Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05
  • 2024-06
  • 2024-07
  • 2024-08
  • 2024-09
  • 2024-10

    • In view of the benefits highlighted

    2018-10-22

    In view of the benefits highlighted in the preceding paragraph, BPE has continued to receive enormous research attention, especially in the developed countries as Meir et al. (2009) indicated. However, the existing studies on BPE focus more on office than residential buildings (see Gossauer, 2005; Menzies and Wherrette, 2005; Pfafferott et al., 2007; Morhayim and Meir, 2008; Wagner et al., 2007; Khalil and Husin, 2009). We find in the literature that in the last few decades, much progress has been made in developing different BPE tools and approaches (see O\'Sullivan et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2005; Khair et al., 2012). The main categories of approaches to BPE, which have been presented in more detail in Khair et al. (2012), include those approaches that focus on the (i) functional suitability of buildings that is space utilisation, physical condition, safety and statutory requirements; (ii) quality assessment of buildings; (iii) serviceability of building with respect to occupants\' needs and facilities provided; (iv) environmental performance in terms of indoor environmental quality, air quality, intrusion, control, appearance and lighting; (v) p-Cresyl sulfate consumption and indoor air quality; (vi) user satisfaction with the design and construction of and services in building; (vii) post occupancy evaluation (POE) of technical, functional and behavioural aspect of buildings. A wide range of tools have also been developed for each of these approaches (see O\'Sullivan et al., 2004; Khair et al., 2012). Similarly, much research work has also gone into the development of building performance indicators (BPIs) in the last few decades. Hasselaar (2003) quoted in Kim et al. (2005) noted that an indicator is a sign that points to a condition to be measured, in order to evaluate specific qualities and performances. In the context of building, Preiser (1999) was of the view that BPIs should be derived from values held by individuals, groups, organisations or entire society who are stakeholders in the building industry; meaning that the criteria for measuring the performance of buildings should be derived from how people see their buildings and the importance they attach to them. This appears to be in line with the proposition by Fatoye and Odusami (2009) that at the inception of building occupation; residents build various expectations on the performance of their building, in terms of the benefits it will provide and the needs it should meet. The implication of the foregoing is that building may be perceived by same people differently at different times, or differently by different people at same time, and that the expectations of building users and the community are diverse and vary among individuals and groups. In order to capture the feelings and expectations of all categories of users in the course of evaluating the performance of buildings, Kian et al. (2001) and Kim et al. (2005) on one hand suggested the adoption of six BPIs, namely; spatial (functional) comfort, indoor air quality, visual comfort, thermal comfort, acoustic comfort and building integrity (structural and material performance). Meir et al. (2009) on the other hand argued that since BPE is based on the concept of building-users\' experience, BPIs should be based on parameters related to thermal comfort such as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning; illumination and visual comfort; occupants\' satisfaction and behaviour as well as physiological and psychological comfort of users. From the above, a number of inferences can be made. Firstly, BPE can follow different approaches and diverse tools and indicators can be used. Secondly, the expectations of users and the community with respects to buildings are diverse and can be measured in the terms of performance indicators. Lastly, the different approaches to BPE, tools and indicators used contribute to policy, practice and research when they focus on issues related to users\' satisfaction and the sustainability of buildings and the surrounding physical and socio-economic environment.