Residents  Participation  towards  Sustainable  Living:  A  Post  Occupation  Evaluation  Study  

Hazreena  Hussein,  PhD  Adi  Ainurzaman  Jamaludin  

 

AicE-Bs ‘Public Participation: Shaping a Sustainable Future’ 24 – 26 February 2014 Berlin

Introduction  

Aim  To  promote  

sustainable  living  through  the  efAiciency  of  

natural  ventilated  residential  college  buildings  in  UM.    

Purpose  

To  justify  the  residents’  perception  &  satisfaction  

Objective  To  evaluate  on  

performance  criteria  of  building.    

Bioclimatic  Design  

Integrate  the  disciplines  of  human  physiology,  climatology  &  building  

physics  (Olgyay,  1963)      

Assist  to  eliminate  negative  environmental  impact  via  skillful  &  

sensitive  designs  that  encourage  better  use  of  building  resources  &  signiAicant  

operational  savings  (Yeang,  2008).  

POE  A  process  of  evaluating  building  in  a  systematic  &  rigorous  manner  to  indicate  the  satisfaction  &  comfort  level  needed  by  occupants  as  lessons  learned  to  identify  problems  in  

indoor  environments  (Khalil  &  Husin,  2009).      

Begins  with  planning,  conducting  &  applying  phase  in  three  levels  :  indicative,  investigative  &  diagnostic  level  (Preiser,  1995).    

BLOCK BCOURT/SPORT CENTRE/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA

CAFETERIA

FIELD/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA

PRAYER HALL/SURAU

BLOCK A

COURT/MULTIPURPOSE OPEN AREA

BLOCK C

STORE

COURT/MULTI-

PURPOSE OPEN AREA

ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK/OFFICE, LOBBY,

STUDENTS ACTIVITY CENTRE, DINING HALL,

KITCHEN

PARKING LOTS

SELF LAUNDRY ROOM & COVERED PARKING LOTS

PUMP HOUSE

PARKING LOTS/

MULTI-PURPOSE

OPEN AREA

STAFF RESIDENTIAL UNIT

STORE

PRINCIPAL UNIT

SEWAGE TANK

SEWAGE TANK

GUARD POST/MAIN ENTRANCE

RIMBA ILMU AREA

RIM

BA IL

MU

ARE

A

BLOCK E

BLOCK D

RIMBA ILMU AREA A

A

B B

SELF SERVICE CAR WASH

Site  elevation  A-­‐A  

Ø  Est.  1966  Ø  Form  of  building  :  Low-­‐rise  Ø  Layout  :  Courtyard  arrangement  Ø  Orientation  :  North-­‐South  Ø  Shape  :  Rectangle  Ø  Area  :  43,185.06  m2  

Ø  Built  up  area  :  16,971.02  m2  

Ø  Floor  area  :  18,212.51  m2  

Ø  Capacity  &  Density  :  847  &  0.047  Ø  Room’s  Hloor  area  :  16.35  m2  

Ø  Room’s  volume  :  45.78  m3  

Ø  Window  area  &  WWR  :  6.41  m2  &  0.66  Ø  EEI  :  34.52  kWh/m2/year  compared  to  other  RCs:  

40  to  125  kWh/m2/year  (Jamaludin  et  al.,  2013).  Ø  The  best  practice  of  bioclimatic  design  

strategies  esp.  natural  ventilation  &  daylighting  (Jamaludin  et  al.,  2013;  In  press)    

