezie,
2014). POE is the evaluation of the performance of a building after it has been occupied
(Nawawi and Khalil, 2002: 2).
Over the years, many theorists and practitioners have grown uncomfortable with the term
“POE”. The literal meaning of the term seems to suggest that it occurs after people leave the
building and it seems to emphasise evaluation done at a single point in the process
(Chikezie, 2014). Despite the diversity of the practice, the term” post-occupancy evaluation”
remains common for historical reasons and it will be used in this research. To be most
effective building performance, evaluation must happen throughout the lifecycle of the
building. In this guidance, the term POE is used as an umbrella term that includes a review
of the process of delivering the project as a review of the technical and functional
performance of the building during occupation (Chikezie, 2014).
POE was established due to problems arising from the building industry, more
especially in the care facilities such as mental hospitals, nursing homes, and
correctional services (Riley, Kokkarinen and Pitt, 2010). POE is the process whereby a
building has to be evaluated accurately once it has been built and occupied for some
time (Carthey, 2006: 58). POE is a general term for a broad range of activities aimed at
understanding how buildings perform once they are built, and the level of satisfaction of
building users with the environment thus created (Hewitt, Higgins, Heatherly and Turner,
2005). POE was derived from the ‘occupancy permit’, a document that is issued once the
building has been inspected and is declared free from all defects and ready for occupation
(Riley et al.,2010, as cited by (Emuze, Mashili and Botha, 2013).
The idea of POE was established in relations to the problems arising from the building
industry, more especially in the care facilities such as mental hospital, nursing homes,
school residence and correctional services (Riley et al, 2010: 203). The rapid housing
development in the Second World War has led to the adoption n of POE in the built
environment (Chikezie, 2014). Due to the urban renewal projects many houses which were
built in Northern America, has forced the designers to accommodate the need of the
lifestyle of the occupants (Riley et al, 2010: 203).
According to Chikezie (2014), office buildings are a key resources for all type of
organizations including student housing, both public and private. There is a common
understanding of an office in the residence which is a workplace that accommodates the
information and knowledge processing activities of an organization including filing,
planning and designing, supervising analyzing deciding and communicating (Chikezie,
2014). Office buildings develop from the need to plan, coordinate and administer these
activities (Pinder, 2003). Benefits which can potentially be derived from POE offer an
incentive which drives its deployment for many building owners as a matter of fact
(Jaunzens, et al., 2003)
The process of post occupancy evaluation review evaluates and identifies any remedial
work required, provides information to support continuous improvement for future project
and can be an important part of the communication process for change management
(Queensland, 2007). Furthermore, it focuses on the occupants’ needs and measures the
extent to which the building’s outcome meets the occupants’ expectations in relation to the
safety qualities and importance of the residential environment and the functionality of the
design; and the effectiveness of the design, construction, communication and occupancy
process (Kooymans and Haylock, 2006, as cited by Chikezie, 2014)
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
According to Emuze, Mashili and Botha (2013), POE is not a new model; it originated in the
United Kingdom (UK) when the British Ministry of Education, in agreement with local
governments, first undertook evaluations of buildings in the post World War II period
(Kooymans and Haylock, 2006: 2). The United States of America (USA) followed in the
footsteps of the UK, in the early 1960s, with the School Construction System
Development in California. Internationally, POE has been endorsed on a longer term
basis as a useful addition to architectural practice in which the USA serves as an example in
this regard (Kooymans and Haylock, 2006). Hence, POE gained momentum in the mid-
1960s with an increase in the number of researchers focusing on building design (Emuze,
Mashili and Botha, 2013).
In time, environmental psychologists developed interests in POE with the aim of
focusing on scientific knowledge proliferation (Riley et al., 2010). For instance, Shepley,
Zimmerman and Boggess (2009) conducted a POE study at the new location of a 174-
person Architectural firm in Boston, USA. The study revealed that occupants were more
satisfied with a new building when compared with an older building, although concerns
were raised about the impact on indoor air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, noise and
office layout (Shepley et al.,2009, as cited by Emuze, Mashili and Botha, 2013).
POE was derived from the “occupancy permit”, a document that is issued once the building
has been inspected and is declared free from all defects and ready for occupation (Riley et
al, 2010). During the early years of POE, academics decided to research the topic in-depth
to determine the effectiveness of the POE because the profession of architecture had
elected not to embrace POE as a field of study. According to Riley et. al (2010), POE was
introduced as a result of complaints from the building occupants regarding problems such
as: health and safety, security, disability, leakage, poor signage, lack of storage and privacy,
halfway blockage, aesthetic shortcomings, inadequacy of designed space for equipment
such as copier as well as the maintenance of glass surface such as skywalks (Chikezie,
2014).
POE is not a new concept; it has its origin in the UK when the British Ministry of Education
in agreement with the local governments first undertook evaluation of buildings in the
post-World War II period. The buildings assessed were mostly school buildings and thus
resulted in a series of building performances official statement for schools in UK (Chikezie,
2014). The US followed in the footsteps of the UK during the early 1960s with School
Construction System Development in California. Internationally, POE has been endorsed on
a longer term basis as a useful addition to architectural practice, for example, in the USA
(Kooymans and Haylock, 2011). POE gained momentum in the mid-1960s with an increase
in the number of researchers focusing on building design (Chikezie, 2014). As time went by,
environmental psychology developed in the interest of POE with the aim of focusing on
scientific knowledge (Riley et. al, 2010: 204)
The term “POE” can be very misleading since it deals with the building once it has been
completed and occupied, but in actual fact, it should be involved from the process of
inception, through completion, until the occupation and post-occupancy stages (Riley et al,
2010). During that time, researchers as noted by Chikezie (2014) started focusing on the
relationship between users (occupants) and buildings. During the early 1970s, POE started
to gain momentum when the focus shifted to the relationship between users of the building
and their level of satisfaction (Chikezie, 2014).
At that time, during the 1970s, it has been realized that most organizations were trying to
adopt the POE as a strategic method for addressing the failure of many buildings. POE was
also instituted with the primary objectives of addressing the health, safety and well-being
of the occupants, as well as challenges in the building infrastructure (Riley et al, 2010).
Most researchers were still focusing on POE as a tool of finding satisfaction towards the late
1970s (Chikezie, 2014). During early 1980, POE started to dominate the public and private
sectors, focusing on organizational effects on occupant satisfaction in the working
environment (Khalil and Nawawi, 2009).
THE PURPOSE OF POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
Therefore, the purpose of POE is to systematically evaluate a designed and occupied setting
from the perspective of those who use it (Walker, 2011). POE addresses the Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEQ) and efficiency of the building performance with the aim of
improving and obtaining maximum efficiency. POE is an evaluation tool that “demonstrates
success and achievement of the objectives” (Watson, 2003). Once the evaluation has been
conducted successfully, it will ultimately yield evidence of different perspectives, reflection
and learning (Walker, 2011). POE is there to detect the performance failures of the existing
office or residential building and to try to improve on the performance in future projects or
future buildings. POE takes all these failures or challenges into account and reports back to
the stakeholders so that new ways of improving building performance can be found
(Chikezie, 2014).
