Frontiers of Architectural Research (2013) 2, 178–190

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Performance evaluation of residential

buildings in public housing estates in Ogun
State, Nigeria: Users’ satisfaction perspective
Eziyi Offia Ibema,n, Akunnaya P. Opokoa, Albert B. Adeboyea,
Dolapo Amoleb

a
Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ogun State 110001, Nigeria
b
Department of Architecture, Obafemi Awolowo University, Osun State 220005, Nigeria

Received 4 December 2012; received in revised form 18 February 2013; accepted 19 February 2013

KEYWORDS Abstract
Building performance; This study assessed the performance of residential buildings in public housing estates in urban
User satisfaction; areas of Ogun State Southwest Nigeria. It was based on the notion that users’ satisfaction with
Residential buildings; dwelling units is a measure of the performance of residential buildings in meeting their needs and
Urban areas; expectations. A cross sectional survey of 452 household heads in nine public housing estates was
Ogun State
conducted in the study area. Data were obtained using structured questionnaire and observation
schedule; and were subjected to descriptive statistics and factor analysis. A mean satisfaction
score of 3.21 was observed; indicating that the respondents were generally satisfied with the
performance of the different components of the buildings. Satisfaction levels were generally
higher with privacy and sizes of living and sleeping areas than the availability of water and
electricity in the buildings. The type, location and aesthetic appearance as well as size of main
activity areas were the most predominant factors that determined satisfaction and indeed the
performance of the buildings in meeting users’ needs and expectations. The paper highlights
critical areas where attention is needed in order to improve the performance of residential
buildings and users’ satisfaction with public housing projects in Nigeria.
& 2013. Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +234 8037779415.
E-mail addresses: [email protected],
1. Introduction
eziyioffi[email protected] (E.O. Ibem).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University. The primary purpose of buildings is to provide occupants
with conducive, safe, comfortable, healthy and secured
indoor environment to carry out different kinds of activities
ranging from work, study, leisure and family life to social
interactions. In order to achieve this purpose, buildings are

2095-2635 & 2013. Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2013.02.001
Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria 179

designed, planned, constructed and managed based on occupants’ needs and expectations in the Nigerian context.
standards and specifications established by governments, As a result, little is known of the different dimensions
professionals and experts who are supposed to have ade- occupants/users respond to in their evaluation of satisfac-
quate knowledge of users’ needs and expectations. Studies tion with residential buildings in public housing estates in
(Kaitilla, 1993; Ukoha and Beamish, 1997; Zeiler and the country. It is against this background that this study
Boxem, 2008; Meir et al., 2009) have however shown that assessed the performance of residential buildings in public
sometimes these standards and specifications do not con- housing estates in urban areas in Nigeria, using Ogun State
form to the changing needs and expectations of users; and as a case study. The key objectives of the study were to
thus users are not always satisfied with the performance of examine the physical characteristics of the buildings in
their buildings. The consequences of this are manifested in public housing estates constructed between 2003 and 2009
building related illness and ‘sick building syndrome’ (Kian in the study area; and to assess residents’ satisfaction with
et al., 2001), increase in the desire for remodelling or physical, spatial, location and aesthetic and cost attributes
modifications or abandonment of completed buildings (Kim of the buildings. It is expected that the study will bridge
et al., 2005) which may cause waste of energy and some- some gaps in literature on user satisfaction and perfor-
times even damage to the building envelope components mance of mass-constructed residential buildings; and
and the surrounding environment (Mitterer et al., 2012). extend our understanding of the key elements that could
A number of reasons may be adduced on why buildings be manipulated to improve residents’ satisfaction with, and
perform poorly in meeting users’ needs and expectations. The the performance of residential buildings in public housing
chief among them is the lack of adequate knowledge of users’ schemes in Nigeria.
changing needs and preferences by architects and other
professionals who design, construct and maintain buildings.
This is obviously due to inadequate research on this subject. As 2. User satisfaction and building performance
Meir et al. (2009) rightly observed, whereas designers in other evaluation
fields of human endeavour expend considerable resources in
examining the actual functioning and user satisfaction with Satisfaction studies cut across a wide range of disciplines in
everyday services and products and refining their design the management and social sciences as well as the built
accordingly, professionals in the building industry appear not environment. Generally speaking, satisfaction is a subjec-
to have done well in this area. In the light of the above, Kim tive evaluation of the performance of products or services in
et al. (2005) and Fatoye and Odusami (2009) suggested that meeting the needs and expectations of users or customers
one of the ways to improve the overall performance of (Parker and Mathews, 2001; Ueltschy et al., 2007; Hanif
buildings is to explore and understand users’ needs, expecta- et al., 2010). It compares the benefits or values users or
tions and aspirations through regular performance evaluation. customers derive to that expected when a product or
Therefore, building performance evaluation (BPE) is used to service is consumed. In a nutshell, satisfaction is a measure
constantly examine the extent to which buildings are effective of the difference between the actual and expected perfor-
and efficient in meeting the needs and expectations of users mance of products or services in meeting users’ needs and
(Liu, 1999; Kim et al., 2005; van der Voordt and Maarleveld, expectations from the users’ or consumers’ perspective
2006; Nawawi and Khalil, 2008). Among other functions, BPE during or after a consumption experience. In fact, according
relates clients’ goals and performance criteria set by experts to the expectancy-disconfirmation theory, which most
to the measurable effects of buildings on the users and studies on satisfaction draw on, this means that if the
surrounding environment (Preiser, 1999). It also helps in under- performance of a product or service meets users’ or
standing how occupants feel about their buildings, and thus customers’ needs and expectations, the user or customer
provides basic information on users’ needs, preferences and is said to be satisfied with the product and/or service, and
satisfaction (Vischer, 2002). Put succinctly, BPE primarily seeks vice versa (Oliver, 1981; Parker and Mathews, 2001).
to improve the quality of design, construction and manage- Buildings like any other products are designed and
ment of buildings and by extension promotes sustainable built constructed with lots of expectations by clients, profes-
environment. Therefore, the need for BPE to be part of the sionals, users and the community. To clients, buildings
research agenda of architects and other professionals in the require huge capital investment and are expected to bring
building industry cannot be overemphasised. returns on investment, while to professionals (e.g. archi-
In Nigeria, existing studies (Ukoha and Beamish, 1997; tects, builders and engineers) buildings are products of their
Olatubara and Fatoye, 2007; Fatoye and Odusami, 2009; creativity and imaginative thinking. On the part of users and
Ilesanmi, 2010; Ibem et al., 2012; Clement and Kayode, community, one crucial expectation is that buildings will
2012) focus on the general performance of public housing in meet their needs and aspirations by supporting their daily
meeting occupants’ needs and expectations. From these activities (Preiser, 1999; Davara et al., 2006) and ultimately
studies, it is established that the physical characteristics of improve the aesthetic quality of the built environment. To
residential buildings have a significant influence on occu- this end, van der Voordt and Maarleveld (2006) noted that
pants’ satisfaction with their residential environment. This building performance evaluation (BPE) assesses the archi-
implies that the dwelling unit component of housing plays a tectural, functional, technical and economic value of
vital role in determining the quality of residential environ- buildings (product evaluation) or building procurement
ment in particular and the performance of housing projects process (process evaluation). By identifying the major
in general. However, very few studies have specifically weaknesses and strengths of buildings from the end user’s
examined the performance of dwelling units (buildings) perspective (Preiser, 1999; Khalil and Nawani, 2008), BPE
constructed in public housing schemes in meeting contributes to improving the quality of buildings and
180 E.O. Ibem et al.