Dayasari  Residential  College  

Site  elevation  B-­‐B  

Implem

entation  of  Design  

Wall  opening  inside  the  room  

Internal  courtyard  

Fixed  opening  /  Transom  

Centre  pivot  and  awning  windows  

Overhangs  along  the  windows  

Landscape  Setting  

BLOCK BCOURT/SPORT CENTRE/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA

CAFETERIA

FIELD/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA

PRAYER HALL/SURAU

BLOCK A

COURT/MULTIPURPOSE OPEN AREA

BLOCK C

STORE

COURT/MULTI-

PURPOSE OPEN AREA

ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK/OFFICE, LOBBY,

STUDENTS ACTIVITY CENTRE, DINING HALL,

KITCHEN

PARKING LOTS

SELF LAUNDRY ROOM & COVERED PARKING LOTS

PUMP HOUSE

PARKING LOTS/

MULTI-PURPOSE

OPEN AREA

STAFF RESIDENTIAL UNIT

STORE

PRINCIPAL UNIT

SEWAGE TANK

SEWAGE TANK

GUARD POST/MAIN ENTRANCE

RIMBA ILMU AREA

RIM

BA

ILM

U A

REA

BLOCK E

BLOCK D

RIMBA ILMU AREA

SELF SERVICE CAR WASH

M

P

Q

P

ANB

O

NAO

K

J

AQ

AM

R

J

GAM

H

LI

HAM

AP

AM

M

E

L

AP

AM

E

F

E

AO

Q

AN

B

AAN

AI

S

O

J

AR

U

G

AS

T

G AM

AN

AF

D

DC

G

G

O

AL

G

AH

AA

AG

O

L

J

AQ

AS

AK

U

AN

AJ

AT

QAT

ANP

VAG

AN

W

J

Q

X

Y Z W

AN

Q

P

AN

AN

AD

X

AD

AS

L

A

AE

AC

LAK

N

P

H

AB

AS

AB

HAP

H

§  5  performance  criteria:  architectural  elements,  visual  comfort,  acoustic  comfort,  landscape  elements  and  combination  of  thermal  comfort  and  indoor  air  quality.  

 §  13  questions  on  a  ?ive-­‐point  Likert  

scale:    §  -­‐2:  very  poor/  very  uncomfortable/  much  

decrease/  very  hot/  still  air/  too  dark/  very  dissatisAied/  very  noisy.    

§  -­‐1:  poor/  uncomfortable/  decreased/  hot/  inconspicuous  still  air/  dark/  dissatisAied/  noisy.  

§  0:  fair/  neither/  neutral/  no  changes.  §  +1:  good/  comfortable/  increased/  cool/  breezy/  

bright/  satisAied/  quiet.    §  +2:  very  good/  very  comfortable/  much  

increased/  very  cool/  very  breezy/  too  bright/  very  satisAied/  very  quiet.    

 

§  Analysed  by  using  Statistical  Software  Package  to  Aind  out  the  frequency  of  responses  and  the  inter-­‐correlation  between  each  performance  criteria.  

Experimental  Procedure   The  degree  of  satisfaction  for  each  

performance  criteria  based  on  graduate  scale:    “+2”  with  5  points,  “+1”  with  4  points,  “0”  with  1  point,  “-­‐1”  with  3  points  and  “-­‐2”  with  2  points.  In  order  to  obtain  the  mean  value,  the  multiplication  sum  will  be  divided  by  100.    §  If  the  mean  response  is  ≤  to  1.49,  the  respondents  are  

considered  “fair,  neither,  neutral,  no  changes”.  §  If  the  mean  response  is  between  1.50  and  2.49,  the  

respondents  are  considered  “very  poor,  very  uncomfortable,  much  decreased,  very  hot,  still  air,  too  dark,  very  dissatisZied,  very  noisy”.  

§  If  the  mean  response  is  between  2.50  and  3.49,  the  respondents  are  considered  “poor,  uncomfortable,  decreased,  hot,  inconspicuous  still  air,  dark,  dissatisZied,  noisy”.  

§  If  the  mean  response  is  between  3.50  and  4.49,  the  respondents  are  considered  “good,  comfortable,  increased,  cool,  breezy,  bright,  satisZied,  quiet”.  

§  If  the  mean  response  is  between  4.50  and  5.00,  the  respondents  are  considered  “very  good,  very  comfortable,  much  increased,  very  cool,  very  breezy,  too  bright,  very  satisZied,  very  quiet”.  

 Minimum  number  of  feedbacks  relying  on  95%  con?idence  level  and  ±5%  margin  of  error  from  the  overall  population.      Research  limitation  :    

§  Each  block  has  a  different  landscape  setting.  Thus,  feedbacks  by  the  respondents  were  in  the  general  manner.    