Using POE as a tool and interacting with the occupants will provide the organization with
information about how the building performs (Chikezie, 2014). This useful information will
be used as the benchmark when new or future projects start. It plays a very important role
in the interaction between the users and the building, and is intended to be used for
improving on the shortfall that exist within the existing building currently used by the
occupants, POE also fulfils other objectives, such as identifying the building’s defects as well
as providing the design team with alternatives on how to prevent similar mistakes from
happening in future projects. With POE in place, the quality of building management in the
organization will be improved by using cons-effective strategic methods (Chikezie, 2014).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Kirk and Stirret (2011) define POE “as part of value engineering that continuously
improves the facilities in the building”. On the one hand, POE started to function on its own
while on the other hand, moving away from the architectural point view. By that time, the
POE was being used based on the occupants’ needs, as the building performance is judged
on the based on the user satisfaction needs and IEQ. The intention of the POE is to improve
the quality of the building and to identify the problems that can be used as benchmarks so
that previous mistakes and unwanted features are not included or repeated in future
projects. Occupant satisfaction with the building is associated with the efficiency of building
performance. If the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is not of a high standard, the
occupants will be dissatisfied with the results they get from the building (Chikezie, 2014).
Khalil and Nawawi (2008) define POE as a systematic evaluation of opinion about buildings
in use, from the perspective of the people who use them. Therefore, POE is concern with
building performance so as to satisfy occupants with regard to noise control. Implementing
POE in an organization will help to identify measurable link between the building quality
and performance outcomes of the occupants. POE is so crucial to be conducted because it
indicates how well building performance works in order to satisfy the occupant’s needs and
organizational goals. To sum up the above mentioned, POE provides structured review of
the process of delivering a project as well as a review of the operational, functional and
strategic performance of the building during occupation. POE provides feedback on the
performance of the building throughout its service life (Chikezie, 2014).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper is specifically devoted to search and review the literature on the factors
that contribute to the success of POE of building performance (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Moreover, the article is equally aimed at reviewing past studies on post occupancy
evaluation and thereby synchronise the findings by suggesting future research avenues.
The primary data was generated through qualitative content analysis. Content analysis is
considered a scholarly methodology in the humanities by which texts are studied as to
authorship, authenticity, or meaning (Joubish and Khurram, 2011, as cited by Woon, et. al,
2015 ).
It is often used as “a research technique to objectively and systematically describe the
content of communication. Qualitative content analysis was applied for reviewing
published material related to POE CSFs (Woon, et. al, 2015). Based on the method used by
Miskon et al. (2011) and Levy and Ellis (2006), a three stage method was employed to
extract, analyse and report the literature-based findings. The first stage involved
identifying the articles to be included in this review (Woon, et. al, 2015). The second stage
involved designing and executing detailed rules of conduct that prescribed how to capture
and analyse the literature. The third stage entailed synthesising the analysed details and
deriving the research findings (Woon, et. al, 2015).
As the first step of the content analysis, all articles published in the leading POE
journals, academic conferences and books were collected. For compiling the literature
sample, a literature search was carried out, based on a pair of keywords “success factors”,
“success elements”, “critical success factors” and “key success factors (Woon, et. al, 2015).
NVIVO 9.0 was used to code and analyse the literature in a single repository (Woon, et. al,
2015). NVIVO had previously been effectively employed in this way by Miskon et al.
(2011), Bandara (2006), and Bandara et al. (2011). A detailed rule of conduct was
devised to store, code and analyse the extracted papers in the NVIVO database. All
the reviewed articles were saved and arranged as ‘documents’ and ‘nodes’ ( Woon, et. al,
2015). The coding process was carried out by mapping relevant sentences/ statements
to the nodes. Any suggestion of a benefit either implicit or explicit was mapped to the
‘Critical Success Factors’ node. A similar process was carried out for the ‘Sub factors’
(Woon, et. al, 2015).
LITERATURE ANALYSIS
Woon, et. al’s Strategic Accomplishment Criteria in Post Occupancy Evaluation
POE of building performance is not as simple as conducting a user satisfaction survey.
Rather it is a complex undertaking that requires a vast amount of resources (Preiser and
Vischer, 2004, as cited by Woon, et. al, 2015). Identifying the resources available to carry
out POE, matching data collection and analysis activities to the available time and budget
has become one of the challenges for building practitioners (British Council for Offices,
2007; Vischer, 2001). The success of POE is more related to the availability of resources
including money (cost), time and manpower within the organisation. It also includes a
variety of stakeholders over a long period, and requires simultaneous attention to a
wide variety of technical and nontechnical issues (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Participation and long term commitment from all key participants are important. However,
in practice, POE has been regarded as insignificant by building practitioners due to time
constraints and tight construction schedule (Vischer, 2001). They are also reluctant to
carry out evaluation since POE is not part of the standard facility or building delivery
process and there is no provision in the legislation for POE. Thus, POE is treated as merely
an option since they believe that they do not receive any benefit from the investment on
POE (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Leadership is one of the critical factors that have to be fulfilled for a successful POE
(Scottish Executive, 2006). People are complex. Leading people is a daunting task. The
success of a building project does not depend on how many professionals are involved,
but on how well these people relate to one another, and how well they work together
towards a shared vision of an integrated product (Obradovic et al., 2013). A good leader
can get things done by focusing on the effort of a group of people toward a common goal
and enabling them to work as a team (The PMBOK, 2008). POE project without
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
positive leadership may under-perform, under-utilise team members, fall short of
project goals, quality performance and productivity as a matter of fact (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Lack of skills was considered as a major factor in restricting the success of POE (Vischer,
2001; Zimring and Rashidi, 2008; Stevenson, 2009]. The skills required to perform user
feedback studies is diverse. Building performance evaluation has become more complex
than ever as today’s building have become more complex (Izran, 2011). Building
practitioners have to possess a wide range of skills in order to undertake a successful
POE study (Vischer, 2001; Stevenson, 2008). However, it is rare for the in-house staff to
possess a broad range of technical and logistical skills, as well as mastering in-depth
knowledge to direct, evaluate, manage and translate POE data into workable
information for decision making (Woon, et. al, 2015).
POE of building performance is not an easy task; rather it is a complex mix of technical and
non-technical process (Preiser, Rabinowitz, and White, 1988). In the practical world of
building design, construction, and management, most organisations have no established
system for knowing what to evaluate, how to process, direct, and act on the information
they receive from POE (Vischer, 2001). This may cause the information to not go
anywhere either to the upper level management, design team or public, which in turn
leads to POE failures (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Numerous building scholars and POE references recognise ownership as a critical
factor that POE project team has to clarify for achieving project success (Izran, 2011;
Zimmerman and Martin, 2001; Jaunzens et al., 2003; Brooks and Viccars, 2006). The
main question is who is to take the ownership? Professionals such as architects,
building designers, engineers and facilities or property managers are likely to deflect
the ownership for POE because they refuse to become liable for any new problems or costs
associated with POE (Riley et al,. 2009). From the client’s point of view, they refuse to
take POE ownership due to the concern of the negative results that might be generated
from the POE activities that will reduce their asset value (Riley et al., 2009; Brooks and
Viccars, 2006). The project team on the other hand will be reluctant to reduce their profit
by paying for an evaluation of the building (Woon, et. al, 2015).
As a matter of fact, unclear indicators and accompanying benchmarks for determining
the requirements for a well-functioning building cause the failure of POE to achieve
its optimum benefits (Jaunzens et al., 2002). Though numerous literature and studies
on POE are available, there is a still a gap on what is the reliable and agreed definition of a
good building (Zimmerman and Martin, 2001), what are the actual building performance
criteria, as well as the parameters that need to be considered in POE of building
performance (Kooymans and Haylock, 2006; Izran, 2011; Brooks and Viccars, 2006;
Kincaid, 1994; Becker, 1990, as quoted by Woon, et. al (2015).
POE is also perceived as an evaluation method that is only customised to the specific
circumstances of the building and its occupants (the aspects of evaluation are tailored for a
specific building only) (Izran, 2011). This means, POE does not permit performance
comparison with other buildings, with other sectors of the industry, which causes POE
results to rarely become part of a systematic database. To ensure POE success, POE
programmes should be standardised across the industry to provide compatible results
that can be compared to give indications of improvement (Woon, et. al, 2015). Figure 1
below depicts the post occupancy evaluation process.
Figure 1: Post Occupancy Evaluation Process Model
Source: Pal (2007)
Highlights on Post Occupancy Evaluations of Housing Projects
The relationship between people and the settings in which they live represents a theme
running through much environment-behaviour research (Markus, 1967 as cited by Behlou,
1991). The housing environment has been studied from a variety of theoretical and
methodological perspectives (Wohwill and Weisman, 1981). A review of milestone POE
studies carried out in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and which concerned different types of
buildings, has been presented by Preiser et al (1988). In the area of housing, post
occupancy evaluation research, perhaps the earliest attempt at systematic building
evaluation was made by Markus (Markus et al, 1972) and his colleagues in the late .1960s
at the Building Performance Research Unit at the University of Strathclyde, Scotland. The
first influential work came exclusively from Britain, and most notably from the
Architectural Research Unit at the University of Edinburgh and the Sociological Section of
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
the Ministry of Housing in London as a matter of fact (Cooper, 1977, as cited by Behlou,
1991).
The Architectural Research Unit employed both social scientists and architects with the aim
of setting up a practice, research and teaching unit which would initiate a fresh approach to
the field of housing by taking into account user needs and by combining the findings of
research studies with actual design work (Behlou, 1991). The Ministry of Housing and
Local Government (later the Department of the Environment), through its Sociological
Research Station, has conducted a series of housing evaluation studies. Some of these
studies have been longitudinal studies monitoring housing needs and preferences before
and after moving to new prototype dwellings (Ministry of Housing and Local Government,
1969; DOE, 1972 as quoted by Behlou, 1991).
Other studies as cited by Behlou (1991) have compared several housing developments of
the same type of density concerning a particular aspect of the environment (DOE ,1972).
These studies have influenced thought about housing form and were particularly influential
in the virtual ban of further high rise housing for families subsequent to 1968 (Behlou,
1991). The development of user needs and preferences studies has also occurred
extensively in the United States. An important milestone in the diagnostic evaluation of
housing was carried out by Cooper (1975) who emphasised the application of survey,
interview and observation techniques in POE data collection. In her single POE low income
housing project, Easter Hill Village, Cooper addressed many specific design features that
contributed to the success or failure of the evaluated housing scheme. The study includes
analyses of space utilisation both within and outside the home and an extensive series of
recommendations based upon the study are presented (Behlou, 1991). Many of the POEs
studies carried out in the English speaking developed countries have been examined and
assessed by Cooper and Sarkissian in 1986. They analysed nearly one hundred studies of
what people like and dislike about their housing environment in lowrise medium or high
density family housing estates and presented a wide range of guidelines for the design of
similar housing projects (Behlou, 1991).
Becker (1974) conducted an evaluation of a number of multi-family housing projects
sponsored by the New York Urban Development Corporation. This POE generated
comparative data that were used to identify patterns within and across housing types and
user groups as well as suburban and urban sites. In "Housing Messages", Becker (1977)
analyses housing design issues such as personalisation, participation and the housing
management process (Behlou, 1991).
Newman's (1972 and 1976) research on crime in high-rise public housing was one of the
studies that had a critical influence on housing policy in the United States. His study
highlighted the relationship between the occurrence of crime and project size, scale, layout
and ability to control territorial spaces in public housing. Qualitative and quantitative
analyses of housing developments in 15 cities were presented, focusing on the relationship
between physical design variables, possibilities for informal surveillance of public spaces,
social contact and the occurrence of crime. Zeisel and Griffin's (1975) study presents
findings from a POE research of 212 units housing development. Research questions
focused on issues of orientation, territory and privacy Behlou (1991).
Another important diagnostic POE project of the mid 1970s which significantly influenced
policy of the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development was conducted by
Francescato et al (1979) as cited by Behlou (1991). Based on a nation-wide sample of 37
housing developments, this research project tested the nature and relative importance of
various factors that contribute to housing residents’ satisfaction. A set of reliable
techniques for evaluating housing satisfaction was developed that has since been used by
other researchers. The POE permitted the involvement of the residents in the improvement
of their housing and helped in selectively directing limited modernisation resources to
those aspects of housing developments that were most likely to increase residents'
satisfaction (Behlou (1991). Since then there has been a proliferation of user needs and
preference studies, helping designers to avoid the repetition of past mistakes ( Weidemann,
et. al 1977).
Residents' Satisfaction: A Building Performance Criteria
According to Behlou (1991), the selection of any particular evaluation criterion is a
reflection of the perspective from which the evaluation is made. In turn, this perspective is
influenced by the goals that may be identified for the specific situation that is being
evaluated (Francescato, et al 1977). Therefore, although there are no absolutely "right" or
"wrong" criteria, there are criteria that are more or less appropriate to answer the question
being asked. It has frequently been pointed out that one major weakness of the criteria
used to evaluate housing is that they tend to ignore the criteria held by those who, after all,
are the very target of the housing programme, namely the residents themselves (Behlou,
1991). To compensate for that, the criterion of residents' satisfaction has been used with
increasing frequency in a number of past studies (Gutman and Westergaard, 1974;
Michelson, 1970, 1977a, and 1977b; Francescato et al, 1979; Galster, 1987; Galster and
Hesser, 1981; Darke, 1982; Anderson et al, 1983; Weidemann and Anderson, 1980 and
1985), permitting more reliable information about what the residents regard as acceptable
housing quality (Behlou, 1991).
According to Behlou (1991), measures of residents' satisfaction with their living
environments have the potential of providing a useful and socially acceptable criterion for
evaluating housing and for assessing the importance of various characteristics of that
housing in meeting residents' satisfaction. Francescato et al (1977, 1979) proposed that
people's satisfaction with where they live was sufficiently important in itself to merit
examination. According to Galster (1987) as quoted by Behlou (1991), household
satisfaction with their residential environment has become the pre-eminent indicator
employed by housing developers, analysts and policy makers in at least three ways:
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
-first, it has been used as an evaluative measure for judging the success of housing
developments constructed by the private sector (eg Lansing et al, 1970; Zehner, 1977) and
by the public sector (eg, Onibokun, 1974; Rent, 1975 and 1978; Francescato et al, 1977-79;
Weidemann and Anderson, 1980; Hourihan, 1984).
- secondly, it has been used as an indicator of residential mobility (Michelson, 1977 b.)
- thirdly, it has been used as an assessment of residents' perceptions of inadequacies of
their current housing environment so as to direct forthcoming private or public efforts to
improve the status quo (eg, Sanoff and Sawhney, 1971 and 1972; Bohland and Davis, 1979;
Francescato et al, 1977-79; Weidemann et al, 1977; Anderson et al, 1983).
Since most of the available data from previous housing evaluation research refers to users'
satisfaction and to the components contributing to its promotion, the use of residents'
satisfaction as an evaluative criterion in Behlou’s (1991) work allows the comparison of the
results with those of previous studies. It seems obvious that the personal space, the 'home',
is likely to be the space that affects residents' behaviour, well being and general satisfaction
more strongly than any other part of the built environment or outdoor spaces (Behlou,
1991).
Theoretical Underpinning in Understanding Residents' Satisfaction
In the words of Behlou (1991), residential satisfaction may be considered as the response
of residents to. their residential environment, the positive or negative feeling that the
occupants have for where they live. It is the amount of contentment experienced by
individuals relative to their current housing situation. As such, it is a representation of the
affective response of people to the social-physical environment which they inhabit.