building projects delivery process (Preiser, 1995; Kim et al., will provide and the needs it should meet. The implication of
2005). In addition, PBE also provides feedbacks on causes the foregoing is that building may be perceived by same
and effects of environmental issues related to buildings, and people differently at different times, or differently by differ-
thus inform planning and management throughout the ent people at same time, and that the expectations of building
building’s life cycle (Meir et al., 2009) and culminating in users and the community are diverse and vary among indivi-
the production of sustainable built environment (Zimring, duals and groups. In order to capture the feelings and
1988). In sum, BPE is important in understanding the actual expectations of all categories of users in the course of
performance of buildings in meeting the various expecta- evaluating the performance of buildings, Kian et al. (2001)
tions of the different stakeholders as compared to predicted and Kim et al. (2005) on one hand suggested the adoption of
performance, and the efficiency of building procurement six BPIs, namely; spatial (functional) comfort, indoor air
process. The foregoing helps to explain that BPE can be used quality, visual comfort, thermal comfort, acoustic comfort
in assessing different aspects of buildings and building and building integrity (structural and material performance).
procurement process, and that the findings can serve Meir et al. (2009) on the other hand argued that since BPE is
different purposes. Depending on the rationale and objec- based on the concept of building-users’ experience, BPIs
tive of the research, it is clear that BPE may be intended for should be based on parameters related to thermal comfort
the formulation and implementation of government poli- such as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning; illumination
cies, or the development of new theories or research tools and visual comfort; occupants’ satisfaction and behaviour as
or the dissemination of information on the performance of well as physiological and psychological comfort of users. From
building spaces and fabrics to professionals, contractors and the above, a number of inferences can be made. Firstly, BPE
material manufacturers in the building industry as well as to can follow different approaches and diverse tools and indica-
the public. tors can be used. Secondly, the expectations of users and the
In view of the benefits highlighted in the preceding community with respects to buildings are diverse and can be
paragraph, BPE has continued to receive enormous research measured in the terms of performance indicators. Lastly, the
attention, especially in the developed countries as Meir et al. different approaches to BPE, tools and indicators used con-
(2009) indicated. However, the existing studies on BPE focus tribute to policy, practice and research when they focus on
more on office than residential buildings (see Gossauer, 2005; issues related to users’ satisfaction and the sustainability of
Menzies and Wherrette, 2005; Pfafferott et al., 2007; buildings and the surrounding physical and socio-economic
Morhayim and Meir, 2008; Wagner et al., 2007; Khalil and environment.
Husin, 2009). We find in the literature that in the last few Of the different tools for BPE identified in the literature,
decades, much progress has been made in developing existing studies (e.g., Kian et al., 2001; Nawawi and Khalil,
different BPE tools and approaches (see O’Sullivan et al., 2008; Ilesanmi, 2010; Jiboye, 2012) have shown that user
2004; Kim et al., 2005; Khair et al., 2012). The main satisfaction surveys have become very valuable tool in
categories of approaches to BPE, which have been presented assessing the technical performance of buildings and under-
in more detail in Khair et al. (2012), include those standing human attitudes, needs and expectations towards
approaches that focus on the (i) functional suitability of building-in-use. In fact Zagreus et al. (2004) pointed out
buildings that is space utilisation, physical condition, safety that the views of building users are very important in
and statutory requirements; (ii) quality assessment of build- investigating the performance of buildings in meeting
ings; (iii) serviceability of building with respect to occupants’ occupants’ needs and expectations. Gupta and Chandiwala
needs and facilities provided; (iv) environmental perfor- (2010) also added that the evaluation of performance of
mance in terms of indoor environmental quality, air quality, residential environment has traditionally been based either
intrusion, control, appearance and lighting; (v) energy con- on physical monitoring or user satisfaction surveys. This is
sumption and indoor air quality; (vi) user satisfaction with principally because users give their views and/or feelings
the design and construction of and services in building; about buildings-in-use based on their experience and inter-
(vii) post occupancy evaluation (POE) of technical, functional actions with buildings (Vischer, 2008) as compared to the
and behavioural aspect of buildings. A wide range of tools views of professionals who design and construct buildings
have also been developed for each of these approaches (see and never use them (Preiser, 1995; Nawawi and Khalil, 2008;
O’Sullivan et al., 2004; Khair et al., 2012). Similarly, much Chohen et al., 2010). It is observed that in the course of
research work has also gone into the development of building exploring residential or housing satisfaction, some research-
performance indicators (BPIs) in the last few decades. ers adopted satisfaction surveys to examine residents’
Hasselaar (2003) quoted in Kim et al. (2005) noted that an satisfaction with the dwelling units in public housing estates
indicator is a sign that points to a condition to be measured, in the different countries. For example, in Papua New
in order to evaluate specific qualities and performances. In Guinea and Abuja, Nigeria, Kaitilla (1993) and Ukoha and
the context of building, Preiser (1999) was of the view that Beamish (1997), respectively, reported that residents in
BPIs should be derived from values held by individuals, public housing were dissatisfied with the building features.
groups, organisations or entire society who are stakeholders In contrast, Olatubara and Fatoye (2007) and Fatoye and
in the building industry; meaning that the criteria for Odusami (2009) revealed that residents in public housing in
measuring the performance of buildings should be derived Lagos, Nigeria, were most satisfied with building design
from how people see their buildings and the importance they features, including the number of rooms, the ceiling height,
attach to them. This appears to be in line with the proposi- and the location of different rooms in their dwelling units.
tion by Fatoye and Odusami (2009) that at the inception of In Malaysia, Oh (2000) cited in Mohit et al. (2010) found out
building occupation; residents build various expectations on that middle income households in Bandar Baru Bangi, were
the performance of their building, in terms of the benefits it satisfied with the space and cost of their houses but
Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria 181

