View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248

AicE-Bs2014Berlin
(formerly AicE-Bs2014Magdeburg)
Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies
Sirius Business Park Berlin-yard field, Berlin, 24-26 February 2014
“Public Participation: Shaping a sustainable future”

Correlation Analysis of Occupants’ Satisfaction and Safety

Performance Level in Low Cost Housing
Husrul Nizam Husina b,*, Abdul Hadi Nawawi b, Faridah Ismail b , Natasha
Khalila
a
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA Perak, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA , 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

The general building conditions in low cost housing are part of human’s quality indicator. However, there are rising
issues on the safety performance of the housing since the occupants are inclined to perceive safety hazards.
Therefore, this paper explores the concept of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as safety performance tool. This
research conducted a survey on safety performance and occupants’ satisfaction to 24 numbers of low cost housing at
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The correlation result shows that safety performance has a significant relationship with
occupants’ satisfaction. The findings supported the application of POE as the tool for safety performance.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Behaviourunder
Peer-review Studies (cE-Bs), of
responsibility Faculty
Centre of
forArchitecture, PlanningStudies
Environment-Behaviour & Surveying, Universiti
(cE-Bs), Faculty TeknologiPlanning
of Architecture, MARA, & Malaysia.
Surveying,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
Keywords: Post occupancy evaluation; Low Cost housing; Safety performance;Occupants’ satisfaction;

1. Introduction

Housing is a foremost universal concern as the wellbeing of a country reflects in its people enjoying a
particular standard of living. Residential and neighbourhood satisfactions are important indicators of
housing quality and condition which affect individuals’ quality of life (Idrus & Ho, 2008). The factors,
which determine their satisfaction levels, are essential inputs in monitoring the success of housing
policies. Malaysia is going through a rapid process of population growth and urbanization for several

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +605-3742000; fax: +605-3742244.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.229
 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248 239

years now. As announced through the Seventh Malaysia’s Plan (1996-2000) to Ninth Malaysia’s Plan
(2006-2010), there is the emergence in low-cost housing construction which is an intentional act as an
approach to eradicate squatters or illegal residential, especially in the Klang Valley area. It is inevitable
that the Government encourages cooperative housing not only for the lower income groups, but it also
caters for the middle-low income groups. Seeing the wavering economic situation, the emerging problem
in housing property is the growing demand for better and safe housing. Therefore, it is increasingly
important to evaluate housing property for many reasons.
Goh and Ahmad (2012) accentuated that the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia in 2003 criticised
the Malaysian government on the failure in addressing issues that relate to the physical safety of
occupants. There are also other issues, which were not in-depth consideration such as the habitability,
suitability, lack of maintenance, defects and shoddy workmanship in low cost housings. It needs to be set
forth that poor quality of a building is much allied to the safety failures of building. This assertion is
supported by Abdul-Rahman et al., (1999) and Yau (2006) that indefensible buildings with poor
workmanship and low quality of materials also lead to building deterioration and poor aesthetical
performance. Poor quality and workmanship of a building will worsen the building if it is left unattended
and the absence of maintenance action will instigate further impairment (Husin et al., 2012). As a result,
the building is considered as unsafe due to the inferior quality condition. Despite enforcement of
Construction Industry Standard 1 (CIS1, 1998) and Construction Industry Standard 2 (CIS2, 1998),
regulatory measures, there are still many safety problems faced by low cost occupants in Malaysia.
Stevenson & Leaman (2010) suggested that the evaluation of user perceptions and behaviour in
relation to building performance in housing is an emerging research area. The review of literature by Yau
(2006) suggested that studies on housing safety should focus on the epidemiological relationship between
the living built environment and safety hazards. Therefore, the assessment of safety in low-cost housing is
highly relates to the users’ behaviour and occupants’ feedback. The present research acknowledges Post
Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as the best tool to examine the safety performance in low cost housing.
Many previous researches (Khalil & Nawawi, 2008; Mumovic et al. 2009; Hassanain, 2007; Liu, 2003;
Minami, 2007; Altas & Ozsoy, 1998; Collet da Graca et al., 2007; Gill et al., 2010; Amaratunga & Baldry,
1999; Foxall & Hackett, 1994; Goh & Ahmad, 2012) have showed significant results in optimizing the
performance of building by applying POE as the research tool.

2. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as safety performance tool

Leaman et al. (2010) described that buildings are self-evidently settings or ‘contexts’ for human
activities. The importance of safety performance assessment in Malaysian low cost housing is typically
the criteria for judgement in the fulfilment of the functional and the occupants’ needs. Aptly, the impact
of strategies in dealing with the safety issues based on the building occupants’ experiences needs to be
measured. Such assessment is reliable by adopting Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as the approach and
the best tool to assess safety performance in low cost housing. POE has emerged as a strategic
performance measurement tool that is able to examine building performance after the building handed
over to the occupants. Regrettably, Way & Bordass (2005) identified that the post-construction stage of a
building is the most neglected stage, and it is often looked upon as a nuisance and a distraction. POE
encompasses a comprehensive review of the building details covering the technical performance, users’
satisfactions, project delivery process and recommendation for the action.
Many agencies, especially in developed countries such as the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, are
using information from POE in support of the design criteria and guidelines. POE programmes were
conducted after construction stage to identify mistakes and lessons learned by analysis of findings. To
ensure the success of building performance aspects, the roles and responsibilities of building stakeholders
240 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248

must be congealed to highlight any gaps and possibly the unsuitability of individuals in their assumed
roles (Way & Bordass, 2005). Subsequently, the framework involving roles, objective, phases of
application and issue to address in conducting the POE for a building must be encoded to attain positive
results from such assessment. In general, based on some literature, (Darkwa, 2006; Donn, Selkowitz, &
Bordass, 2012; Preiser et al., 1998; Preiser & Nasar, 2008; Preiser, 2001; Vischer, 2002; Watson, 2003),
the phases of POE consist of three (3) vital phases, namely; Planning phase, Conducting phase, and
Applying phase. These vital phases are necessary to be implemented in any survey instrument in
evaluating various building performance aspects.

2.1. The fundamental concept: Building users/occupants’ feedback

The primary concept and process in POE is to illustrate significant considerations for the evaluation to
ensure the accuracy in the method used. The main considerations of the POE criteria are to define the case
study or building and the inputs needed from the building users, i.e. their feedback. The criteria for
judgement are the fulfilment of the occupants’ needs that POE is focusing on assessment of client’s
satisfaction and functional ‘fit’ (Zimmerman & Martin, 2001). Building construction will develop
prototypes that need follow-up through the lesson and feedback. Way and Bordass (2005) described that
POE has its part to play and helps create the understanding of where things fall short of expectations, but
it is inherently retrospective. Therefore, the fundamental concepts of POE stress the importance of
feedback data from the building users. However, Bordass and Leaman, (2005a) believed that data and
knowledge management tend to be relatively weak in most building-related organizations. Consequently,
the project management team would decide to give their concentration on immediate clients as the team
would be able to put their experience and a new understanding into action immediately (Bordass &
Leaman, 2005a).
There were many instruments that can be utilised in gathering feedbacks from building users including
individual surveys, focus groups, interviews and users’ satisfaction surveys (Bordass & Leaman, 2005a;
Eley, 2001; Watson, 1996; Watson, 2003). All of the results provide beneficial information to fulfil the
main objective of conducting the POE as identified in the early stage of assessment. Feedback is
beneficial in POE when the building considers being the product (Eley, 2001) and when the building
players involve the owner/client, the users, the designers and the construction and products industries in
the survey. Seeing this importance, assessing safety in building evaluation is fundamentally proactive in
measuring performance and acting upon the information gathered. As POE studies emphasize the
importance of feedback from the users, hence, their satisfaction is measures towards improving raising
current issues in the said building. Chohan et. al., (2010) linked the relationship of users’ satisfaction with
architectural aspects of housing revealing that most researchers are unanimous on the importance of
addressing emerging issues of faulty design, maintenance and users satisfaction. The concept of POE in
getting feedback from the users helps to feed the inputs into the completed project and much can be learnt
for reuse in future studies (Khalil, Husin, & Nawawi, 2012). However, for the most part, building users
have not engaged directly with the performance of the end product. Building stakeholders must aware to
the concept of POE as this tool able to provide extensive benefits that can maintain the sustainability of
the building, including the safety aspects.

3. Research objectives

The main aim of this research is to develop a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) framework that
integrates safety elements for low cost housing (LCH) in Malaysia. The research objectives are as
follows:
 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248 241

x To identify the concept of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) in relation to safety performance
x To identify the safety elements and attributes in low cost housing
x To determine the correlation between the level of safety performance attributes and the occupants’
satisfaction level

4. Methodology

This study employs the mixed-method approach; using both qualitative and quantitative analysis. It
begins with preliminary survey stage, where the questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews is
used as instrument, to the building experts. The experts are professionals that working in organizations
involving PPR housing development management, including from KPKT, DBKL, CIDB and also
professionals builders in private construction firms. Result and findings from preliminary survey has
confirmed the suitability of the construct safety elements and attributes. The list safety elements and
attributes are then included in the survey forms for Main Survey, i.e. Safety Performance Inspection
Survey (SPIS) and Occupants Satisfaction Survey (OSS).
The main objective of SPIS is to obtain the safety performance score of the attributes using numerated
performance scale, via condition inspection to the housing area. The inspection survey divides into two
(2) sections; Section A: Housing Background and Details, and Section B: Safety Performance Inspection
Checklist. While the OSS is use to determine occupants’ satisfaction level of the validated safety
attributes and distributed the questionnaires to the identified occupants. The questionnaire initially records
the name of building; dividing into three sections, namely; Section A: Demographic Information, Section
B: Occupants’ Satisfaction Level, and Section C: Perception on the Necessity of Housing. However, the
discussions in this paper only provide the results on Section B for both SPS and OSS. Utilizing the five
points Likert-scale, the respondents were need to respond to each statement in the questionnaire within
five degrees of satisfaction. The correlation test between safety performance and occupants’ satisfaction is to
identify whether there is a significant relationship between the safety performance and the occupants’
satisfaction level.
Both variables in SPS and OSS consist of ordinal scale; therefore, it is suitable to use Spearman rho (r)
correlation as statistical analysis.

5. Analysis and findings

The analysis of the main survey entails into three parts; i.e. i) Result of Safety Performance Survey, ii)
Result of Occupants’ Satisfaction Survey, and iii) Correlation Result of Safety Performance and
Occupants Satisfaction. The first part describes the analysis of safety performance level for each safety
attributes. The inspection survey is carried out by nominated and reliable professional surveyors. The
second part of the analysis reveals the level of occupants’ satisfaction towards the safety attributes.
Finally, the last part of this analysis reveals the findings of correlation between the safety performance
scale and the occupants’ satisfaction level, based on the similar safety attributes for the sample of housing
units. Both surveys have similar sample size, which is 380 of housing samples, and 380 respondents
representing the occupants of twenty-four (24) low cost housing area namely Projek Perumahan Rakyat
(PPR) (see Table 1). PPR is located in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and it is a Government
program to accommodate and meet the needs of all slum dwellings for low-income earners. The National
Housing Department (JPN), alongside the Ministry of Housing and Local government are the
implementing agencies for PPR projects across Malaysia. Most of the PPR tenants opt for the rental basis
with only a segment of the tenants bought and own the units. Kuala Lumpur is the capital and the largest
242 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248

city of Malaysia covering a land area of 244 sq km (94 sq mi), with a population of 1.63 million
according to census projections in 2010 (Junaidi, Fauzi, & Ghazali, 2012).

Table 1. Information of Program Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) housing projects (housing samples)

TOTAL TOTAL DATE OF

SAMPLE
NO. HOUSING PROJECTS NO. OF NO. OF HAND-
SIZE (s)
UNIT BLOCK OVER
ZONE 1
1 PPR Kg. Muhibbah, Jalan Puchong 2,844 9 22.12.2006 20
2 PPR Malaysia Permai (PPR Raya Permai) 1,264 4 2.06.2006 20
3 PPR Sg. Besi (PPR Desa Petaling) 632 2 19.08.2002 10
4 PPR Pudu Hulu 948 3 15.01.2003 20
5 PPR Seri Malaysia 632 2 03.1.2007 10
6 PPR Jln. Lapangan Terbang Lama Fasa 1 (PPR Seri Alam) 660 5 29.04.2004 20
7 PPR Jln Cochrane (PPR Laksamana & PPR Perkasa) 1,620 5 25.04.2005 20
8 PPR Jln. Lapangan Terbang Lama Fasa 2 (PPR Seri Alam 2) 920 7 12.07.2010 20
ZONE 2
9 PPR KL Linear City 1 (PPR Seri Anggerik) 316 1 15.01.2003 10
10 PPR KL Linear City Ii Fasa 1 (PPR Pantai Ria) 1,264 4 08.08.2007 20
11 PPR Lembah Pantai, Kerinchi 1,896 6 31.3.2007 20
12 PPR KL Linear City Ii Fasa 2 (PPR Seri Cempaka) 632 2 08.08.2007 10
13 PPR Salak Selatan 632 2 24.06.2004 10
14 PPR Kg. Limau, Pantai Dalam 632 2 15.1.2005 10
ZONE 3
15 PPR Taman Intan Baiduri 1,834 6 15.04.2004 20
16 PPR Taman Wahyu I (PPR Beringin) 1,896 6 31.03.2003 20
17 PPR Pekan Batu 632 2 03.12.2002 10
18 PPR Taman Wahyu II (PPR Wahyu) 948 3 07.04.2002 20
19 PPR Kg Batu Muda (SPNB) 2,132 7 31.12.2006 20
20 PPR Pekan Kepong 948 3 08.04.2010 10
ZONE 4
21 PPR Ampang Hilir (PPR Hiliran Ampang) 948 3 16.12.2004 10
22 PPR Kg. Baru Air Panas 2,528 8 1.05.2007 20
23 PPR Sg. Bonus, Air Jernih 632 2 14.02.2005 10
24 PPR Seri Semarak 1,580 5 14.02.2005 20
TOTAL 28,970 99 - 380

Based on Table 1, the housing projects were hand over to the tenants beginning 2002 to 2010.
Therefore, the occupancy period of the housing range from 2 years to 10 years. The sample size
determined for this research is using the formula by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). The sample size included
in both surveys (housing units and building occupants) is 380 samples.

5.1. Results on safety performance survey

In this section, each attribute derived from the results of preliminary survey is use for the safety
performance inspection in the identified building. There are 24 safety attributes listed in the survey form,
and the rating of each attribute in the relative safety elements refers to the scale value of Safety
Performance Index (SPI). The constructed SPI is adapt from previous schemes; CSP1Matrix (Che-Ani et
al., 2010) and Housing Performance Evaluation Model (HPEM) (Kim et al., 2005). Prior to carrying out
the survey, the above constructive SPI was forwarded to professional assessors for review. During the
 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248 243

review, the professional assessors agreed on the reliability of the SPI since it was developed and tested in
previous studies. Professional assessors also provide a letter confirming on the reliability of the SPI; for
record purposes. Table 2 illustrates the result of safety performance level for the construct safety
attributes:

Table 2. Descriptive result of safety performance level of all attributes

SCALE OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDEX (SPI)

CATEGORY ELEMENTS ATTRIBUTES Very Very
Poor Moderate Good
poor Good
Column / beam 0% 4% 26% 68% 1%
Structural Roof 0% 6% 29% 65% 0%
Slabs 0% 10% 40% 49% 0%
Electrical Services 0% 39% 23% 37% 0%
Services Plumbing System 0% 10% 29% 61% 0%
Performance

Fire System 0% 24% 52% 24% 0%

Corridor 0% 3% 66% 31% 0%
Space Staircase 0% 19% 59% 22% 0%
Balcony 0% 13% 65% 22% 0%
Playground 1% 20% 61% 18% 0%
Amenities Vehicle Parking 3% 26% 57% 14% 0%
Lift 23% 66% 8% 3% 0%
Door / Window 0% 9% 16% 74% 0%
Fittings Security bar /grille 0% 2% 21% 77% 0%
Sanitary Fittings 0% 16% 26% 58% 0%
Floor Finishes 0% 12% 48% 39% 2%
Materials Wall Finishes 0% 13% 48% 37% 2%
Quality

Ceiling Finishes 2% 34% 36% 27% 1%

Internal Ventilation 0% 6% 59% 35% 0%
Environment Indoor Temperature 0% 15% 43% 42% 0%
Visual Obstruction 0% 18% 47% 34% 0%
Plastering Works 0% 17% 48% 35% 0%
Workmanship Tiling Works 0% 9% 51% 41% 0%
Painting Works 0% 17% 61% 23% 0%

Table 2 depicts the result of safety performance level for all samples of housing units demonstrating
the results for Attributes under Performance as safety category. The professional building assessors rated
the scale of safety performance during the safety inspection survey. Based on the result, the rating for
several items as “good” performance are; column/beam (68%), roof (65%), slabs (49%) and plumbing
system (61%). The scale ratings as “moderate” performance are fire system (52%), corridor (66 %),
staircase (59%), balcony (65%), playground (61%), and vehicle parking (57%). Two items were highly
marked as “poor” performance; electrical services (39%) and lift (66%). For the safety category of
Quality, the result presents that all attributes under the Fittings elements are highly rated as “good”
performance; i.e. door/window (74%), security /metal grille (77%) and, sanitary fitting (58%). The rest of
the attributes under this quality category were substantially rate as “moderate” performance. It describes
that these items have moderate defects but may become severe if left unattended. Even though a majority
of the items under this category are within moderate performance, this supports the probable change for
the users’ requirements. The next analysis presents results of the occupants’ satisfaction level for similar
attributes as investigated in the safety inspection survey.
244 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248

5.2. Results on Occupants’ Satisfaction Survey

Section B of the questionnaire requires the respondents to rate their satisfaction level for 24 safety
attributes; under the Performance and Quality as the safety category. The safety attributes are similar to
the attributes outlined in the safety performance survey (SPS). The respondents were need to rate their
satisfaction level based on five numerical Likert-scale; “1” (Very dissatisfied), “2” (Dissatisfied), “3”
(Moderately satisfied), “4” (Satisfied), and “5” (Very satisfied. Table 3 illustrates the occupants’
satisfaction level towards the listed safety attributes:
Table 3. Descriptive Result of Occupants’ Satisfaction Level

Percentage Result For Occupants' Satisfaction Level

Missing/
Safety Elements Safety Attributes Very Moderately Very No
Dissatisfied Satisfied
Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied answer
(2) (4)
(1) (3) (5)
Column / beam 0.5% 6.1% 29.5% 60.5% 2.6% 0.8%
Structural Roof 0.3% 7.1% 30.8% 59.2% 1.6% 1.1%
Slabs 0.5% 8.7% 38.7% 48.2% 2.4% 1.6%
Electrical Services 0.5% 33.2% 25.5% 37.9% 2.1% 0.8%
Services Plumbing System 1.6% 12.4% 28.9% 54.7% 1.6% 0.8%
Fire System 0.5% 20.5% 47.4% 29.7% 1.1% 0.8%
Corridor 0.5% 7.1% 59.5% 30.8% 0.8% 1.3%
Space Staircase 1.1% 20.3% 53.7% 23.2% 0.0% 1.8%
Balcony 0.8% 13.2% 58.4% 24.5% 0.5% 2.6%
Playground 4.7% 23.9% 53.4% 15.8% 1.3% 0.8%
Amenities Vehicle Parking 1.8% 13.7% 53.4% 28.2% 1.1% 1.8%
Lift 18.7% 62.1% 13.4% 3.7% 0.8% 1.3%
Door / Window 0.5% 10.0% 23.4% 64.7% 0.8% 0.5%
Security bar / Metal
Fittings 1.3% 5.3% 24.2% 67.4% 1.8% -
grille
Sanitary Fittings 0.3% 15.0% 30.8% 53.2% 0.8% -
Floor Finishes 0.5% 10.3% 49.5% 37.9% 1.8% -
Materials Wall Finishes 0.5% 11.8% 46.3% 39.5% 1.6% 0.3%
Ceiling Finishes 1.8% 22.1% 40.8% 33.7% 1.3% 0.3%
Internal Ventilation 1.3% 7.1% 55.0% 35.8% 0.5% 0.3%
Environment Indoor Temperature 0.5% 15.0% 40.8% 42.4% 0.5% 0.8%
Visual Obstruction 0.8% 21.1% 42.6% 33.2% 1.8% 0.5%
Plastering Works 1.3% 12.4% 48.7% 34.7% 0.5% 2.4%
Workmanship Tiling Works 0.5% 10.3% 50.0% 36.8% 1.3% 1.1%
Painting Works 0.5% 16.1% 54.7% 27.1% 0.8% 0.8%

Results from Table 3 indicate a higher proportion of satisfied respondents in attributes of

Column/beam, Roof, Slabs, Electrical services and Plumbing system. However, 47.4% respondents (179
out of 380 respondents) are moderately satisfied with the Fire system. Additionally, it shows that more
than 50% of the respondents are moderately satisfied for the attributes of Corridor, Staircase, Balcony,
Playground, and Vehicle Parking. It is worthy to highlight that, 80.80% of the respondents (a total from
62.1% of dissatisfied and 18.7% of very dissatisfied respondents) had expressed their dissatisfaction with
Lift. The respondents claimed that their dissatisfaction with the performance of the lift is due to regularly
not functioning well and experience frequent break down. Results in Table 3 also illustrate Security
Bar/Metal Grille receives the highest proportion of satisfied respondents as compared to Door/Window
 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248 245

(64.7%), Sanitary Fittings (53.2%) and Indoor temperature (42.4%). There are eight attributes, which the
respondents, are moderately satisfied with; Floor Finishes, Wall Finishes, Ceiling Finishes, Internal
Ventilation, Visual Obstruction, Plastering Works, Tiling Works, and Painting Works. None of the
attributes under this quality category constitutes a major proportion of dissatisfaction from the
respondents.

