Abstract
Measuring occupant satisfaction and collecting feedback is critical for evaluating building performance, shaping comfort, effective decision-making in building improvements, and consequently enhancing the well-being of occupants. Numerous post-occupancy evaluation tools have been developed for examining occupant satisfaction in different building types; however, they are criticized in the recent studies for failing to (1) empirically examine the interrelated influence of a broad range of factors on occupant satisfaction, (2) include expert opinion from the industry in the indicator determination process, (3) collect contextual information along with the feedback in real-time and in a continuous manner and (4) provide effective mechanisms to integrate occupant feedback in the building models to enable visualization and performing queries on feedback items. The purpose of this paper is to develop an occupant satisfaction measurement model for monitoring the perceived performance of office buildings. A hierarchical structural model was developed based on the literature review, analysis of occupant feedback records in office buildings, and focus group meetings with facility managers to determine the constructs of occupant satisfaction. This model was empirically validated via structural equation modeling (SEM) using the survey data collected from 300 office occupants. The proposed SEM model, which adopts a total of 27 indicators across six dimensions, is found to be highly satisfactory indicating a strong association between dimensions and occupant satisfaction. The findings emphasize that building design and facility service dimensions need to be considered along with physical comfort dimensions when determining occupant satisfaction. The main contribution of the paper is the empirically validated, holistic, SEM model of occupant satisfaction, which is developed based on current practice and industry practitioners’ feedback and integrates building design and facility services with physical comfort dimensions. In the following phase of the research, the developed occupant satisfaction measurement model was used as the basis for designing a prototype, which enables decision-makers to collect occupant feedback continuously and integrate it with building information modeling to visualize and perform queries on feedback items. Eventually, this measurement model is expected to contribute to making more effective decisions based on the actual performance of the facility in the post-occupancy phase and enhance building performance as well as occupant well-being and productivity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Materials
Some data generated or used during the study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions (i.e., anonymized survey data).
References
Höppe, P.: Different aspects of assessing indoor and outdoor thermal comfort. Energy Build. 34(6), 661–665 (2002)
Newsham, G.R.; Veitch, J.A.; Hu, Y.: Effect of green building certification on organizational productivity metrics. Build. Re. Inf. 46(7), 755–766 (2018)
Lee, S.: Expectations of employees toward the workplace and environmental satisfaction. Facilities 24, 343–353 (2006)
Jazizadeh, F.; Ghahramani, A.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Kichkaylo, T.; Orosz, M.: User-led decentralized thermal comfort driven HVAC operations for improved efficiency in office buildings. Energy Build. 70, 398–410 (2014)
Kosonen, R.; Ahola, M.; Villberg, K.; Takki, T.: Perceived IEQ conditions: why the actual percentage of dissatisfied persons is higher than standards indicate? In: Abdul-Wahab, S. (ed.) Sick Building Syndrome, pp. 75–88. Springer, Berlin (2011)
Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Mazroei, A.; Katafygiotou, M.; Elsarrag, E.: Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the literature. Build. Environ. 105, 369–389 (2016)
Wargocki, P.; Wyon, D.P.; Baik, Y.K.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.O.: Perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different pollution loads. Indoor Air 9(3), 165–179 (1999)
Frontczak, M.; Schiavon, S.; Goins, J.; Arens, E.; Zhang, H.; Wargocki, P.: Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air 22(2), 119–131 (2012)
Korkmaz, S.; Messner, J.I.; Riley, D.R.; Magent, C.: High-performance green building design process modeling and integrated use of visualization tools. J. Architect. Eng. 16(1), 37–45 (2010)
Preiser, W.F.: Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities 13(11), 19–28 (1995)
Preiser, W.F.: The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: toward building performance and universal design evaluation. In: Learning from Our Buildings A State-of-the Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 145, pp. 9–12. The National Academies Press, Washington (2001)
Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.; Choi, J.; Kampschroer, K.; Powell, K.; Atkinson, M.; Heerwagen, J.: The value of post-occupancy evaluation for building occupants and facility managers. Intell. Build. Int. 1(4), 249–268 (2009)
Choi, J.; Lee, K.: Investigation of the feasibility of POE methodology for a modern commercial office building. Build. Environ. 143, 591–604 (2018)
Azar, E.; Menassa, C.: Optimizing the performance of energy-intensive commercial buildings: Occupancy-focused data collection and analysis approach. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 30(5), C4015002 (2016)
Mallory-Hill, S.; Preiser, W.F.; Watson, C.G.: Enhancing Building Performance. Wiley, New York (2012)