dissatisfied with the size of kitchen and plumbing in their in the following housing estates: OGD-Workers Housing
houses. Although these studies help to explain that occupants Estate, Laderin; Media Village, OGD Housing Estate, Asero;
of mass-produced buildings in public housing estates in the Presidential Mandate Housing Estate, Olokota and Obasanjo
different countries are satisfied or dissatisfied with the Hill-Top GRA Housing Estate all in Abeokuta, OGD Housing
different components of their dwelling units, little is known Estate Itanrin, Ijebu-Ode and OPIC Housing Estate, Agbara.
of the different factors that determine residents’ satisfaction Others were the Ogun State Housing Corporation Housing
with the buildings in public housing estates in Nigeria. Estate, Ota; OGD-Sparklight Housing Estate, Ibafo-Gateway
Furthermore, except Fatoye and Odusami (2009) that related City. The informants were household heads, and structured
users’ satisfaction with housing to the performance of public questionnaire administered by the first author and four
housing projects, the existing studies rarely associated research assistants was used in eliciting responses from the
occupants’ satisfaction with the performance of residential respondents during the several visits to the housing units.
buildings in public housing projects in the country. Hence, The questionnaire instrument used was designed by the
this study was an attempt to bridge this gap in research. researchers and included questions on the personal profiles
Elsewhere in Malaysia, the study by Nawawi and Khalil of the respondents as well as their satisfaction with 27 items
(2008) has established that occupants’ satisfaction highly related to the physical, spatial, location and aesthetic and
correlates with the performance of public buildings; mean- cost attributes of their buildings as well as air quality and
ing that user’ satisfaction has a direct relationship with the services in the buildings (see Appendix 1 for detail of the
overall performance of buildings in meeting the needs and questionnaire). The questions were used to quantify the
expectations of the users. It is on this premise that the attitudes of the residents towards selected 27 building
conceptual framework of this study (Figure 1) is based on attributes by asking them to rank their satisfaction levels
the notion that residents’ satisfaction with housing units based on a five-point Likert Scale ranging from ‘‘1’’ for very
measured as building performance indicators (BPIs) and dissatisfied, ‘‘2’’ for dissatisfied, ‘‘3’’ for neutral, ‘‘4’’ for
determined by the users’ characteristics and the physical, satisfied to ‘‘5’’ for very satisfied. The questionnaire was
spatial, locational, service and economic attributes of pretested with some residents of Covenant University Staff
buildings; is a measure of the general performance of quarters and modified to incorporate relevant suggestions
residential buildings in meeting occupants needs and expec- made for improved research result. Of the 670 question-
tations as measured by Relative Performance Index (RPIa). naires distributed, 452 valid questionnaires representing
about 67.5% of the distributed questionnaires were
retrieved. In addition to the questionnaire instrument, data
3. Materials and methods were also collected using the observation schedule ( see
Appendix 2). This was used in collecting data on the
This study is based on user satisfaction surveys and was objective characteristics of the buildings based on observa-
targeted at occupants of residential buildings constructed in tions made on site during the field work.
public housing estates between 2003 and 2009 in urban Using the SPSS software, data derived from the survey were
areas of Ogun State Southwest Nigeria. At the time of the subjected to two types of analyses. The first was descriptive
survey (between December 2009 and February 2010), a total statistics, which generated frequencies and percentages of
of 1523 housing units were identified in nine housing estates respondents’ personal profiles, building characteristics, Indivi-
constructed for the low, middle and high-income earners. Of dual Satisfaction Scores (ISS) and Mean Satisfaction Scores
this number, 709 representing 46.55% of the completed (MSS). The sum of individual respondents’ scores on all the 27
housing units were occupied. In order to obtain a sample building attributes is Individual Satisfaction Score (ISS).Whereas
size that is representative of the aforementioned categories ISS is an expression of the respondents’ satisfaction with all the
of housing estates, the stratified sampling technique was building attributes put together, MSS is the average satisfaction
used to select 670 units (95%) of the occupied housing units score given by all respondents on each of the attributes. MSS

Attributes of Buildings
Users’ Satisfaction with Building
Physical, spatial,
Attributes
locational, service and
(Measured as Building
economic attributes
Performance Indicators (BPIs)
-Illumination, visual, thermal,
acoustic and spatial comfort
Users’ Characteristics -Indoor air quality
Sex, age, education, -Safety and Security
-Service quality
income, tenure
- Aesthetics quality
status, length of -Cost-effectiveness of building
stay and household

Performance of Residential Buildings

(Measured as Relative Performance
Index (RPIa)

Figure 1 Conceptual framework of the study.

182 E.O. Ibem et al.

was used to assess the degree of satisfaction with each building

Table 1 Physical characteristics of the buildings.
attribute by all the respondents. In evaluating the performance
of the buildings, Relative Performance Index (RPIa) was com- Frequency Percentage
puted for each building attribute as the sum of the actual (N=452)
satisfaction score on the five point Likert scale given by all the
respondents on each building attribute (ASSac) as a proportion Building type
of the sum of maximum possible satisfaction score on the five Single-family 243 53.8
point Likert scale that all the respondents could give on each bungalow
attribute (ASSmax). The RPIa is taken as a measure of the Semi-detached 196 43.4
relative contribution or importance of each building attribute bungalow
towards enhancing the activities and well-being of the resi- Duplex 13 2.9
dents. This is expressed mathematically as:
P
Number of bedrooms
RPIa ¼ P ASSact 1-bedroom 72 15.9
ASSmax
2-Bedrooms 152 33.6
In interpreting the result, the maximum value of RPIa is 3-Bedrooms 202 44.7
1.00 and the building attributes with the RPIa value closer to 4-Bedrooms 26 5.8
1.00 are considered as having the most contribution to the
performance of the buildings in meeting occupants0 needs
and expectations, and vice versa. The second type of State of repairs
analysis carried out was factor analysis, which was used to Minor repairs 28 6.2
identify the key dimensions of building components the Sound 424 93.8
occupants responded to in their evaluation of satisfaction
with residential buildings in the housing estates.
Walling materials
Compressed laterite 19 4.2
4. Result bricks
Sandcrete cement 433 95.8
4.1. Personal characteristics of the respondents blocks

The result shows that a majority (65.3%) of the respondents Window types
were male as against 43.7% who were female household Glazed louvres 91 20.1
heads. Of this number, most (64.8%) of the respondents were Aluminium glazed 361 79.9
between 31years and 45 years, while those who were more
than 45 years old constitute 34.5% of the respondents. Also a
large number (96%) of the respondents had tertiary education External doors
with 76% of them having household size of more than three Panelled timber 179 39.6
persons. Although, it was difficult to ascertain the exact Steel 273 60.4
income status of the respondents, the result shows that a
majority (53.75%) of them were middle-income earners as
Nets on windows
against 22.8% and 23.5% who claimed to be low and high-
Available 445 98.5
income earners, respectively. The result also revealed that
Not available 7 1.5
majority (80%) of the respondents had lived in the buildings
between one year and three years and 64.38% were owner–
occupiers as against 35.2% who were renters. It was also Burglary proof on windows
observed that 59.3% of the respondents were employed in Present 443 98.0
the public sector and 37% were private sector employees, No Burglary proof 9 2.0
while very few were retirees. This result clearly shows that a
majority of the respondents were middle-aged, educated,
and middle-income public sector workers. Floor finish
Cement screed 290 64.2
Ceramic tiles 162 35.8
4.2. Physical characteristics of the buildings

Table 1 shows the physical characteristics of the residential Ceiling materials

buildings sampled. A close examination of the result (Table 1) Asbestos 418 92.5
shows that most of the buildings were single-family apart- Acoustic ceiling 23 2.4
ments of less than 4-bedrooms. It is also evident from Table 1 PVC Strips 11 5.1
that the buildings were generally constructed with conven-
tional building materials derived mainly from cement, tim- materials in Nigeria. Also, a majority of the buildings were
ber, glass, steel and aluminium products. This result was to found to be structurally sound, which is a confirmation of the
be expected as these are the commonly available building fact that they are recently constructed buildings.
Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria 183

Figure 2 shows a typical floor plan of a 3-bedroom neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while 29.65% said they
bungalow in one of the housing estates sampled. A close were dissatisfied with their buildings. This result is an
examination of the plan shows that the floor area of the indication that nearly one-half of the respondents were
building is 121.0 m2 and that minimum floor area for the satisfied with their dwelling units in the housing estates.
bedrooms is approximately 12.0 m2. It is also evident from With respect to the respondents’ satisfaction with each of
this plan (Figure 2) that the living–dining area and each of the 27 building attributes investigated, Table 2 shows the
the rooms have two windows, which enhances cross ventila- MSS, ASSac and RPIa for each of the attributes. It is evident
tion and natural illumination. Although a majority (55%) of from the result that of the 27 attributes investigated; the
the respondents indicated that the spaces provided in their respondents were satisfied with 21. They were most satis-
current houses were adequate in meeting their needs, 45% fied with the level of privacy, followed by the sizes of
of them would however like to have additional spaces bedrooms, sizes of living rooms and quality of natural
ranging from shops, guest rooms, visitors0 toilets, laundry lighting in the kitchens, respectively, but were least satis-
and outdoor cooking area. This goes to suggest that these fied with external lighting on the buildings. The result on
spaces were either inadequate or not provided in these the performance of the building as measured by RPIa
buildings, and that perhaps barring any restriction by the (Table 2) also shows that as expected, the level of privacy
management of the housing estates, some of the residents in the buildings has the highest RPIa value of 0.778, while
who are owner–occupiers may sooner or later embark on external lightings on the building has the lowest RPIa value
modification or transformation of the buildings in order of 0.450. This suggests that these attributes contributed
remediate the observed spatial deficiencies in the buildings. most and least, respectively, to the performance of the
buildings sampled. Relating the result in Table 2 to the
4.3. Users’ satisfaction and performance of the performance of the different building attributes, it can be
buildings deduced that the attributes with RPIa values of 0.704 and
above contributed highly to the performance of the build-
With Mean Satisfaction Score (MSS) of 3.21 observed, the ings, those with RPIa between 0.602 and 0.690 contributed
respondents were generally satisfied with the residential moderately, while the attributes with RPIa below 0.602
buildings. Figure 3 however reveals that 42.48% of the contributed minimally to the performance of the buildings
respondents indicated that they were satisfied, 27.87% were in meeting occupants’ needs and expectations.

Figure 2 Typical floor plan of a 3-bedroom bungalow in one of the housing estates.
184 E.O. Ibem et al.

4.4. Key dimensions of satisfaction evaluation The first and the most important dimension was the type,
by the respondents location and aesthetic appearance of the buildings, explain-
ing 32.55% of the total variance across all 27 items.
As stated earlier, factor analysis with Principal Component The next, which explained 11.60% of the total variance,
and Varimax rotation methods was used to identify the key was the sizes of spaces relating to sizes of living, sleeping,
dimensions of satisfaction with the buildings which the cooking and storage areas. Also of strong importance was
residents responded to in the survey. The Kaiser–Meyer– the level of illumination, thermal and visual comfort in
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was observed to be the buildings which explained 6.04% of the total variance.
higher than the recommended index of 0.60. The analysis of Thus, it can be concluded from the analysis that three
the data resulted in the extraction of five dimensions with important dimensions, which the occupants responded to in
Eigen values greater than 1. The five dimensions accounted the evaluation of satisfaction with their buildings in the
for 60.76% of total variance across 27 items (see Table 3). study area, are: (i) type, location and aesthetic appearance

Figure 3 Residents0 satisfaction with the buildings.

Table 2 Mean Satisfaction scores and relative performance indices of BPIs (in descending order of importance).

