Successful implementation of bioclimatic design strategies not only reduces energy use, but more importantly increases the resident’s satisfaction. A post-occupancy evaluation, a form of survey method, was used in assessing the satisfaction and perception of residents in two residential colleges, at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Both Case Study A (CS-A) and Case Study B (CS-B) represent the uppermost and moderate implementation of bioclimatic design strategies. The results showed that 414 questionnaires were retrieved fully filled by occupants at CS-A while 155 respondents from CS-B returned their questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were asked to rate the levels of satisfaction and perception with various aspects of the building, including the immediate environment. A detailed survey on thermal comfort had also been done by adopting the predicted mean vote index. As initial findings, the implementations of bioclimatic design strategies at the selected residential colleges were able to provide comfort for the residents.
Khalil N, Husin HN, Nawawi AH, et al. Post occupancy evaluation for performance evaluation of building facilities in higher education buildings. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference SENVAR & 2nd ISESEE, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 1–3 December 2008, pp. 609–616.
2.
HwangTKimJT. Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20(1): 75–90.
3.
GouZLauSSChenF. Subjective and objective evaluation of the thermal environment in a three-star green office building in China. Indoor Built Environ2012; 21(3): 412–422.
4.
LeeTKChoSHKimJT. Residents’ adjusting behavior to enhance indoor environmental comfort in apartments. Indoor Built Environ2012; 21(1): 28–40.
5.
LeeYSGuerinDA. Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor Built Environ2009; 18(4): 293–300.
PreiserWFE. Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities1995; 13(11): 19–28.
8.
MalkocEOzkanMB. Post-occupancy evaluation of built environment: the case of Konak Square (Izmir, Turkey). Indoor Built Environ2010; 19(4): 422–434.
9.
SpataruCGillottMHallMR. Domestic energy and occupancy: a novel post-occupancy evaluation study. Int J Low Carbon Technol2010; 5(3): 148–157.
10.
LeeYS. Comparison of indoor air quality and thermal comfort quality between certification levels of LEED-certified buildings in USA. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20(5): 564–576.
11.
HassanainMASedkyAAdamuZA. A framework for quality evaluation of university housing facilities. J Build Apprais2010; 5: 213–221.
ZakariaAHamzahS. Sektor awam perlu bantu, Berita Harian, August 14, 2007, pp. 3–3.
14.
Turpin-BrooksSViccarsG. The development of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation. Facilities2006; 24(5/6): 177–196.
15.
HadjriKCrozierC. Post-occupancy evaluation: purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities2009; 27(1/2): 21–33.
16.
ZimmermanAMartinM. Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Build Res Inf2001; 29(2): 168–174.
17.
NawawiAHKhalilN. Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants’ satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings. J Build Apprais2008; 4: 59–69.
18.
RileyMKokkarinenNPittM. Assessing post occupancy evaluation in higher education facilities. J Facilities Manage2010; 8(3): 123–202.
19.
PreiserWFE. Feedback, feed forward and control: post occupancy evaluation to the rescue. Build Res Inf2001; 29(6): 456–459.
20.
YinRK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. London: Sage, 2003.
21.
GossauerEWagnerA. Post-occupancy evaluation and thermal comfort: state of the art and new approaches. ABER2007; 1: 151–175.
22.
BrunsgaardCHeiselbergPKnudstrupM. Evaluation of the indoor environment of comfort houses: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Indoor Built Environ2012; 21(3): 432–451.
23.
LiBTanMLiuH. Occupant’s perception and preference of thermal environment in free-running buildings in China. Indoor Built Environ2010; 19(4): 405–412.
24.
ChoSHLeeTKKimJT. Residents’ satisfaction of indoor environmental quality in their old apartment homes. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20(1): 16–25.
25.
GreenSDMossGW. Value management and post-occupancy evaluation: closing the loop. Facilities1998; 16(1/2): 34–39.
26.
