Advertisement

Occupants’ satisfaction toward building environmental quality: structural equation modeling approach

  • Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman
  • C. O. Egbu
  • Emma Marinie Ahmad Zawawi
  • Saipol Bari Abd Karim
  • Chen Jia Woon
Article

Abstract

It is accepted that occupants who are more satisfied with their workplace’s building internal environment are more productive. The main objective of the study was to measure the occupants’ level of satisfaction and the perceived importance of the design or refurbishment on office conditions. The study also attempted to determine the factors affecting the occupants’ satisfaction with their building or office conditions. Post-occupancy evaluations were conducted using a structured questionnaire developed by the Built Environment Research Group at the University of Manchester, UK. Our questionnaires incorporate 22 factors relating to the internal environment and rate these in terms of “user satisfaction” and “degree of importance.” The questions were modified to reflect the specific setting of the study and take into consideration the local conditions and climate in Malaysia. The overall mean satisfaction of the occupants toward their office environment was 5.35. The results were measured by a single item of overall liking of office conditions in general. Occupants were more satisfied with their state of health in the workplace, but they were extremely dissatisfied with the distance away from a window. The factor analysis divided the variables into three groups, namely intrusion, air quality, and office appearance. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was then used to determine which factor had the most significant influence on occupants’ satisfaction: appearance. The findings from the study suggest that continuous improvement in aspects of the building’s appearance needs to be supported with effective and comprehensive maintenance to sustain the occupants’ satisfaction.

Keywords

Occupant satisfaction Internal factor environment Structural equation modeling Factor analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the High Impact Research (HIR) grant, no. UM.C/625/1/HIR/ASH/013, established at the University of Malaya.

References

  1. Al-Sabha, A. N. (2004). A guide to thermal comfort environment. Rafidain Journal of Science, 16(1), 105–111. Physics, Special Issue.Google Scholar
  2. ANSI/ASHRAE. (2010). Standard 55–2010: thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.Google Scholar
  3. Aries, M. B. C., Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass, B., Economou, V., Christina, K. K. L., Perks, T., Suzanne, A. S., & Yip, Q. (2003). The interaction between physical and social-psychological factors in indoor environmental health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 85(2), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bluyssen, P. M., & Cox, C. (2002). Indoor environment quality and upgrading of European office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 34(2), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (p. 1989). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newsbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Clement-Croome, D. J., Awbi, H. B., Bako-Biro, Z., Kochhar, N., & Williams, M. (2008). Ventilation rates in schools. Building and Environment, 43, 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Giulio, M., Grande, R., di Campli, E., di Bartolomeo, S., & Cellini, L. (2010). Indoor air quality in university environments. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 170, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fanger, P. O. (1970). Thermal comfort. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press.Google Scholar
  14. Frontczak, M., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E., Zhang, H., & Wargocki, P. (2012). Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air, 22(2), 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groth, A. (2007). Climatic and non climatic aspect of indoor environment. Energy Efficiency Building Design Guidelines for Botswana, 6-9.Google Scholar
  16. Havenith, G. (1999). Heat balance when wearing protective clothing. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 43(5), 289–296. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4878(99)00051-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang, L., Zhu, Y., Qin, O., & Cao, B. (2012). A study on the defects of thermal, luminous and acoustic environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices. Building and Environment, 49, 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamaruzzaman, S. N., & Sabrani, N. A. (2011). The effect of indoor air quality (IAQ) towards occupants’ psychological performance in office buildings. Journal of Design + Built, 4, 49–61.Google Scholar
  19. Kamaruzzaman, S. N., Egbu, C. O., Emma, M. A. Z., Azlan, S. A., & Adi, I. C. (2011). The effect of indoor environmental quality on occupants perception of performance: A case study of refurbished historic buildings in Malaysia. Energy and Buildings, 43, 407–413.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, J., de Dear, R., Candido, C., Zhang, H., & Arens, E. (2013). Gender differences in office occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ). Building and Environment, 70, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuo, N. W., Chiang, H. C., & Chiang, C. M. (2008). Development and application of an integrated indoor air quality audit to an international hotel building in Taiwan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 147(1–3), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levermore, G. J., Lowe, D., & Ure, J. (1999). Occupant feedback questionnaire producing a fingerprint and a score. ASHRAE Transactions, 105(2), 661–670.Google Scholar
  23. Malone, P. S., & Lubansky, J. B. (2012). Preparing Data for structural equation modeling: doing your homework. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. McCullough, E. A., Eckels, S., & Harms, C. (2009). Determining temperature ratings for children’s cold weather clothing. Applied Ergonomics, 40(5), 870–877. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2008.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ncube, M., & Riffat, S. (2012). Developing an indoor environment quality tool for assessment of mechanically ventilated office buildings in the UK—a preliminary study. Building and Environment, 53, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowits, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  27. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: a resource for social scientist and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: a skill-building approach (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Shuang, G.W., Kamaruzzaman, S.N. & Zulkifli, N. (2014). Occupants’ perception on indoor performance of historical museum: a case study of National Museum and Perak Museum, Malaysia. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Dubai (UAE).Google Scholar
  30. Wolkoff, P. (2013). Indoor air pollutants in office environments: assessment of comfort, health, and performance. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 216(4), 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zimring, C. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation and implicit theories of organizational decision-making. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association- Pomona, CA. 277280.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman
    • 1
  • C. O. Egbu
    • 2
  • Emma Marinie Ahmad Zawawi
    • 3
  • Saipol Bari Abd Karim
    • 4
  • Chen Jia Woon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of the Built EnvironmentUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.School of the Built Environment and ArchitectureLondon South Bank UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.Faculty of Architecture, Planning and SurveyingUniversiti Teknologi MARAShah AlamMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of the Built EnvironmentUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations