Upload
hazreena-hussein
View
32
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Residents Participation towards Sustainable Living: A Post Occupation Evaluation Study
Hazreena Hussein, PhD Adi Ainurzaman Jamaludin
AicE-Bs ‘Public Participation: Shaping a Sustainable Future’ 24 – 26 February 2014 Berlin
Introduction
Aim To promote
sustainable living through the efAiciency of
natural ventilated residential college buildings in UM.
Purpose
To justify the residents’ perception & satisfaction
Objective To evaluate on
performance criteria of building.
Bioclimatic Design
Integrate the disciplines of human physiology, climatology & building
physics (Olgyay, 1963)
Assist to eliminate negative environmental impact via skillful &
sensitive designs that encourage better use of building resources & signiAicant
operational savings (Yeang, 2008).
POE A process of evaluating building in a systematic & rigorous manner to indicate the satisfaction & comfort level needed by occupants as lessons learned to identify problems in
indoor environments (Khalil & Husin, 2009).
Begins with planning, conducting & applying phase in three levels : indicative, investigative & diagnostic level (Preiser, 1995).
BLOCK BCOURT/SPORT CENTRE/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA
CAFETERIA
FIELD/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA
PRAYER HALL/SURAU
BLOCK A
COURT/MULTIPURPOSE OPEN AREA
BLOCK C
STORE
COURT/MULTI-
PURPOSE OPEN AREA
ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK/OFFICE, LOBBY,
STUDENTS ACTIVITY CENTRE, DINING HALL,
KITCHEN
PARKING LOTS
SELF LAUNDRY ROOM & COVERED PARKING LOTS
PUMP HOUSE
PARKING LOTS/
MULTI-PURPOSE
OPEN AREA
STAFF RESIDENTIAL UNIT
STORE
PRINCIPAL UNIT
SEWAGE TANK
SEWAGE TANK
GUARD POST/MAIN ENTRANCE
RIMBA ILMU AREA
RIM
BA IL
MU
ARE
A
BLOCK E
BLOCK D
RIMBA ILMU AREA A
A
B B
SELF SERVICE CAR WASH
Site elevation A-‐A
Ø Est. 1966 Ø Form of building : Low-‐rise Ø Layout : Courtyard arrangement Ø Orientation : North-‐South Ø Shape : Rectangle Ø Area : 43,185.06 m2
Ø Built up area : 16,971.02 m2
Ø Floor area : 18,212.51 m2
Ø Capacity & Density : 847 & 0.047 Ø Room’s Hloor area : 16.35 m2
Ø Room’s volume : 45.78 m3
Ø Window area & WWR : 6.41 m2 & 0.66 Ø EEI : 34.52 kWh/m2/year compared to other RCs:
40 to 125 kWh/m2/year (Jamaludin et al., 2013). Ø The best practice of bioclimatic design
strategies esp. natural ventilation & daylighting (Jamaludin et al., 2013; In press)
Dayasari Residential College
Site elevation B-‐B
Implem
entation of Design
Wall opening inside the room
Internal courtyard
Fixed opening / Transom
Centre pivot and awning windows
Overhangs along the windows
Landscape Setting
BLOCK BCOURT/SPORT CENTRE/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA
CAFETERIA
FIELD/MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN AREA
PRAYER HALL/SURAU
BLOCK A
COURT/MULTIPURPOSE OPEN AREA
BLOCK C
STORE
COURT/MULTI-
PURPOSE OPEN AREA
ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK/OFFICE, LOBBY,
STUDENTS ACTIVITY CENTRE, DINING HALL,
KITCHEN
PARKING LOTS
SELF LAUNDRY ROOM & COVERED PARKING LOTS
PUMP HOUSE
PARKING LOTS/
MULTI-PURPOSE
OPEN AREA
STAFF RESIDENTIAL UNIT
STORE
PRINCIPAL UNIT
SEWAGE TANK
SEWAGE TANK
GUARD POST/MAIN ENTRANCE
RIMBA ILMU AREA
RIM
BA
ILM
U A
REA
BLOCK E
BLOCK D
RIMBA ILMU AREA
SELF SERVICE CAR WASH
M
P
Q
P
ANB
O
NAO
K
J
AQ
AM
R
J
GAM
H
LI
HAM
AP
AM
M
E
L
AP
AM
E
F
E
AO
Q
AN
B
AAN
AI
S
O
J
AR
U
G
AS
T
G AM
AN
AF
D
DC
G
G
O
AL
G
AH
AA
AG
O
L
J
AQ
AS
AK
U
AN
AJ
AT
QAT
ANP
VAG
AN
W
J
Q
X
Y Z W
AN
Q
P
AN
AN
AD
X
AD
AS
L
A
AE
AC
LAK
N
P
H
AB
AS
AB
HAP
H
§ 5 performance criteria: architectural elements, visual comfort, acoustic comfort, landscape elements and combination of thermal comfort and indoor air quality.
§ 13 questions on a ?ive-‐point Likert
scale: § -‐2: very poor/ very uncomfortable/ much
decrease/ very hot/ still air/ too dark/ very dissatisAied/ very noisy.
§ -‐1: poor/ uncomfortable/ decreased/ hot/ inconspicuous still air/ dark/ dissatisAied/ noisy.
§ 0: fair/ neither/ neutral/ no changes. § +1: good/ comfortable/ increased/ cool/ breezy/
bright/ satisAied/ quiet. § +2: very good/ very comfortable/ much
increased/ very cool/ very breezy/ too bright/ very satisAied/ very quiet.
§ Analysed by using Statistical Software Package to Aind out the frequency of responses and the inter-‐correlation between each performance criteria.
Experimental Procedure The degree of satisfaction for each
performance criteria based on graduate scale: “+2” with 5 points, “+1” with 4 points, “0” with 1 point, “-‐1” with 3 points and “-‐2” with 2 points. In order to obtain the mean value, the multiplication sum will be divided by 100. § If the mean response is ≤ to 1.49, the respondents are
considered “fair, neither, neutral, no changes”. § If the mean response is between 1.50 and 2.49, the
respondents are considered “very poor, very uncomfortable, much decreased, very hot, still air, too dark, very dissatisZied, very noisy”.
§ If the mean response is between 2.50 and 3.49, the respondents are considered “poor, uncomfortable, decreased, hot, inconspicuous still air, dark, dissatisZied, noisy”.
§ If the mean response is between 3.50 and 4.49, the respondents are considered “good, comfortable, increased, cool, breezy, bright, satisZied, quiet”.
§ If the mean response is between 4.50 and 5.00, the respondents are considered “very good, very comfortable, much increased, very cool, very breezy, too bright, very satisZied, very quiet”.
Minimum number of feedbacks relying on 95% con?idence level and ±5% margin of error from the overall population. Research limitation :
§ Each block has a different landscape setting. Thus, feedbacks by the respondents were in the general manner.
Results
Performance criteria Likert scale / Residents’ perceptions (%) Mean Overall rating of residents’ satisfaction -2 -1 0 +1 +2
Architectural elements
1. Residential building layout (internal courtyard with open corridor) 0.4 8.7 28.7 Good 12.1 3.17 Poor 50.2
2. Overall quality of the residential building 1.1 6.0 28.7 Good 12.1 3.18 Poor 52.1
3. Overall comfort level of the room 0.8 4.5 29.1 Comfortable 12.1 3.19 Uncomfortable 53.6
4. Influence of room conditions on the degree of work productivity 0.8 4.5 26.8 Increased 18.5 3.32 Decreased 49.4
Thermal comfort and indoor air quality
5. Thermal comfort/indoor air temperature in the room 3.4 11.7 29.7 Cool 11.7 3.05 Hot 43.6
6. Ventilation and air quality of the room 1.9 13.4 29.8 Good 8.8 3.03 Poor 46.2
7. Air movement in the room (without the aid of mechanical fan) 13.7 22.1 26.7 Breezy 6.5 2.77 Inconspicuous still air 30.9
Visual comfort
8. Adequacy of natural daylight in the room 4.2 12.0 34.4 Bright 8.5 2.85 Dark 40.9
9. Adequacy of artificial light in the room 1.1 8.8 35.1 Bright 8.8 2.93 Dark 46.2
10. Quality of the lights in the room 1.5 7.7 28.8 Satisfied 13.5 3.16 Dissatisfied 48.5
Acoustic comfort
11. Noise/vibration level in the room 2.7 15.6 Neither 33.6 6.5 2.61 Noisy 41.6
Landscape elements
12. Landscape quality at the surrounding residential building 1.5 8.0 33.7 Good
8.0 2.63 Poor 48.7
13. Landscape setting quality in the internal courtyard 1.5 6.1 35.9 Good 7.6 2.91 Poor 48.9
Building layout
Overall quality of building
Thermal comfort
Ventilation & air quality
Air movement
Natural daylight
Artificial light Light quality
Noise/ vibration level
Landscape quality
Internal courtyard quality
Overall comfort
Pearson correlation .284** .354** .409** .432** .250** .328** .242** .308** .276** .337** .288**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Work productivity
Pearson correlation .192** .246** .336** 311** .239** .135* .268** .268** .230** .236** .125
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .003 .000 .000 .039 .000 .000 .003 .000 .052
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Discussion Ø 266 respondents, 39.6%: male & 60.4%: female.
Ø Majority of residents are satisHied and comfortable with the condition of the room & building (except the acoustic comfort – neither).
Ø Degree of satisfaction based on the graduate scale: DissatisHied & uncomfortable.
Ø ‘Moderate’ or ’weak’ relationship showed by all performance criteria in both relationship; overall comfort level and degree of work productivity.
To evaluate on performance criteria of building
Ø The practice of bioclimatic design strategies at a residential college building has a signi?icant impact on the perception & satisfaction level of the residents in a positive manner.
Ø There is a room for improvement when the overall ratings of residents’ satisfaction; which was based on graduated scale, have shown otherwise.
Objective Method Conclusions
Post Occupancy Evaluation (Questionnaire based on a Aive-‐point Likert scale)
Conclusions &
Recommendations
Ø POE should integrate more than one of the data collection methods.
Ø The number of respondents that must exceed the minimum number of feedbacks which relying on 95% of conAident level and ±5% margin of error from the overall population.
Ø POE should use language and phrases that are easily to be understood.
Ø For comparison, other residential colleges should be included.
Recommendations
Thank You
"We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us." -‐ Winston Churchill