Previous studies on satisfaction (such as Francescato et al, 1979) suggest that there is a
consensus that residential satisfaction is related to three sets of factors:
1. objective characteristics of the housing environment
2. objective characteristics of the residents (such as age, gender, previous housing
experience)
3. the subjective beliefs of the residents, their perceptions and aspirations.
This theoretical underpinning is depicted in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Integrated Conceptual Model
Source: Weidemann and Anderson (1985)
The precise nature of linkages between those three components is, however difficult to
define (Weidemann and Anderson, 1985). Different users assign different priorities to
various properties (see figure 2 below). It is not clear to what degree the variations in
subjective response are a function of personality, cultural or social variables among users.
There is still no general agreement on what features of the built form produce which degree
of satisfaction or dissatisfaction among which sub-cultural group. The theoretical notions
about the interaction between man and the built environment are still somewhat primitive.
The fact that the mechanisms by which the environment influences people are by no means
precisely known means that investigators have to take at face value residents' statements of
satisfaction (see figure 3 below).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Figure 8.7: Extended Conceptual Model of Satisfaction (Includes Levels of Scale, and
Social Components of the Residential Environment)
Source: Weidemann and Anderson (1985)
Main Levels Examined in Behloul (1991) Study
As it could be seen in figure 3 above, the physical environment is part of a vast interacting
system of social and physical components, none of which is pure cause or pure effect
(Behlou, 1991). The position may be taken that the relation between the physical
environment and satisfaction is not direct but mediated by various processes (Rapoport,
1977). Theoretical models have been proposed in order to understand the relationship
between the three components of residential satisfaction and the scored satisfaction.
Building Performance Theory
Considerable work has been undertaken according to Wilkinson (2011) since the 1970s to
develop best practice and define the discipline area of building performance evaluation
theory and figure 2 illustrates the placement of adaptation within a buildings lifecycle
(Preiser 2005). Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) is the process of managed,
structured and systematic assessment of building performance in a number of areas such
as the building structure and fabric, and building services. The conceptual model shows
how BPE sits within a cyclicalnotion of a building’s lifecycle. The theoretical framework for
BPE evolved out of the practice of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). POE is the structured
collection of quantitative and qualitative data from building facility managers and users of
the building performance (Wilkinson, 2011).
BPE occurs at all stages of the lifecycle whereas POE is undertaken after commissioning of
services and initial completion and occupation of the building (Wilkinson, 2011). According
to Preiser (2005) adaptation takes place at the end of the useful building lifecycle or at the
point where continued current use is no longer perceived to be economically viable
(Preiser, 2005). However, this contradicts the view of Douglas (2006) which is a more
realistic view of what occurs in practice and Preiser’s model has been adapted to reflect
more realistic practice stated by Douglas (2006) as cited by Wilkinson (2011).
Through the work of Preiser (2005) and others (see Isaacs in Baird 1996) robust,
structured and meaningful methods of building appraisal and evaluation have been
developed. Building owners and their consultants can opt for ‘off the shelf’ evaluation tools,
custom made, or adapt existing tools to suit their particular needs (Wilkinson, 2011). It is
the extension and evolution of these BPE tools that researchers in building adaptation
appraisal are seeking to achieve. The goal is to replicate some of the best practice
approaches and strengths of the BPE tools to some extent, whilst avoiding the weaknesses.
It should be noted that a limitation of some of the BPE techniques is that they tell the
appraisers the ‘what’ of BPE but do not extend to decision-making tools (Wilkinson, 2011).
Related Studies on Building Indoor Climate
Residential Buildings
According to Hauge, Thomsen and Berker (2010), are the users satisfied with the indoor
climate in energy efficient buildings? Isaksson and Karlsson (2006) has investigated the
thermal environment and the space heating in 20 low energy terraced houses in Lindås,
south of Gothenburg, Sweden. They applied qualitative interviews with the occupants as
well as measurements of physical parameters. The heating system in the terraced houses in
Lindås is based on the emission of the household appliances, the occupants’ body heat, and
solar irradiation. Many agree that the heating system functions well (Hauge, et. al, 2010).
However, during wintertime when the heater is on, varying indoor temperature is
experienced.
The study shows that people experiment with warming up the house, as for instance by
leaving doors open and lighting candles. When the houses are empty for some time, it takes
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
half a day to warm it up. Therefore, some of the residents leave the heating on when they
are away (Hauge, et. al, 2010). Interestingly, when comparing the residents’ opinions to the
measured parameters, there were main differences between the measured indoor
temperature and the occupants’ experience of the thermal environment. The indoor
temperature was often higher than experienced, indicating that the subjective experience
differs from person to person (Isaksson and Karlsson 2006 as cited by Hauge, et. al, 2010)).
Another study on residential satisfaction with the indoor climate is a diploma work by
Samuelsson and Lüddeckens (2009) as revealed by Hauge, et. al (2010). They did a survey
on three different passive houses in Sweden. Questions were asked about experienced
temperature and temperature variations, draughts, and perceived indoor climate. They
have also calculated the energy consumption and simulated the indoor climate for two of
the projects. The results between the two models do not vary a lot, neither in terms of
energy consumption, nor in terms of heating (Hauge, et. al, 2010). The models indicate that
in theory, the heating unit is enough to heat up the houses during the winter. The results
from the survey show, however, experienced problems with the indoor temperature during
the winter. Especially in one of the three projects, where more than 50 per cent of the
residents report that it is too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. They criticised
that they cannot adjust the temperature, and that weather conditions influence the indoor
temperature. They also report temperature differences of 3-4 C between rooms during
wintertime and that the ventilation system did not function sufficiently (Hauge, et. al,
2010).
According to the findings of Hauge, et. al, (2010), the occupants had to use additional
heating during winter, which influenced the use of electricity. Similar discrepancies
between the findings of the different methodologies (evaluation and simulation) were
found by Isaksson and Karlsson (2006). Samuelsson and Lüddeckens (2009) state that the
problem with the simulation model is that it cannot simulate reality in a sufficient way, and
that it might not capture the problems experienced by the residents. Samuelsson and
Lüddeckens (2009) cannot give a clear answer to why the residential satisfaction with the
indoor climate differs between the cases. Their discussion shows how difficult it is to
comprehensively predict indoor climate through simulations. Another challenge is the fact
that people experience temperature and draughts differently as a matter of fact (Hauge, et.
al, 2010).
Buber et al.(2007) as cited by Hauge, et. al (2010) investigated the meaning of the terms
comfort, well-being, cosiness, and housing comfort in relation to experienced housing
quality in passive houses. The personal opinions of residents were investigated in focus
group interviews. Results show that the type of heating had a crucial influence on housing
comfort, and thus on the well-being of its residents. None of the residents interviewed
would have agreed on moving to a house that is just heated by the ventilation system
(Hauge, et. al, 2010). They wanted to have an additional heating, such as wall heating or
wood pellet ovens. The visual and sensible effects were of importance for perceived
comfort. In regard to fresh air supply, the ventilation system with frequent air exchange was
seen as imperative for a high level of comfort ((Hauge, et. al, 2010).
In conclusion as noted by Hauge, et. al (2010), studies of thermal comfort show that the
way indoor thermal environment is evaluated depends on the relationship between people,
climate and building and can vary over time (Nicol and Roaf, 2005). This can explain the
difference between experienced comfort and simulated indoor climate found by
Samuelsson and Lüddeckens (2009). When users living in passive houses declare that they
miss a fire place or wish for an additional heating it reflects that the feeling of a comfortable
indoor climate is influenced by visual or sensible signs of heat. Differences between
perceived and measured temperatures show that user satisfaction in domestic spheres
includes subjective factors (Hauge, et. al, 2010). While this is true for most evaluations,
homes may be considered to be special ‘territories’ (Morley 2009) where demands for
comfort are particularly high (Aune 2007).
Occupational Buildings
According to Hauge, et. al (2010), Leaman and Bordass (2007) have studied if occupational
buildings designed for lower environmental impact are better than conventional buildings
from the occupants’ point of view. They compared user experiences through surveys in 177
conventional buildings, with mixed modes or air conditioning, and green buildings, with
natural or advanced natural ventilation. They found that green buildings scored better on:
ventilation/air, health, design, image, lighting, overall comfort, and perceived productivity
(Hauge, et. al, 2010). While the best green buildings ranked higher than the best
conventional buildings, a few of the lowest scores were also attained by green buildings.
Many of the green buildings were experienced as too hot in summer, and seemed to have
more ambient noise. The experience of indoor climate may also be related to whether the
occupants have single offices or open plan layout. In a single office an employee is more in
control over the temperature, ventilation, lighting, and noise as noted by Hauge, et. al
(2010).
An article by Heerwagen and Zageus (2005) as cited by Hauge, et. al (2010) evaluates the
Philip Merrill Environmental Center in Annapolis, Maryland, an educational institution. A
survey on indoor environmental quality was distributed and a series of interviews and
discussion groups were conducted. The findings show that occupants were highly satisfied
with the building ((Hauge, et. al, 2010). Air quality, day lighting and artificial lighting, as
well as the access to views, were rated positively by close to 90 per cent of the respondents.
The evaluation also revealed critical aspects. Acoustic conditions, and also temperature
conditions, noise distractions due to the open landscape, insufficient provision of meeting
rooms, and glare from windows caused some concerns (Heerwagen and Zageus 2005, as
cited by Hauge, et. al, 2010).
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Wagner et al.(2007) as quoted by Hauge, et. al (2010) have also made a survey on
workplace occupant satisfaction in 16 office buildings in Germany. This survey revealed
that the occupants’ control of the indoor climate, and moreover the perceived effect of their
intervention, strongly influence their satisfaction with thermal indoor conditions. Another
study by Barlow and Fiala (2007) also focuses on the occupants’ ability to control the
indoor climate, and how this increases their thermal comfort. They suggest that active
adaptive opportunities should be made an important part of future refurbishment
strategies for existing office buildings. In the study, opening windows was voted to be the
most favourite adaptive opportunity followed by controlling solar glare, turning lights off
locally and controlling solar gain. Occupants also expressed desires to intervene with
heating and ventilation currently operated centrally as a matter of fact (Hauge, et. al,
2010).
The studies presented on user evaluations of indoor climate in energy efficient
occupational buildings as cited by Hauge, et. al (2010) are in general positive, but when
investigating more thoroughly, the users have complaints and frustrations that are
important to notice. Different from residential buildings, control in occupational buildings
is, at least in part, delegated to centralised control systems. Comfort experience varies
greatly between individuals as what one person experiences as chilly may be too warm for
another (Hauge, et. al, 2010). This leads to many ways in which individuals manage comfort
in their work environment, some of which may outright counteract the designers’
intentions (Heerwagen and Diamond 1992, Hitchings 2009). Therefore, the users’
perception about their ability to control the indoor climate is of great importance (Hauge,
et. al, 2010).
General Satisfaction
According to Hauge, et. al (2010), there are however, a few studies that evaluate more than
indoor climate and operational aspects. They cover general satisfaction and the concept
“comfort” in these studies is used in a wider sense than “thermal comfort”. It may for
example include comfort in relation to light, architecture and aesthetics. Hauge, et. al’s
(2010) research is interested in if the improved thermal comfort and the architectural
qualities affect the users’ performance and well-bein. Some of these studies indicate that
energy efficient buildings have a positive impact on comfort, performance and well-being,
other studies do not. Heerwagen and Zargeus (2005) study on user evaluation of the Philip
Merrill Environmental Center (Heerwagen & Zargeus 2005), focused on the impact of the
different passive house features on the respondents’ ability to work. Both temperature and
acoustics were named as the conditions that can contribute positively, but that also can
interfere with working abilities (Hauge, et. al, 2010).
Even though acoustics was a concern, the detailed assessment shows that most of the
respondents according to Hauge, et. al (2010) seem to be able to concentrate and achieve
privacy when needed. Lighting (74 per cent) and air quality (61 per cent) conditions in the
centre were rated as enhancing the ability to work. For the Philip Merrill Environmental
Center, also the building’s overall aesthetics were named as a positive aspect. The
educational institution had open plan offices that housed a staff of about 90. Social benefits
such as improved communication and sense of belonging are linked to the buildings`
design, as well as perceived psychosocial benefits (Hauge, et. al, 2010). About 80 per cent
experienced a high level of well being and sense of belonging at work, and 97 per cent felt
proud when showing the office to visitors as a matter of fact (Heerwagen & Zargeus 2005).
Factors that influenced working ability negatively were distractions, interruptions,
uncomfortable temperatures, and glare from windows. The authors also compare the
results of the survey with results from evaluations of other LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) buildings that could be found in the database maintained by the
Center for the Built Environment (CBE) in 2005 at the University of California, Berkeley and
the results clearly show differences in user satisfaction with these LEED buildings. The
Merrill Center is number 2 in the entire database (170 buildings) for overall satisfaction
with the building. This is also a much higher score than any other of the LEED buildings
achieve. The comparison of conventional buildings and LEED buildings also shows that
LEED buildings in general are not equivalent with high user satisfaction (Hauge, et. al,
2010).
Heerwagen and Zagreus (2005) as quoted by Hauge, et. al (2010) indicate that energy
efficient buildings can have a positive impact on well-being and daily performance while
other studies do not confirm this. Paul and Taylor (2008) for instance, conclude that their
study revealed insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that green buildings are
perceived as more comfortable than conventional buildings. They measured occupants’
perception of comfort and satisfaction in three university buildings in Australia, one green
building and two conventional university buildings (Hauge, et. al, 2010). The survey found
no evidence that the green building is perceived more comfortable than the conventional
buildings.
The aspects of aesthetics, serenity, lighting, ventilation, acoustics, and humidity, were not
perceived differently by the occupants of the two types of building, and the authors state
that they were surprised by these findings (Paul and Taylor 2008). In conclusion, these
studies, which are based on more comprehensive accounts of comfort, show how the
overall level of user satisfaction is influenced by a broad variety of factors (Hauge, et. al,
2010). Floor plans, design, noise levels and many other parameters determine how
occupants experience a building. The important finding of these studies, therefore, may be
that there is no determinism in the relation between energy efficiency and user
satisfaction: energy efficient buildings can be experienced very positively, but this depends
on many other factors (Hauge, et. al, 2010).
MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
According to the findings of Emuze, Mashili and Botha (2013) in their study on post
occupancy evaluation, 22% of the respondents complained that the temperature in
their offices is hot during summer, while 20% complained that the temperature in the
office is fairly cold during summer. This inconsistency suggests that the temperature
issue has not been addressed in a manner that suits the occupants of the office complex. It
can be concluded that inadequate Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) can lead to poor
work performance among occupants (Emuze, Mashili and Botha, 2013). This can be
substantiated by the following findings indicating that 27% of the respondents opined that
the quality of light has some effect on their work performance, while 13% indicated that it
has a near major effect on work performance. However, only 23% indicated that noise
distraction has some effect on work performance and productivity; 28% of the respondents
also replied in the negative relative to quality of air by saying that it has some effect on
occupant’s work performance, which leads to poor productivity (Emuze, Mashili and Botha,
2013).
Although 30% of the respondents indicated that office temperature does have some effect
on their work performance, the findings reveal that 14% of the occupants perceive that
temperature could lead to decreased work performance and productivity (Emuze, Mashili
and Botha, 2013). There seems to be a lack of control of noise in the office building, as the
majority of the occupants complained about the distraction from other office cubicles
(Emuze, Mashili and Botha, 2013). This suggests that the management of the estate
complex is not proactive in terms of combating noise, which leads to discomfort
among the occupants, during working hours. The fact that there is moderate natural light
in the building shows that there may be design-related inadequacies pertaining to the
complex (Emuze, Mashili and Botha, 2013).
The fact that occupants do not have control over artificial light in the building creates a
major threat to human eyes in the long run. Based on the findings of Emuze, Mashili and
Botha’s (2013) research, it can be concluded that POE is new to the employees
working at the CCE. This can be substantiated by the fact that the perceptions of
occupants with regard to IAQ, which poses health challenges within the building, were not
satisfactory (Emuze, Mashili and Botha, 2013).
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE REMARKS
Woon, Mohammad, Baba and Nazri’s (2015) paper has presented the results of the
qualitative content analysis on critical success factos (CSF) for POE of building
performance. Within the context of recent literatures on POE, 13 POE CSFs have been
discovered with 32 sub-factors distributed unevenly. Their study did not only identify
the CSFs and their sub-factors for POE, but also determined the coding references for
each of the CSFs and their sub-factors from the literatures. ‘Resources’, ‘Ownership’
and ‘Participation and Commitment’ top the table scoring coding references which
directly indicates that these factors have significant impact on the success of POE
projects (Woon, et. al, 2015).
Probing further, it has also been discovered through the findings of Woon, et. al, (2015)
that various researchers (Riley et al., 2009; British Council for Offices, 2007; Jaunzens et
al., 2003; Bordass et al., 2001; Cooper, 2001) acknowledge the direct relationship among
‘Resources’, ‘Ownership’ as well as ‘Participation and Commitment’. The reluctance to
take ownership and participate in POE among the stakeholders can be attributed directly to
lack of funding and commitment from the top management (Woon, et. al, 2015).
The question about money (resources) is something that always comes at the top of
everyone’s list when asked why they do not do more POE. POE has been neglected by
building practitioners due to budget constraints/ lack of funds (Zimring and Rashidi,
2008; Bordass et al., 2006). However, the root of the problem here is not about the cost
of carrying out POE, but the uncertainty of who is responsible for commissioning and
paying for POE as well as who is professionally responsible to conduct POE (Riley et al.,
2009; Palm, 2007; Cooper, 2001; Vischer, 2001 as cited by Woon, et. al (2015).
According to Woon, et. al, (2015), the construction industry in Malaysia needs to focus on
the factors that are critically important for POE to produce its optimum benefits. The
findings of Woon, et. al’s (2015) paper suggest that Resources’, ‘Ownership’ and
‘Participation and Commitment’ are the factors that demand attention if POE projects are
to be successful, thus promote a healthy performance management culture of our
buildings through post occupancy evaluation. The failure of POE projects in the past
that inevitably led to the disregard for POE by the construction industry may cease to
persist if the CSFs and their sub-factors for POE are considered in future POE projects
(Woon, Mohammad, Baba and Nazri, 2015).
The main purpose of Chikwzie’s (2014) study was to determine the level of satisfaction of
the building terms of indoor environmental quality (IEQ0 of Sophiatown in the University
of Johannesburg. The findings reveal that occupants of the residence were satisfied with the
quality of artificial light in their rooms and disable facilities. In essence, occupants were not
satisfied with other facilities in the building (Chikezie, 2014). They expect improvements in
the quality of natural light in their rooms as well as size of the study hall, The respondents
are not comfortable with the quality of space provided in their study hall as well as the
quality of air in their rooms (Chikezie, 2014).
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., Weidemann, S. & Butterfield, D. (1983), Using Residents' Satisfaction to Obtain
Priorities for Housing Rehabilitation, In Renewal Rehabilitation and Maintenance, Vol.
1, Gaole, Sweden: National Swedish Institute for Building Research.
Aune, M. (2007), Energy Comes Home, Energy Policy, 3(5), pp: 5457-5465.
Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D., & McIndoe, G. (1996), Building Evaluation
Techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Bandara, W. (2006), Using NVIVO as a Research Management Tool: A Case Narrative.
Proceedings of 3rd international Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in
Qualitative Research.
Bandara, W., Miskon, S., & Fielt, E. (2011), A Systematic, Tool Supported Method for
Conducting Literature Reviews in Information Systems. Proceedings of the 19th
European Conference of information Systems, Helsinki, Finland.
Barlow, S. & Fiala, D. (2007), Occupant Comfort in UK Offices: How Adaptive Comfort
Theories might Influence Future Low Energy Office Refurbishment Strategies, Energy
and Buildings, 3(9), pp: 837-846.
Becicer, F.D. (1977), Housing Messages, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Becker, F.D. (1974), Design for Living, The Residents' View of Multi-family Housing, Ithaca,
New York: Center for Urban Development Research, Cornell University.
Becker, F.D. (1990), The Total Workplace. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Becker, F.D, and Sims, W. 1990. Assessing Building Performance. In The Total Workplace. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp: 261–290.
Behlou, M. (1991), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Five Storey Walk Up Dwellings: The Case Of
Four Mass Housing Estates in Algiers, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of
Architectural Studies, University of Sheffield, U.K.
Bohland, J. & Davis, L (1979), Sources of Satisfaction Amongst the Elderly, In Golant, S. (Ed),
Location and Environment of Elderly Population, New York: V.H. Whinston.
Bordass, B. & Leaman, A. (2005), Making Feedback and Post Occupancy Evaluation
Routine 3: Case Studies of The Use of Techniques in The Feedback Portfolio,
Building Research and Information, 33(4), pp: 361–375.
Bordass, W., Leaman, A., & Eley, J. (2006), A Guide to Feedback and Post-Occupancy
Evaluation, The Usable Buildings Trust.
British Council for Offices, (2007), Guide to Post-Occupancy Evaluation, British Council
for Offices.
Brooks, S.T., & Viccars, G. (2006), The Development of Robust Methods of Post Occupancy
Evaluation. Facilities, 24(5/6), pp: 177-196.
Bullen, C.V. & Rockart, J. F. (1981), A Primer on Critical Success Factors, Center for
Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Buber, R. et al. (2007), Wohnen in Passivhäusern. Der Einsatz des Fokusgruppeninterviews
zur Identifikation von Wohlfühlkomponenten, in Buber, R.,
Carthey, J. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Development of a Standardized
Methodology for Australian Health Projects, The International Journal of Construction
Management, 2(4), pp: 57-74.
Chikezie, C.E. (2014), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Building in South Africa: A Case Study of
Sophiatwon Student Residence, Johanessburg, Unpublished M.Sc Dissertation,
Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, B., Leaman, A. (1999), Final report 1: Review of the
PROBE Process, Accessed April 1, 2016, from http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk.
Cooper, I. (2001) Post-occupancy Evaluation: Where Are You? Building Research and
Information, 29(2), Special Issue: Post-occupancy Evaluation, pp: 158-63.
Cooper, M.C. (1977), User-needs Research in Housing, In Davies S. (Ed.), The Form of
Housing, New York : Van Nostrand Reinold, pp. 139-170.