S/N Building attributes MSS ASSac RPIa

1 Privacy in the building 3.89 1759 0.778

2 Sizes of bedrooms in the building 3.78 1710 0.757
3 Sizes of living rooms 3.65 1650 0.730
4 Quality of natural lighting in kitchen 3.63 1648 0.729
5 Size of dining space 3.60 1645 0.728
6 Quality of air in living/dining space 3.52 1590 0.704
7 Quality of air in the Bedrooms 3.45 1560 0.690
8 Location of building in the housing estate 3.43 1540 0.681
9 Initial and maintenance cost of the building 3.39 1532 0.678
10 Sizes of cooking and storage spaces 3.38 1526 0.675
11 Building type 3.37 1521 0.673
12 Protection against noise 3.29 1487 0.658
13 Quality of natural lighting in bedrooms 3.28 1483 0.656
14 Quality of natural lighting in living room 3.26 1467 0.649
15 Aesthetic appearance of building 3.23 1459 0.646
16 Design of bath and toilet facilities 3.20 1448 0.641
17 Thermal comfort in the building 3.19 1443 0.638
18 Fire safety and protection 3.18 1438 0.636
19 Protection against dampness in the building 3.12 1409 0.623
20 Protection against insects and dangerous animals 3.10 1402 0.620
21 Type of materials used in the construction of building 3.01 1360 0.602
22 Security in the buildings 2.97 1341 0.593
23 Number of bedrooms in the building 2.96 1337 0.592
24 Building design in relation to occupants0 way of life 2.62 1185 0.524
25 Power supply in the building 2.40 1085 0.480
26 Water supply in the building 2.40 1085 0.480
27 External Lighting on the building 2.25 1017 0.450
Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria 185

Table 3 Factor analysis of 27 building attributes investigated.

Building attributes Factor loadings Eigen value % of Variance

Factor 1: type, location and aesthetic appearance 9.439 32.549

Number of bedrooms 0.599
Building type 0.720
Design of bath and toilet facilities 0.688
Type of materials used in the construction of building 0.577
Location of building in the housing estate 0.561
Aesthetic appearance of building 0.638

Factor 2: Sizes of internal spaces 3.363 11.596

Sizes of living rooms 0.624
Sizes of bedrooms in the house 0.612
Sizes of cooking and storage spaces 0.487

Factor 3: Illumination, thermal and visual comfort 1.751 6.039

Quality of natural lighting in bedrooms 0.503
Natural lighting in kitchen 0.469
Quality of air in bedrooms 0.459
Natural lighting in living rooms 0.696
Quality of air in living/dining spaces 0.734
Thermal comfort in the building 0.613
Privacy in the building 0.693

Factor 4: Security and protection 1.655 5.706

Protection against noise pollution 0.516
Protection against dampness in the building 0.452
Protection against insects and dangerous animals 0.476
Security measures in the building 0.550
Fire safety measures in the building 0.473

Factor 5: Water and electricity supply 1.413 4.874

Electrical services in the building 0.463
Water supply and in the building 0.451

Total variance explained=60.764%.

of the buildings; (ii) sizes of main activity areas; and (iii) reveals that the respondents were generally satisfied with
level of illumination, thermal and visual comfort the build- the buildings; suggesting that the buildings are generally
ings can provide. It is important to mention here that meeting their needs and expectations to a reasonable
four variables, namely; sizes of dining spaces; initial and extent. This result appears to be line with findings of
maintenance cost of the building, building design in relation previous studies (Olatubara and Fatoye, 2007; Fatoye and
to occupants’ way of life and external lighting on the Odusami, 2009; Ibem and Amole, in press; Clement and
buildings, were not loaded on any of the five factors Kayode, 2012) indicating that residents in public housing
extracted from the factor analysis. in parts of Lagos, Abeokuta, and Ondo State Southwest
Nigeria, respectively, were generally satisfied with their
dwelling units, but contradicts the findings by Kaitilla
5. Discussion of findings (1993) and Ukoha and Beamish (1997) as highlighted
earlier. A number of explanations can be advanced for
The result of the analysis shows that the residential the observed result. Firstly, apart from the fact that the
buildings sampled were mainly single-family bungalows of satisfaction level was observed to be higher with 21 out of
2-bedrooms and 3-bedrooms, which of course, are the the 27 items investigated, it is possible that the owner–
prevalent housing types in most low-density public hous- occupier status of a large number (64.4%) of the respon-
ing schemes in Nigeria. The physical and spatial charac- dents influenced their positive attitude towards the
teristics of the buildings also show that they were buildings. This appears to be in line with the submission
designed and constructed based on government approved by Elsinga and Hockstra (2005) that home owners are
specifications, and were structurally sound. The study more likely to express satisfaction with their houses than
186 E.O. Ibem et al.