5.3. Correlation Result of Safety Performance and Occupants’ Satisfaction

The final section of the analysis illustrates the correlation between Safety Performance Scale and
Occupants’ Satisfaction Level. The Spearman rho (r) is use in the analysis since both variables consist of
ordinal scales derived from random sampling of housing units and respondents. The correlation test
conducts to investigate whether there is a significant relationship between the safety performance level
and the occupants’ satisfaction level with similar safety attributes. This provides the reliability of using
POE as the benchmark of safety performance assessment in the low cost housing. The research
hypothesis and the null hypothesis of the study are as followed:
x H1 = there is a significant relationship between the safety performance of the low cost housing, and the
occupants’ satisfaction with regards to the safety performance.
x H0 = there is no relationship between the safety performance of the low cost housing, and the
occupants’ satisfaction with regards to the safety performance.
According to (Chua, 2008), the result from the Spearman correlation shows the strength of the
relationship of two variables by referring to its correlation coefficient value of spearman rho (r). The
significance level of the variables is tested with two-tailed with a significant correlation value at .01 level
(2-tailed). The correlation analysis was reported in two divisions of safety categories namely;
performance category and quality category. There are twelve safety attributes under each category
validated from the preliminary survey. The analysis of the correlation is using statistical software program
SPSS (Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences, versions 16.00). The hypotheses were statistically test
with a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05.

Table 4. Correlation result of Safety performance and Occupants’ Satisfaction (Performance category)

Attributes for Fire

Column Electrical Plumbin Corri Play Vehicle
Safety Roof Slabs syste Staircase Balcony Lift
/ Beam services g system dor ground parking
Performance m
Correlation
.662** .714** .670** .633** .625** .703** .624** .645** .647** .493** .297** .434**
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Attributes for Fire
Column Electrical Plumbin Corri Play Vehicle
Occupants' Roof Slabs syste Staircase Balcony Lift
/ Beam services g system dor ground parking
Satisfaction m

Table 5. Correlation result of Safety performance and Occupants’ Satisfaction (Quality category)

Attributes for Security

Door / Visual Tiling Paintin
Safety bar / Sanitary Floor Wall Ceiling Internal Indoor Plasterin
Windo Obstruc Work g
Performance Metal Fittings Fin. Fin. Fin. Vent. Temp. g Works
w tion s Works
grille
Correlation
.592** .595** .722** .664** .682** .581** .689** .654** .682** .652** .657** .703**
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Security
Attributes for Door / Visual Tiling Paintin
bar / Sanitary Floor Wall Ceiling Internal Indoor Plasterin
Occupants' Windo Obstruc Work g
Metal Fittings Fin. Fin. Fin. Vent. Temp. g Works
Satisfaction w tion s Works
grille
246 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248

Table 4 and Table 5 show the results of Spearman correlation test between Safety Performance Level
and Occupants’ Satisfaction Level as the tested variables. It shows that a majority of the attributes of
occupants’ satisfaction level is positively correlates with safety performance level in the housing unit. For
the Performance category (see Table 4), the correlation coefficient of the attributes indicates an average
and strong correlational value. The highest correlation coefficient indicated for the attribute is Roof, with
a significant value of r =0.714. The categorization of attributes as “average” strength are; Column/Beam,
Slabs, Electrical services, Plumbing system, Fire system, Corridor, Staircase and Balcony, with
coefficient range from 0.624 to 0.703. All of the variables has a significant relationship (Sig.=0.000),
even though some of the variables has a weak correlation strength (Playground, r=0.493, Vehicle
Parking, r=0.297, Lift, r=0.434). Despite having weak correlation, these attributes have very significant
relationships and supported the research hypothesis. It also illustrates that the null hypothesis was
successfully rejected, and this research decides that there is a significant relationship between the
attributes for both variables. Almost similar to the result as in Performance category, majority of the
attributes in Quality category (see Table 5) is positively correlates with safety performance level. In terms
of correlational strength, only the variable of Sanitary Fittings has a strong relationship, with r=0.722.
The rest of the attributes, i.e. Door / window, Security bar / metal grille, Floor finishes, Wall finishes,
Ceiling finishes, Internal ventilation, Indoor temperature, Visual obstruction, Plastering works, Tiling
works and Painting work, were categorized as average strength with coefficient values ranging from
0.582 to 0.703.
Despite the findings resulted a moderate correlational strength, it was found that all of the variables
have a significant relationship (Sig.=.000). The lowest correlation coefficient indicated based on the result
is Ceiling Finishes, with r =0.581. This result has lucratively rejects the null hypothesis. Therefore, there
is a significant relationship between the two variables; hence this result supports the research hypothesis.
Both results in the above correlational analysis show significant relationships between both variables, i.e.
safety performance level and occupants’ satisfaction level. Since the correlation result only provides the
value of coefficient and the strength of relationship, predictions against the causes and the consequences
have to be defined from the analysis. The researcher predicts that the level of occupants’ satisfaction
depends upon the level of safety performance in their housing unit. This correlation result is vital to
glimpse the effectiveness of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as the tool of assessing the performance
of safety in low cost housing. The convincing correlational results confirmed the relevance of POE as the
safety performance tool for this study.