Cooper, M.C. and Sarkissian, W. (1986), Housing as if People Mattered, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London: University of California Press.
Darke, J. (1982), The Design of Public Housing: Architects' Intentions and Users' Reactions,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Architecture, University of Sheffield.
Douglas, J. (2006), Building Adaptation, Butterworth: Heinemann.
Eley, J. (2001), How Do Post Occupancy Evaluation and the Facilities Manager Meet?
Building Research and Information, 29(2), pp: 164-167.
Emuze, F., Mashili, H. & Botha, B. (2013), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Office Buildings in a
Johannesburg Country Club Estate, Act a Structilia, 20(1), pp: 89-110.
Federal Facilities Council, (2001), Learning from Our Buildings: A State of the Practice
Summary of Post Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No.
145, National Academy of Science.
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J.R. and Chenowth, R. (1977), Predictors of
Residents' Satisfaction in High Rise and Low Rise Housing, In Conwway (Ed.), Human
Response to Tall Buildings, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J.R. & Chenowth, R. (1979), Residents'
Satisfaction in HUD-Assisted Housing: Design and Management Factors, Washington DC:
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Galster, G.C. (1987), Identifying the Correlates of Dwelling Satisfaction, An Empirical
Critique, In Environment and Behavior, 19(5), pp: 539-568.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002), Architectural Research Methods, New York: Wiley.
Gutman, R. & Westergaard, J.H. (1974), Building Evaluation, User Satisfaction and Design, In
Lang, J. et al. (Eds), Designing for Human Behavior, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross.
Hauge, A.I., Thomsen, J. & Berker, T. (2010), User Evaluations of Energy Efficient Buildings-
Literature Review and Further Research, Proceedings of Renewable Energy Conference
2010, Trondheim, Norway.
Heerwagen, J.H. (2001) A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Post Occupancy Evaluation:
Using the Tools of Business to Evaluate Facilities. In Learning From Our Buildings:
A State of The Practice Summary of Post Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities
Council Technical Report No. 45. Washington: National Academy Press.
Heerwagen, J. & Diamond, R.C. (1992), Adaptations and Coping: Occupant Response to
Discomfort in Energy Efficient Buildings, In Economy A.C.F.A.E.E., (ed.) ACEEE 1992
Summer School on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, pp: 83-90.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Heerwagen, J. & Zagreus, L. (2005), The Human Factors of Sustainable Building Design: Post
Occupancy Evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center, UC Berkeley, Center
for the Built Environment, Accessed April 3, 2016 from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/67j1418w
Hewitt, D., Higgins, C., Heatherly, P. & Turner, C. (2005), Market-Friendly Post Occupancy
Evaluation, New Building Institute, Portland, Building Performance Report, Number:
c.10091.
Hitchings, R. (2009), Studying Thermal Comfort in Context, Building Research and
Information, 3(7), pp: 89-94.
Holzmüller, H.H., (eds.), Qualitative Marktforschung Konzepte- Methoden
Analysen,Wiesbaden, Gabler Verlag.
Hourihan, K. (1984), Context Dependent Models of Residential Satisfaction: An Analysis of
Housing Groups in Cork, Ireland, In Environment and Behavior, 16(3), pp: 369-393.
Isaksson, C. & Karlsson, F. (2006), Indoor Climate in Low-energy Houses: An
Interdisciplinary Investigation, Building and Environment, 4(1), pp: 1678-1690.
Izran, S.M. (2011), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Building Performance in Malaysia,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Jaunzens, D., Cohen, R., Watson, M., & Piston, E. (2002), Post Occupancy Evaluation; A
Simple Method for the Early Stages of Occupancy.
Jaunzens, D., Grigg, P., Cohen, R., Watson, M. & Picton, E. (2003), Building Performance
Feedback: Getting Started, BRE Digest, 478, BRE, Watford.
Jaunzens, D., Grigg, P., Watson, M., & Picton, E. (2003), Building Performance Feedback:
Getting Started, BRE Digest 478, BRE Bookshop, London, UK.
Joubish, M.F. & Khurram, M.A. (2011), Outlook on Some Concepts in the Curriculum of
Social Studies, World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(9), pp: 1374–1377.
Khalil, N. & Nawawi, A.H. (2009), Post Occupancy Evaluation Towards Indoor Environment
Improvement in Malaysia’s Office Buildings, Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(1),
pp: 1987-191.
Kincaid, D.G. (1994), Measuring Performance in Facility Management, Facilities, 12(6), pp:
17-20.
Kirk, S.J. & Stirret, C.M. (2011), Post Occupancy Evaluation for Added Valuation at Trail’s
End, In: Lean Construction Institute of Michigan State University, USA: 1-17.
Kooymans, R. & Haylock, P. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation and Workplace
Productivity. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, 22
January 2006, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1-15.
Lansing, J, Marans, R.W. & Zehner, R. (1970), Planned Residential Environments, Ann Arbor
Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.
Leaman, A. & Bordass, B. (2007), Are Users more Tolerant of 'Green' Buildings?, Building
Research and Information, 3(5), pp: 662-673.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T.J. (2006), A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature
Review in Support of Information Systems Research, Informing Science Journal,
9(1), pp: 181-212.
Markus, T. (1967), The Role of Building Performance: Measurements and Appraisal in
Design Method, Architects' Journal, 20th December, pp. 1567-1573.
Markus, T. et al. (1972), Building Performance, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Mastor, S. H. & Ibrahim, N. (2010), Post Occupancy Evaluation Practices: A Procedural
Model for A Successful Feedback. Proceedings of the CIB 2010 World Congress, 10-13
May, 2010.
Meir, I.A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009), Post Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable
Step toward Sustainability. Advances in Building Energy Research, 3(1), pp: 189-220.
Michelson, W. (1970), Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach, Reading,
Massachussets: Addison-Wesley.
Michelson, W. (1977a), Long and Short Range Criteria for Housing Choice and
Environmental Behavior, Journal of Social Science Issue, 2(7), pp: 147-158.
Michelson, W. (1977b), Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential Satisfaction,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Miskon, S., Bandara, W., Gable, G.G. & Erwin, F. (2011), Success and Failure Factors of
Shared Services: An IS Literature Analysis, In Osman, Abu, Alias, Rose Alinda, and
Manaf, Azizah Abd (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Research
and Innovation in Information Systems, IEEE, Seri Pacific Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, 1-6.
Morley D. (2009), Home Territories: Media, Mobility, and Identity, New York, Routledge.
Nawawi, A.H. & Khalil, N. (2008), Post Occupancy Evaluation Correlated with Building
Occupants: An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Government and Public
Buildings, Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(1), pp. 59-69.
Nawawi, A.H., & Khalil, N. (2008), Post Occupancy Evaluation Correlated with Building
Occupants’ Satisfaction: An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Government and
Public Buildings, Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(2): 59–69
Neo, B.W. (2013), Critical Success Factors for Post Occupancy Evaluation of Hospital
Building Performance in Malaysia. Unpublished PhD Research Proposal Report,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Newman, O. (1972), Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, New-
York : McMillan.
Newman, O. (1976), Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Spaces, National Institute of
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, USA: Department of Justice.
Nicol, F. & Roaf, S. (2005), Post Ooccupancy Evaluation and Field Studies of Thermal
Comfort, Building Research and Information, 3(3), pp: 338-46.
Obradovic, V., Jovanovic, P., Petrovic, D., Mihic, M., & Mitrovic, Z. (2013), Project Managers’
Emotional Intelligence: A Ticket to Success, 26th IPMA World Congress, Crete, Greece,
2012. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74: 274–284.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Onibokun, A. (1974), Evaluating Consumers' Satisfaction with Housing: An application of a
Systems Approach, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(1), pp: 189-200.