Results  

Performance criteria Likert scale / Residents’ perceptions (%) Mean Overall rating of residents’ satisfaction -2 -1 0 +1 +2

Architectural elements

1. Residential building layout (internal courtyard with open corridor) 0.4 8.7 28.7 Good 12.1 3.17 Poor 50.2

2. Overall quality of the residential building 1.1 6.0 28.7 Good 12.1 3.18 Poor 52.1

3. Overall comfort level of the room 0.8 4.5 29.1 Comfortable 12.1 3.19 Uncomfortable 53.6

4. Influence of room conditions on the degree of work productivity 0.8 4.5 26.8 Increased 18.5 3.32 Decreased 49.4

Thermal comfort and indoor air quality

5. Thermal comfort/indoor air temperature in the room 3.4 11.7 29.7 Cool 11.7 3.05 Hot 43.6

6. Ventilation and air quality of the room 1.9 13.4 29.8 Good 8.8 3.03 Poor 46.2

7. Air movement in the room (without the aid of mechanical fan) 13.7 22.1 26.7 Breezy 6.5 2.77 Inconspicuous still air 30.9

Visual comfort

8. Adequacy of natural daylight in the room 4.2 12.0 34.4 Bright 8.5 2.85 Dark 40.9

9. Adequacy of artificial light in the room 1.1 8.8 35.1 Bright 8.8 2.93 Dark 46.2

10. Quality of the lights in the room 1.5 7.7 28.8 Satisfied 13.5 3.16 Dissatisfied 48.5

Acoustic comfort

11. Noise/vibration level in the room 2.7 15.6 Neither 33.6 6.5 2.61 Noisy 41.6

Landscape elements

12. Landscape quality at the surrounding residential building 1.5 8.0 33.7 Good

8.0 2.63 Poor 48.7

13. Landscape setting quality in the internal courtyard 1.5 6.1 35.9 Good 7.6 2.91 Poor 48.9

Building layout

Overall quality of building

Thermal comfort

Ventilation & air quality

Air movement

Natural daylight

Artificial light Light quality

Noise/ vibration level

Landscape quality

Internal courtyard quality

Overall comfort

Pearson correlation .284** .354** .409** .432** .250** .328** .242** .308** .276** .337** .288**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Work productivity

Pearson correlation .192** .246** .336** 311** .239** .135* .268** .268** .230** .236** .125

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .003 .000 .000 .039 .000 .000 .003 .000 .052

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Discussion   Ø   266  respondents,  39.6%:  male  &  60.4%:  female.  

Ø Majority  of  residents  are  satisHied  and  comfortable  with  the  condition  of  the  room  &  building  (except  the  acoustic  comfort  –  neither).  

Ø Degree  of  satisfaction  based  on  the  graduate  scale:  DissatisHied  &  uncomfortable.    

Ø  ‘Moderate’  or  ’weak’  relationship  showed  by  all  performance  criteria  in  both  relationship;  overall  comfort  level  and  degree  of  work  productivity.    

To  evaluate  on  performance  criteria  of  building

Ø The  practice  of  bioclimatic  design  strategies  at    a  residential  college  building  has  a  signi?icant  impact  on  the  perception  &  satisfaction  level  of  the  residents  in  a  positive  manner.    

Ø There  is  a  room  for  improvement  when  the  overall  ratings  of  residents’  satisfaction;  which  was  based  on  graduated  scale,  have  shown  otherwise.    

Objective   Method   Conclusions  

Post  Occupancy  Evaluation  (Questionnaire  based  on  a  Aive-­‐point  Likert  scale)  

Conclusions  &

 Recommendations  

Ø POE  should  integrate  more  than  one  of  the  data  collection  methods.    

Ø The  number  of  respondents  that  must  exceed  the  minimum  number  of  feedbacks  which  relying  on  95%  of  conAident  level  and  ±5%  margin  of  error  from  the  overall  population.    

Ø POE  should  use  language  and  phrases  that  are  easily  to  be  understood.    

Ø For  comparison,  other  residential  colleges  should  be  included.    

Recommendations  

Thank  You  

"We  shape  our  buildings;  thereafter  they  shape  us."    -­‐  Winston  Churchill