6. Conclusion

The correlation analysis resolves to support the application of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as the
tool for safety performance assessment of low cost housing. Since POE grants the participations from the
building users or building occupants as the assessment’s execution, the relationship between the result of
the safety conditions and the occupants’ satisfaction validates the theoretical basis of POE as the safety
assessment. The analysis has used strategic approach to achieve the best quality in building services,
whereby the assessment integrates the occupants’ behavior, perception and opinion as the building user.
The correlational results from both surveys; SPS and OSS also support the research hypothesis crutching
up the application of POE as the adopted assessment tool. All of the surveys and presentation of results
were aligned with the vital phases being highlighted in POE concept; planning phase, conducting phase
and applying phase. Therefore, the findings show that that the level of occupants’ satisfaction depends
upon the level of safety performance in their housing unit. Indirectly, it also shows the relevance of POE
by incorporating participation of occupants, as the safety performance tool for this study.
 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248 247

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support grant in performing this study under the Exploratory
Research Grant Scheme (ERGS) Phase 1/2011 funded by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
(KPT) and to Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak.

References

Abdul-Rahman, H., Kwan, C. L., & Woods, P. C. (1999). Quality function deployment in construction design : application in low-
cost housing design. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(6), 591–605.
Altas, N. E., & Ozsoy, A. (1998). Spatial Adaptability and Flexibility as Parameters of User Satisfaction for Quality Housing.
Building and Environment, 33(5), 315–323.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (1999). Building Performance Evaluation In Higher Education Properties: Towards A Process Model.
In COBRA 1999.
Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: A portfolio of feedback techniques.
Building Research & Information, 33(4), 347–352. doi:10.1080/09613210500162016
Che-Ani, A. I., Ali, A. S., Tahir, M. M., Abdullah, N. A. G., & Tawil, N. M. (2010). The Development of a Condition Survey
Protocol (CSP) 1 Matrix for Visual Building Inspection. In The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of
the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (COBRA2010), 2-3 September 2010 (pp. 8–22). Dauphine Université, Paris.
Chohan, A. H., Che-ani, A. I., Memon, Z., Mohd Tahir, M., Abdullah, N. A. G., & Ishak, N. H. (2010). Development of user ’ s
Sensitivity Index for Design Faults in low Rise urban Housing , a Study of Developing Metropolitan City. American Journal of
Scientific Research, 12(12), 113–124.
Chua, Y. P. (2008). Asas Statistik Penyelidikan: Analisis Data Skala Ordinal dan Skal Nominal (Kaedah dan Statistik Penyelidikan.
Buku 3). McGraw Hill, Malaysia.
CIS1. Standard Perumahan Kebangsaan Bagi Perumahan Kos Rendah satu dan dua tingkat. , Pub. L. No. CIDB/SWO-TC1/WG1
(1998). Malaysia: Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia.
CIS2. Standard Perumahan Kebangsaan Bagi Perumahan Kos Rendah Rumah Pangsa. , Pub. L. No. CIDB/SWO-TC1/WG2 (1998).
Malaysia: Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia.
Collet da Graca, V. A., Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., & Petreche, J. R. D. (2007). An evaluation method for school building design at
the preliminary phase with optimisation of aspects of environmental comfort for the school system of the State Sao Paulo in
Brazil. Building and Environment, 42, 984–999. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.020
Darkwa, I. (2006). Post-occupancy evaluation of state-subsidised housing units in Kayamandi, Stellenbosch [PhD Thesis].
University of Stellenbosch.
Donn, M., Selkowitz, S., & Bordass, B. (2012). The building performance sketch. Building Research & Information, 40(2), 186–
208.
Eley, J. (2001). How do post-occupancy evaluation and the facilities manager meet ? Building Research & Information, 29(2), 164–
167. doi:10.1080/09613210010016848
Foxall, G., & Hackett, P. (1994). Consumer Satisfaction with Birmingham ’ s International Convention Centre. The Service
Industries Journal, 14(3), 369–380.
Gill, Z. M., Tierney, ichael J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low-energy dwellings : the contribution of behaviours to actual
performance. Building Research & Information, 38(5), 491–508. doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.505371
Goh, A. T., & Ahmad, Y. (2012). Public Low-Cost Housing In Malaysia : Case Studies On Ppr Low-Cost Flats In Kuala Lumpur.
Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved from fbe.um.edu.myimagesfabFilesjdbevol8vol8-01.pdf MALAYSIA
Government of Malaysia. (1996). Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996-2000). Jabatan Percetakan Negara, Kuala Lumpur.
Government of Malaysia. (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010). Jabatan Percetakan Negara, Kuala Lumpur.
Hassanain, M. A. (2007). Post-Occupancy Indoor Environmental Quality Evaluation of Student Housing Facilities. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 3(4), 249–256.
Husin, H. N., Nawawi, A. H., Ismail, F., & Khalil, N. (2012). Preliminary Survey of Integrated Safety Elements into Post
Occupancy Evaluation for Malaysia ’ s Low Cost Housing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36(June 2011), 583–
590. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.064
Idrus, N., & Ho, C. S. (2008). Affordable And Quality Housing Through The Low Cost Housing Provision In Malaysia. In Seminar
of Sustainable Development and Governance, Department of Civil Engineering, and Architecture, Toyohashi University of
Technology, 26 June 2008 (pp. 1–21).
248 Husrul Nizam Husin et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168 (2015) 238 – 248

