Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) by using a set of questionnaire was conducted to assess the perception and comfort level required by residents in a college building with the best practice of bioclimatic design strategies, particularly natural ventilation and daylighting. The questionnaire was based on a five-point Likert scale, covering various performance criteria of building, specifically on the architectural elements, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, visual comfort, acoustic comfort and landscape elements. The initial outcomes showed a positive relationship between perceptions and building performance criteria.

1. 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

2. 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).

3. BLOCK B
COURT/
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
RIMBAILMUAREA
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

4. Implementation
of
Design
Wall
opening
inside
the
room
Internal
courtyard
Fixed
opening
/
Transom
Centre
pivot
and
awning
windows
Overhangs
along
the
windows

5. Landscape
Setting
BLOCK B
COURT/
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
RIMBAILMUAREA
BLOCK E
BLOCK D
RIMBA ILMU AREA
SELF
SERVICE
CAR
WASH
M
P
Q
P
AN
B
O
NAO
K
J
AQ
AM
R
J
G
AM
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
D
C
G
G
O
AL
G
AH
AA
AG
O
L
J
AQ
AS
AK
U
AN
AJ
AT
Q
AT
AN
P
V
AG
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
H
AP
H

6. § 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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

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