Palm, P. (2007), Closing the Loop: The Use of Post Occupancy Evaluations in Real-Estate
Management.
Paul, W.L. & Taylor, P.A. (2008), A Comparison of Occupant Comfort and Satisfaction
between a Green Building and a Conventional Building, Building and Environment,
4(3), pp: 1858-70
Pinder, J. Price, I., Wilkinson, S.J. & Demack, S. (2003), A Method for Evaluating Workplace
Utility, Property Management, 21(4), pp: 218-229.
Preiser, W.F.E. (2005), Building Performance Assessment: From POE to BPE, A Personal
Perspective, Architectural Science Review, 48(3), pp: 201-204.
Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z., & White, E.T. (1988), Post Occupancy Evaluation, New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Preiser, W., & Vischer, J. (eds.) (2004), Assessing Building Performance, Oxford, UK,
Elsevier.
Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works, (2012), Strategic Asset Management
Framework: Best Practice Guidelines for the Management of Queensland Government
Buildings.
Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy, (2007), Queensland Government, Office of Urban
Management, Department of Infrastructure.
Rapoport, A. (1977), Human Aspect of Urban Form, Towards a Man Environment Approach
to Urban Form and Design, Oxford: Permagon Press.
Rent, G.S. (1975), Low Income Housing in South Carolina: Factors Related to Residential
Satisfaction, Clemson, S.C: Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 197, Clemson
University Press
Rent, G.S. & Rent, C.S. (1978), Low Income Housing: Factors Related to Residential
Satisfaction, Environment and Behavior, 10(1), pp: 459-488.
Riley, M., Kokkarinen, N. & Pitt, M. (2010), Assessing Post Occupancy Evaluation in Higher
Education Facilities, Journal of Facilities Management, 8(3), pp: 202-213.
Riley, M., Moody, C., & Pitt, M. (2009), A Review of the Evolution of Post-Occupancy
Evaluation as a Viable Performance Measurement Tool, Proceedings of the 4th
Annual Conference Liverpool, BEAN.
Rockart, J.F. (1979), Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs, Harvard Business
Review, Mar-April. 85.
Rohaniyati, S. (2009), Critical Success Factors of Project Management for Brunei
Construction Projects: Improving Project Performance, Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.
Samuelsson, M. & Lüddeckens, T., (2009), Passivhus ur en brukares perspektiv, Växjö,
Sweden, Växjö universitet.
Sanoff, H. & Sawhney, M. (1971), Residential Livability Raleigh: Urban Affairs and
Community Service, North Carolina State University.
Sanoff, H. & Sawhney, M. (1972), Residential Livability: A Study of User Attitudes Towards
their Residential Environment, In Mitchell, W.J. (Ed.), EDRA 3, 1(1), Washington: EDRA
Inc.
Scottish Executive, (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation Workshop, Our Dynamic Earth,
Edinburgh, 10 June 2005.
Sheply, M.M., Zimmerman, K.N. & Boggess, M.M. (2009), Architectural Office Post-occupancy
Evaluation, Journal of Interior Design, 34(3), pp: 17-29.
Stevenson, F. (2008), Post Occupancy Evaluation of Housing, Proceedings of the Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) Conference. 15th January 2008.
Stevenson, F. (2009), Post Occupancy Evaluation and Sustainability: A Review, Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 162(DP3): 123–130.
The PMBOK ® Guide, (2008), Newton Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute,
4th Edition.
Vandenberg, M. (2006), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Incorporating Hindsight to Facilitate
Foresight.
Van der Voordt, D.J.M., & Van Wegen, H.B.R. (2005), Architecture in Use, An Introduction to
the Programming, Design and Evaluation of Buildings, Oxford, Elsevier, Architectural
Press.
Vischer, J.C. (2001), Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaceted Tool for Building
Improvement. In Learning From Our Buildings: A State of The Practice Summary of Post
Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 45. Washington:
National Academy Press.
Vos, P.G.J.C., & Dewulf, G.P.R.M. (1999), Searching for Data. A Method to Evaluate the
Effects of Working in an Innovative Office, Delft, Delft University Press.
Walker, K. (2011), Developing a Site Evaluation Framework for Ephemeral Festivals and
Events: A Study of Hillside Festival, Unpublished M.Sc Dissertation, University of Guelph.
Watson, C. (2003), Review of Building Quality Using Post Occupancy Evaluation, Journal of
Programme Educational Building, 3(5), pp: 1-5.
Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J.R. (1980), Using a Multisite Evaluation of Housing as the Basis
of Post Occupancy Evaluation, Paper Presented at the American Psychological
Association Annual Conference, Montreal.
Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J.R. (1985), A Conceptual Framework for Residential
Satisfaction, In Altman, J. & Werner, C.M. (Eds), Home Environments, 8(1), of Human
Behavior and Environment Advances in Theory and Research, New York and London:
Plenum Press.
Weidemann, S.; Anderson, J.R.; Butterfield, D. & Cheno, W.R. (1977), Residents' Perceptions
of Satisfaction and Safety: A Basis for Change in Multifamily Housing, In Environment
and Behavior, 4(1), pp: 965-724.
Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa Vol. 4 No. 3. 28th April, 2016 –
University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital, Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT-Nigeria
Wilkinson, S.J. (2011), The Relationship between Building Adaptation and Property
Attributes, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Deakin University.
Wohwill, J.F. & Weiseman, G.D. (1981), The Physical Environment and Behavior: An
Annotated Bibliography and Guide to Literature, New York: Plenum Press.
Woon, N,B., Mohammad, I.S., Baba, M. & Nazri, N.Z.A. (2015), Critical Success Factors for
Post Occupancy Evaluation of Building Performance: A Literature Analysis, Jurnal
Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 74(2), pp: 41-49.
Yasin, M.F.M. & Egbu, C.C. (2010), Harnessing Knowledge Management in the Process of
Performance Evaluation of Facilities in Malaysia: A Critical Success Factor, Proceedings
of the CIB World Congress 2010, 10–13 May 2010, The Lowry, Salford Quays, United
Kingdom.
Zehner, R. (1977), Indicators of the Quality of Life in New Communities, Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Zeisel J. & Griffins M. (Eds.) (1975), Charles View Housing: A Diagnostic Evaluation,
Cambridge Mass: Graduate School of Design, Harvard University.
Zimmerman, A. & Martin, M. (2001), Post Occupancy Evaluation: Benefits and Barriers,
Building Research and Information. 29(2): 168-174.
Zimring, C. (2001), Post Occupancy Evaluation Processes in Six Federal Agencies. In
Learning From Our Buildings: A State of The Practice Summary of Post Occupancy
Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 45. Washington: National
Academy Press.
Zimring, C. 2010. Facility Performance Evaluation (FPE). Whole Building Design Guide
(WBDG), National Institute of Building Sciences. Available at:
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/fpe.php (Accessed 15th October 2013).
Zimring, C. & Rashidi, M. (2008), Facility Performance Evaluation (Online), Available at:
www.wbdg.org/Resources/Fpe.Php (Accessed 8th February, 2016).
Zimring, C.H. & Reizenstein, J.E. (1980), Post Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview, In
Environment and Behavior, 12(4), pp: 429-450.
Zimring, C.H., Wineman, J. & Carpman, J. (1988), The New Demand-driven Post Occupancy
Evaluation, The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 5(4), pp: 273-283.
Zuriati, A. (2005), Current Practice of Post Occupancy Evaluation in Facility Management
Organisation of Malaysia, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor, Malaysia.