Junaidi, A. B., Fauzi, R., & Ghazali, A. S. (2012). Penilaian awal impak perlaksanaan Dasar Perumahan Negara terhadap sektor
perumahan di Kuala Lumpur. GEOGRAFIA Online Malaysia Journal of Society and Space, 6(6), 90–108.
Khalil, N., Husin, H. N., & Nawawi, A. H. (2012). An Analytical Literature: Strategic Improvement of Sustainable Building
Performance Tool for Malaysia’s Higher Institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36(June 2011), 306–313.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.034
Khalil, N., & Nawawi, A. H. (2008). Performance Analysis of Government and Public Buildings via Post Occupancy Evaluation.
Asian Social Science, 4(9), 103–112.
Kim, S. S. S., Yang, I. I. H., Yeo, M. M. S., & Kim, K. K. W. (2005). Development of a housing performance evaluation model for
multi-family residential buildings in Korea. Building and Environment, 40(8), 1103–1116. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.09.014
Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size. Educational and Psychological measurement, 38, 607–610.
Leaman, A., Stevenson, F., & Bordass, B. (2010). Building evaluation: practice and principles. Building Research & Information,
38(5), 564–577. doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.495217
Liu, A. M. M. (2003). The quest for quality in public housing projects : a behaviour-to-outcome paradigm. Construction
Management and Economics, 21, 147–158. doi:10.1080/0144619032000049700
Minami, K. (2007). A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Layout Changes Made to KEP Adaptable Housing. Journal of Asian
Architecture and Building Engineering (JAABE), 6(2), 245–250.
Mumovic, D., Davies, M., Ridley, I., Altamirano-Medina, H., & Oreszczyn, T. (2009). A methodology for post-occupancy
evaluation of ventilation rates in schools. Building Serv. Eng. Res. Technol., 30(2), 143–152.
Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowits, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company CRS Sirrine Houston, TX.
Preiser, Wolfgang F E, & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing Building Performance : Its Evolution From Post-Occupancy Evaluation.
Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 84–99.
Preiser, Wolfgang F.E. (2001). Feedback , feedforward and control : post-occupancy evaluation to the rescue. Building Research &
Information, 29(6), 456–459. doi:10.1080/09613210110072692
Stevenson, F., & Leaman, A. (2010). Evaluating housing performance in relation to human behaviour: new challenges. Building
Research & Information, 38(5), 437–441. doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.497282
Vischer, J. C. (2002). Chapter 3: Post Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifaced Tool for Building Improvement. (pp. 23–34). United
States of America: Federal Facilities Council, The National Academy Press.
Watson, C. (2003). Review Of Building Quality Using Post Occupancy Evaluation. Journal of the Programme on Educational
Building, (OECD, Paris). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from
http://www.postoccupancyevaluation.com/publications/pdfs/POE OECD V4.pdf
Watson, C. G. (1996). Evolving Design For Changing Values And Ways Of Life. In IAPS 14 Conference (pp. 1–10). Stockholm.
Way, M., & Bordass, B. (2005). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings – involving design and
building teams in improving performance. Building Research & Information, 33(4), 353–360.
doi:10.1080/09613210500162008
Yau, Y. (2006). The Safety Performance of Apartment Buildings : Empirical Evidence from Hong Kong [PhD Thesis]. The
University of Hong Kong.
Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Building Research & Information, 29(2),
168–174. doi:10.1080/09613210010016857