IlesanmiAO. Post-occupancy evaluation and residents’ satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria. J Build Apprais2010; 6: 153–169.
JamaludinAAInangdaNAriffinARM. Energy performance: four different multi-residential building designs and forms in the equatorial region. Int J Renew Energy Res2012; 2(1): 13–22.
29.
JamaludinAAInangdaNAriffinARM. Energy performance of three residential college buildings in University of Malaya campus, Kuala Lumpur. J Des Built Environ2011; 9: 59–73.
30.
KhalilNHusinHN. Post occupancy towards indoor environment improvement in Malaysia’s office buildings. J Sustain Dev2009; 2(1): 186–191.
31.
NugrohoAMAhmadMHOssenDR. A preliminary study of thermal comfort in Malaysia’s single storey terraced houses. J Asian Architect Build Eng2007; 6(1): 175–182.
32.
YamaneT. Statistic, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
33.
HassanainMA. On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities. J Facilities Manage2008; 6(3): 212–225.
34.
ASHRAE 55-2010. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta, USA, ASHRAE, 2004.
35.
WangZZhangLZhaoJ. Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated residential buildings in Harbin. Energy Build2010; 42(12): 2406–2415.
36.
SinghMKMahapatraSAtreyaSK. Adaptive thermal comfort model for different climatic zones of North-East India. Appl Energy2011; 88(7): 2420–2428.
37.
AhmadSAKuala Lumpur: a hot humid climate. In: HydeR (ed.) Bioclimatic Housing: Innovative Designs for Warm Climates, UK: Earthscan, 2008, pp. 269–293.
YeangK. Ecodesign: A Manual for Ecological Design, London, UK: Wiley, 2008.
40.
LechnerN. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects, 3rd edn. New Jersey: Wiley, 2009.
41.
ChouPCCiangCMChuahYK. Effects of window position on the air flow distribution in a cross-ventilated residential bedroom. Indoor Built Environ1998; 7: 300–307.
42.
TangRMierIAWuT. Thermal performance of non air-conditioned buildings with vaulted roofs in comparison with flat roofs. Build Environ2006; 41(3): 268–276.
43.
DavisMPGhazaliMNordinNA. Thermal Comfort Honeycomb Housing: The Affordable Alternative to Terrace Housing, Selangor, Malaysia: Institute of Advance Technology, UPM, 2006.
44.
Chan SA. Green Building Index – MS1525: Applying MS1525:2007 Code for Practice on energy efficiency and use of renewable energy for non residential buildings: Paper presented at Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Seminar, Kuala Lumpur, 2009.
45.
JayasingheMTRAttalageRAJayawardenaAI. Roof orientation, roofing materials and roof surface colour: their influence on indoor thermal comfort in warm humid climates. Energy Sustain Dev2003; 7(1): 16–27.
46.
IsmailASamadMHARahmanAMA. Cooling potentials and CO2 uptake of Ipomoea Pes-caprae installed on the flat roof of a single storey residential building in Malaysia. Procedia Social Behav Sci2012; 35: 361–368.
47.
SinghMKMahapatraSAtreyaSK. Thermal monitoring and indoor temperature modelling in vernicluar buildings of North-East India. Energy Build2010; 42(10): 1610–1618.
48.
SinghMKMahapatraSAtreyaSK. Solar passive features in vernacular architecture of North-East India. Sol Energy2011; 85(9): 2011–2022.
49.
AlvaradoJLTerrellWJrJohnsonMD. Positive cooling system for cement-based roofs. Build Environ2009; 44(9): 1869–1875.
50.
KonyaAVandenbergM. Design Primer for Hot Climates, UK: Archimedia Press Limited, 2011.
51.
HydeR. Climate Responsive Design: A Study of Buildings in Moderate and Hot Humid Climates, New York: E&FN Spon, 2000.
52.
MooreF. Environmental Control Systems: Heating, Cooling, Lighting, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