renters. Secondly, since the majority of the respondents definitely not unconnected with the fact that most of the
were also public sector workers and the buildings were respondents have household size of more than three
constructed by government agencies, it is also possible persons, and the houses are mostly 2- and 3-bedroom
that they would have considered it as lack of patriotism to apartments. This means that these sizes of dwelling units
rate houses constructed by their employer as unsatisfac- are inadequate in meeting the needs of families with
tory. However, 27.87% of the respondents who were large household size. Therefore, in terms of providing
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the buildings are adequate sleeping areas for the residents, the buildings
those who would not want to discuss about their satisfac- performed below the expectations of the respondents. In
tion level; hence, they were neutral in the responses. view of this result, it is expected that in the next few
Based on the evident from this study, it can be concluded years, some of the buildings sampled will most likely
that the performance of the buildings in meeting resi- under physical transformations or modifications, which
dents’ needs and expectations was acceptable from the will have adverse social and environmental implications,
users’ perspective. if urgent steps are not taken to prevent these in the
On satisfaction with the 27 attributes of the buildings, it housing estates.
was observed that the respondents were most satisfied The study also found out that, the respondents con-
with the level of privacy in the buildings; suggesting that strued the concept of satisfaction with residential build-
this particular attribute performed better than others in ings based on five key dimensions as listed in Table 3. The
meeting residents’ needs and expectations in the build- three most important dimensions being the type, location
ings. This result appears to be in support of Djebarni and and aesthetic appearance of the buildings, sizes of main
Al-Abed (2000) who observed that residents in low-income activity areas and level of illumination, thermal and visual
housing in Yemen were most satisfied with privacy in their comfort in the buildings. In order words these are the most
residential environment. Next to privacy were the sizes of important factors that determine satisfaction with resi-
living and sleeping areas in the buildings, respectively, (see dential buildings in public housing estates in the study
Table 2). If the sizes of living and sleeping areas of a typical area. This result is not out of place because these are the
3-bedroom apartment shown in Figure 2 are common to all critical aspects of buildings that have significant influence
the buildings sampled, therefore, it can be concluded that on the well-being, health and productivity of occupants/
these sizes of living and bedrooms are satisfactory to most users. Therefore, in order to achieve optimal user satisfac-
of the residents in the housing estates sampled. The tion and performance of residential buildings in meeting
general inference that can be drawn from this result is users’ needs and expectations, architects and other pro-
that public housing developers in the study area are giving fessionals involved in the building industry should give
adequate attention to the design for privacy and spatial adequate attention to these dimensions of building in the
comfort. On the other hand, although the study did not design, planning and construction of housing projects in
investigate energy and water consumption in the buildings, Nigeria.
it thus appears that the respondents were least satisfied
with electrical services and water supply in the buildings as
the MSS and RPIa displayed in Table 2 help to affirm this. 6. Conclusions
This means that the buildings are not meeting occupants’
needs for safe water and constant supply of electricity for This study evaluated the performance of residential build-
domestic consumption, and thus the buildings can be ings constructed between 2003 and 2009 in public housing
considered as having performed poorly in these aspects. estates in urban areas of Ogun State Southwest Nigeria.
This result can be explained with the context of poor and The study revealed that the buildings were mainly single-
epileptic water and electricity supply in Nigerian towns family buildings constructed according government
and cities; it however shows one critical area of weakness approved standards and were structurally sound. The
in the buildings where significant improvement is needed respondents in the survey were generally satisfied with
in future residential developments. the buildings; suggesting that the extent to which the
One interesting finding of this study that is noteworthy building are performing in meeting their needs and expec-
has to do with the observation indicating that despite the tations is satisfactory. The satisfaction level with privacy in
fact that most of the buildings sampled have external the buildings was higher than other aspects of the buildings
doors made up of steel and burglary proof windows, the and the most important factor determining satisfaction
respondents appear to be dissatisfied with the general was the type, location and aesthetic appearance of the
security situation in their dwelling units. This is seen in buildings.
Table 2, which also shows that the level of security in the Findings of this study imply that in order to enhance the
buildings contributed minimally to the performance of performance of residential buildings in public housing
the buildings; suggesting that security of life and property estates in meeting the needs, expectations and aspira-
in the housing estates is a major issue of concern to the tions of occupants some steps need to be taken. First,
residents. Also important is the result of the performance there is a need to improve the availability of water and
of the number of bedrooms in the buildings and the design electricity in government constructed residential build-
of the buildings in relation to the natural way of life ings. Therefore, it has become imperative for architects
(convenience) of the occupants. This may be explained in to engage in relevant design practice that encourages the
the context of the result, which also shows that about 45% incorporation of alternative sources of energy such as
of the respondents wanted additional spaces for shops, solar panels into the design and construction of mass
outdoor cooking, laundry and guest/visitors. This result is housing projects in Nigeria. Second, a significant
Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria 187

improvement is required in designing and planning of Therefore, in order to gain comprehensive knowledge of
residential buildings to reflect the way of life (conveni- the overall performance of the buildings, further research
ence) and address the security concerns of the target is required on other aspects such as energy consumption
population. Third, adequate attention should be given to in the buildings.
the type, location and aesthetics of mass-constructed
residential buildings and sizes of main activity areas, and
illumination, thermal and visual comfort of the occupants Acknowledgements
of buildings in the design, planning and construction of
housing projects. Lastly, there is a need for deliberate The authors wish to thank the Management of Covenant
policy on the construction of large housing units for University, Ota, for providing the support and facilities that
households of larger family size in public housing projects made this research possible. We also appreciate the two
in Nigeria. Besides, the findings of this study, it is obvious anonymous reviewers whose comments contributed signifi-
that the current study is limited in a number of ways. cantly in improving the final version of this paper.
Firstly, it is limited by focusing on the buildings con-
structed between 2003 and 2009, and thus the findings
cannot be generalised for all residential buildings in Appendix 1. The Questionnaire Survey
public housing estates in the study area. Secondly, the
study is also limited in scope as it dwells mainly on the CU/DA/FW09/QN0
design and construction aspects of the buildings. Dear Respondent,

This questionnaire is designed to elicit responses on issues relating to the public housing programmes in Ogun State
between 2003 and 2009. It is mainly an instrument for gathering data for an on-going research on public housing. All
information provided will be treated confidentially, and used purely for academic purpose.
Thanks for providing responses to the questions
Please tick (O) or fill as appropriate

Section A: Basic Information

Name of Housing Estateyyyyyyyyyyyy..

1. Sex (i) Male ( ) (ii) Female ( )

2. How old are you?
(i) 31–45 years ( ) (ii) 46–59 years ( ) (iii) 60 years and above ( )
3. Marital status: (i) Single ( ) (ii) Divorced ( ) (iii) Married ( ) (iv) Widowed ( )
4. What is the highest level of your educational attainment? (i) First School Leaving Certificate ( ) (ii) WASC O0 Level ( ) (iii)
OND ( ) (iv) NCE ( ) (v) HND ( ) (vi) Bachelor Degree ( ) (vii) Masters Degree ( ) (viii) PhD ( ) (ix)
Others——————————————
5. What is your occupation? —————————————
6. What is the range of your average monthly income? (i) 38,000- 44,000 ( ) (iv) 45–144,000 ( ) (vi) Above 145,000 ( )
7. How long have you been living in this Housing Estate? (i) Less than 1year ( ) (ii) 1–3years ( ) (iii) 4–5 years ( ) (iv) More than
5 years ( )

Section B: Building Attributes

1. How many bed rooms do you have in your apartment? (i) 1 ( ) (ii) 2 ( ) (iii) 3 ( ) (iv) 4 ( ) (v) More than 5 bed rooms ( ).
2. How many persons live in this housing unit?
(i) 1 ( ) (ii) 2 ( ) (iii) 3 ( ) (iv) 4 ( ) (v) More than4 ( ).
3. Where is your kitchen located?
(i) Within the building ( ) (ii) Detached from the building ( ) (iii) No Kitchen ( ).
4. Indentify as many spaces as you require that are not provided in your apartment?
(i) Space for Shop ( ) (ii) Storage spaces ( ) (iii) Visitors0 toilet ( ) (iv) Guest room ( ) (v) Laundry ( ) (vi) Outdoor cooking
space ( ) (ix) Others, please specify——————————
5. What is the type of tenure of the house you are occupying?
(i) Privately rented ( ) (ii) Owner occupied ( ) (iv) Official quarters ( ) (v) Free Occupation ( )
6. In your opinion, the cost of acquiring or renting this house can best be described as (i) Highly Unaffordable ( ) (ii)
Unaffordable ( ) (iii) Affordable ( ) (iv) Highly affordable ( )
7. What is the predominant source of water supply in your apartment?
(i) Water vendors ( ) (ii) Wells outside the building ( ) (iii) Borehole within the estate ( ) (iv) Public water supply system ( )
(v) Others, Please specify—————
8. What is the main source of power supply in your apartment?
188 E.O. Ibem et al.

(i) Personal Power Generating sets ( ) (ii) Power Generating Plant in the estate ( ) (iii) Solar Panels ( ) (iii) Public Power
supply ( ) (iv) None ( ) (v) others, please specify———————

Section C: Satisfaction With Building Attributes

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the house and housing estate where you live in terms of the following? Please tick
(O)

S/N Building Attributes Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

1 Building Type
2 Number of bedrooms in the Building
3 Sizes of Bedrooms in the Building
4 Sizes of Living Rooms
5 Sizes of Cooking and Storage Spaces
6 Size of Dining Space
7 Quality of air in Living/Dining space
8 Quality of air in the Bedrooms
9 Quality of Natural Lighting in Kitchen
10 Privacy in the building
11 Quality of Natural Lighting in Bedrooms
12 Quality of Natural Lighting in Living room
13 Thermal comfort in the Building
14 Location of building in the housing estate
15 Initial and Maintenance cost of the building
16 Protection against Noise in the Building
17 Aesthetic appearance of Building
18 Design of Bath and Toilet facilities
19 Fire safety and protection
20 Protection against dampness in the Building
21 Protection against insects and dangerous animals
22 Security in the Buildings
23 Type of materials used in the construction of the
Building
24 Design of building in relation to occupants0 way of life
25 Power supply in the Building
26 Water supply in the Building
27 External Lighting on the Building

Appendix 2. Observation Schedule

Name and Location of Housing Estate: —————————————

House Number: —————————

1. Housing Typology (i) Single-Family Bungalow [ ] (ii) Semi detached Bungalow [ ] (iii) Detached stored [ ] (iv) Semi-
detached stored building (Block of flats) [ ] (v) Duplex [ ] (vi) Others—————
2. Walling material of your house?
(i) Sun dried burnt bricks [ ] (ii) Compressed Stabilized Laterite [ ] (iii) Sancerre Cement Blocks [ ] (iv)
Others————————
3. Wall finishing (i) Cement sand plastering [ ] (ii) Painted [ ] (iii) Others————————————
4. Type of windows used in the house (i) Timber [ ] (ii) Glazed louvers [ ] (iii) glazed aluminium [ ]
5. The type doors used in the house (i) Plywood flushed [ ] (ii) Panelled timber [ ] (iii) Aluminium Glazed [ ] (iv) Panelled
Steel [ ] (v) others——————————
6. Presence of mosquitoes net on windows (i) Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
7. Burglary proof on windows and external doors (i) Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
8. Type of floor finish (i) Cement screed [ ] (ii) PVC Tiles [ ] (iii) Ceramic Tiles [ ] (iv) Terrazzo [ ] (v) Marble [ ] (vi)
Others———————
Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria 189

9. Ceiling Material(s) (i) Asbestos [ ] (ii) Mineral Fibre [ ] (iii) Acoustic ceiling [ ] (iv) PVC strips [ ] (v) Polished timber [ ] (vi)
Plaster of Plaster (POP) [ ]
10. Type of Roofing material (i) Galvanised iron [ ] (ii) Asbestos [ ] (iii) Aluminium long span [ ] (iv) Villa tiles [ ] (v) others,
specify——————
11. State of repair of the building?
(i) Dilapidated [ ] (ii) Major repairs [ ] (iii) Minor repairs [ ] (iv) Sound [ ]
12. Mode of discharge of waste water from the buildings (i) Central Waste treatment facilities [ ] (ii) Septic tank/soak away
pits [ ] (iii) Outside drains [ ] (iv) Surface discharge [ ]
13. The layout of the housing estate (i) Crowded [ ] (ii) Haphazard [ ] (iii) Spacious [ ] (iii) properly planned [ ]
14. Perimeter fencing (i) Nonexistent [ ] (ii) Major repairs [ ] (iii) Minor repairs [ ] (iv) Sound [ ]
15. Kiosks for retail shops (i) Nonexistent [ ] (ii) Present [ ]
16. Security post at entrance(s) to the estate (i) Nonexistent [ ] (ii) Present [ ]
17. General state of cleanliness of the estate (i) Very poor [ ] (ii) poor [ ] (iii) Fair [ ] (iv) Good [ ] (v) Very good [ ] (vi)
Excellent [ ]

References Ibem, E.O., Amole, D. Residential satisfaction in public core housing

in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Social Research,
Chohen, A.H., Che-Ani, A.I., Memon, Z., Tahir, M.M, Abdullah, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0111-z, in press.
N.A.G., Ishak, N.H., 2010. Development of user0 s sensitivity Ilesanmi, A.O., 2010. Post-occupancy evaluation and residents0
index for design faults in low rise urban housing, a study of satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of
development metropolitan city. American Journal of Scientific Building Appraisal 6, 153–169.
Research 12 (2010), 113–124. Jiboye, A.D., 2012. Post-occupancy evaluation of residential satis-
Clement, O.I., Kayode, O., 2012. Public housing provision and user faction in Lagos, Nigeria: feedback for residential improvement.
satisfaction in Ondo State, Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Frontiers of Architectural Research 1, 236–243.
Social Sciences 8 (1), 103–111. Kaitilla, S., 1993. Satisfaction with public housing in Papua New
Davara, Y., Meir, I. A., Schwartz, M., 2006. Architectural design and Guinea: the case of West Taraka housing scheme. Environment
IEQ in an office complex, healthy buildings: creating a healthy
and Behavior 25 (4), 514–545.
environment for people. In: de Oliveira Fernandes, E. et al.
Khair, N., Ali, H.M., Wilson, A.J., Juhari, N.H., 2012. Physical
(eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Healthy
environment for post occupancy evaluation in public low-cost
Building, Lisbon, vol. III, pp. 77–81.
housing. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference
Djebarni, R., Al-Abed, A., 2000. Satisfaction level with neighbour-
hoods in low-income public housing in Yemen. Property Manage- on Business and Economic Research (ICBER). Available from: /
ment 18 (4), 230–242. www.internationalconference.com.mvS. (accessed 12.11.12).
Elsinga, M., Hockstra, J., 2005. Homeownership and housing, Khalil, N., Husin, H.N., 2009. Post Occupancy Evaluation towards
satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 20, Indoor Environment Improvement in Malaysia’s Office Buildings.
301–324. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2 (1), 186–191.
Fatoye, E.O., Odusami, K.T., 2009. Occupants0 satisfaction Khalil, N., Nawani, A.H., 2008. Performance analysis of government
approach to housing performance evaluation: the case of and public buildings via post occupancy evaluation. Asian Social
Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the RICS COBRA Research Confer- Science 4 (9), 103–112.
ence, University of Cape Town, 10–11 September, 2009. Avail- Kian, P.S., Feriadi, H., Sulistio, W., Seng, K.C., 2001. A case study
able from: /http://www.rics.org/cobraS. (accessed 22.02.10). on total building performance evaluation of an ‘‘intelligent’’
Gossauer, E.A.W., 2005. User Satisfaction at Workspaces: A Study in office building in Singapore. Dimensi Teknik Sipil 3 (1), 9–15.
12 Office Buildings in Germany. CISBAT, Lausanne, Switzerland. Kim, S., Yang, I., Yeo, M., Kim, K., 2005. Development of a
Gupta, R., Chandiwala, S., 2010. Integrating an occupant-centred housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residen-
building performance evaluation approach to achieve whole- tial building in Korea. Building and Environment 40 (2005),
house and low-carbon retrofitting of UK homes. In: Proceedings 1103–1116.
of the Conference on Adapting to Change: New Thinking on
Liu, A.M.M., 1999. Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a
Comfort Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 9–11 April, 2010.
Hong Kong perspective. Automation in Construction 8, 511–524.
London: Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings.
Meir, I.A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., Cicelsky, A., 2009. Post-occupancy
Available from: /http://nceub.org.ukS. (accessed 10.09.12).
evaluation: an inevitable step toward sustainability. Advances In
Hanif, M., Hafeez, S., Riaz, A., 2010. Factors affecting customer
satisfaction. International Research Journal of Finance and Building Energy Research 3, 189–220.
Economics 60, 44–52. Menzies, G.F., Wherrette, J.R., 2005. Windows in the workplace:
Hasselaar, E., 2003. Health performance indicators of housing. In: examining issues of environmental sustainability and occupant
Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, ISIAQ, (cited in Kim et al., 2005). comfort in the selection of multi-glazed windows. Energy and
Ibem, E.O., Aduwo, E.B., Uwakonye, O., 2012. Adequacy of Buildings 37 (11), 623–630.
incremental construction strategy for housing low-income urban Mitterer, C., Kunzel, H.M., Herkel, S., Holm, A., 2012. Optimizing
residents in Ogun State, Nigeria. Built Environment Project and energy efficiency and occupant comfort with climate specific design
Asset Management 2 (2), 182–194. of the building. Frontiers of Architectural Research 1, 229–235.
190 E.O. Ibem et al.

Mohit, M.A, Ibrahim, M., Rashid, Y.R., 2010. Assessment of residen- Preiser, W.F.E., 1999. Built environment evaluation: conceptual basis,
tial satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost housing in benefits and uses. In: Stein, J.M., Spreckelmeyer, K.F. (Eds.),
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International 34, 18–27. Classic Readings in Architecture. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Morhayim, L., Meir, I., 2008. Survey of an office and laboratory Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Eggert, A., Bindl, U., 2007. Service
university building: an unhealthy building case study. In: Pro- quality and satisfaction: an international comparison of profes-
ceedings of the Indoor Air 2008 Conference, Copenhagen, Den- sional services perceptions. Journal of Services Marketing 21 (6),
mark, 17–22 August. 410–423.
Nawawi, A.H., Khalil, N., 2008. Post-occupancy evaluation corre- Ukoha, O.M., Beamish, J.O., 1997. Assessment of residents0 satis-
lated with building occupants0 satisfaction: an approach to faction with public housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat Interna-
performance evaluation of government and public buildings. tional 21 (4), 445–460.
Journal of Building Appraisal 4, 59–69. van der Voordt, T.J.M., Maarleveld, M., 2006. Performance of office
Oh, L.S., 2000. Housing satisfaction of middle income households in buildings from a user0 s perspective. Ambiente Construido 6 (3), 7–20.
Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor. Dissertation, Universiti Pertanian
Vischer, J.C., 2002. Post occupancy evaluation: a multi-faced tool
Malaysia, (Cited in Mohit et al. (2010)).
for building improvement. Federal Facilities Council, Chapter 3,
Olatubara, C.O., Fatoye, E.O., 2007. Evaluation of the satisfaction
pp. 23–34.
of occupants of the Abesan public low-cost housing estate in
Vischer, J.C., 2008. Towards a user-centred theory of the built
Lagos State, Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and
environment. Building Research & Information 36 (3), 231–240.
Social Studies 49 (1), 5–9.
Wagner, A., Gossauer, E., Moosmann, C., Gropp, T., Leonhart, R.,
Oliver, R.L, 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction
process in retail setting. Journal of Retailing 57, 25–48. 2007. Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction:
O’Sullivan, D.T.J., Keane, M.M., Kelliher, D., Hitchoock, R.J., 2004. results of field studies in German low energy office buildings.
Improving building operation by tracking performance metrics Energy and Buildings 39 (7), 758–769.
throughout the Building Lifecycle (BLC). Energy and Building 36 Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C., Arens, E., Lehrer, D., 2004. Listening to
(2004), 1075–1090. the occupants: a web-based indoor environmental quality
Parker, C., Mathews, B.P., 2001. Customer satisfaction: contrasting survey. Indoor Air 14 (Suppl. 8), 65–74.
academic and consumers0 interpretations. Marketing Intelli- Zeiler, W., Boxem, G., 2008. Sustainable schools: better than
gence & Planning 19 (1), 38–46. traditional schools? In: Proceedings of the Indoor Air 2008
Pfafferott, J., Herkel, S., Kalz, D., Zeuschner, A., 2007. Comparison Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 17–22 August, Paper ID: 10.
of low-energy office Buildings in summer using different thermal Zimring, C., 1988. Post-occupancy evaluation and implicit theories
comfort criteria. Energy and Buildings 39 (7), 750–757. of organisational decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 19th
Preiser, W.F.E., 1995. Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Asso-
Buildings work better. Facilities 13 (11), 19–28. ciation, California, pp. 277–280.