Bluyssen, P.M.; Aries, M.; van Dommelen, P.: Comfort of workers in office buildings: the European HOPE project. Build. Environ. 46(1), 280–288 (2011)
Hanc, M.; McAndrew, C.; Ucci, M.: Conceptual approaches to wellbeing in buildings: a scoping review. Build. Res. Inf. 476(6), 767–783 (2019)
Khoshbakht, M.; Gou, Z.; Xie, X.; He, B.; Darko, A.: Green building occupant satisfaction: Evidence from the Australian higher education sector. Sustainability 10(8), 2890 (2018)
Ilter, D.; Tekce, I.; Ergen, E.; Seyis, S.: Toward an occupant satisfaction measure for office building retrofits. In: CIB World International Congress, Volume V—Advancing Products and Services. Tampere University of Technology, Finland (2016)
Li, P.; Froese, T.M.; Brager, G.: Post-occupancy evaluation: state-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Build. Environ. 133, 187–202 (2018)
Bordass, B.; Cohen, R.; Standeven, M.; Leaman, A.: Assessing building performance in use 3: energy performance of the Probe buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 114–128 (2001)
Carlopio, J.R.: Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction questionnaire. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1(3), 330 (1996)
Choi, S.; Guerin, D.A.; Kim, H.Y.; Brigham, J.K.; Bauer, T.: Indoor environmental quality of classrooms and student outcomes: a path analysis approach. J. Learn. Spaces 2(2), 2013–2014 (2014)
Jazizadeh, F.; Kavulya, G.; Klein, L.; Becerik-Gerber, B.: Continuous sensing of occupant perception of indoor ambient factors. In: Proceedings of Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 161–168 (2011)
Coates, P.; Arayici, Y.; Ozturk, Z.: New concepts of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) utilizing BIM benchmarking techniques and sensing devices. In: Proceedings of Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, pp. 319-–329 (2012)
Gocer, O.; Hua, Y.; Gocer, K.: Completing the missing link in building design process: enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building performance. Build. Environ. 89, 14–27 (2015)
Ergen, E.; Kula, B.; Guven, G.; Artan, D.: Formalization of occupant feedback and integration with BIM. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. (accepted for publication). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000940
CBE: Center for the Built Environment homepage (2020). https://cbe.berkeley.edu/research/occupant-survey-and-building-benchmarking/. Accessed 15 May 2020
Bordass, W.; Leaman, A.: Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: a portfolio of feedback techniques. Build. Res. Inf. 33(4), 347–352 (2005)
Veitch, J.A.; Charles, K.E.; Farley, K.M.J.; Newsham, G.R.: A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 177–189 (2007)
Kim, J.; de Dear, R.: Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall workspace satisfaction. Build. Environ. 49, 33–40 (2012)
Candido, C.; Jungsoo Kim, J.; Richard de Dear, R.; Thomas, L.: BOSSA: a multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation tool. Build. Res. Inf. 44(2), 214–228 (2016)
Charles, K. E.; Veitch, J. A.; Farley, K. M. J.; Newsham, G. R.: Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 3. Further scale validation (IRC-RR-152). Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction. (2003), Cited February 16 2019. from https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/fulltext/?id=b78e9748-f264-4b66-bc99-7a8e2648e515. Accessed 16 Feb 2019
Hua, Y.: Understanding POE for future building practices. Intell. Build. Int. 5(3), 133–134 (2013)
Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Egbu, C.O.; Zawawi, E.M.A.; Karim, S.B.A.; Woon, C.J.: Occupants’ satisfaction toward building environmental quality: structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187(5), 242 (2015)
Parkinson, A.T.; Reid, R.; McKerrow, H.; Wright, D.: Evaluating positivist theories of occupant satisfaction: a statistical analysis. Build. Res. Inf. 46(4), 430–443 (2017)
Kojima, T.; Sakuma, T.; Nishihara, N.; Hayashi, T.; Munakata, J.: Causal modeling between workplace productivity and workers’ satisfaction with various spaces in office buildings. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 16(2), 409–415 (2017)
Zhang, Z.: The effect of library indoor environments on occupant satisfaction and performance in Chinese universities using SEMs. Build. Environ. 150, 322–329 (2019)
Sakellaris, I.; Saraga, D.; Mandin, C.; Roda, C.; Fossati, S.; De Kluizenaar, Y.; Szigeti, T.: Perceived indoor environment and occupants’ comfort in European modern office buildings: The OFFICAIR study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13(5), 444 (2016)
Usable Buildings Trust.: Retrieved from Usable Buildings: http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/ (2011). Accessed 16 Dec 2019
Carlopio, J.: The development of a human factors satisfaction questionnaire. In: Brown Jr., O., Hendrick, H.W. (eds.) Human Factors in Organisational Design and Management, pp. 559–566. Elsevier, New York (1986)
Stokols, D.; Scharf, F.: Developing standardized tools for assessing employees’ ratings of facility performance. In: Davis, G., Ventre, F.T. (eds.) Performance of Buildings and Serviceability of Facilities, pp. 55–68. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1990)
Marans, R.W.; Yan, X.: Lighting quality and environmental satisfaction in open and enclosed offices. J. Arch. Plan. Res. 6, 118–131 (1989)
Alexi Marmot Associates.: AMA workware toolkit: case study department of health office. Retrieved from Usable Buildings.: http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/rp/OutputFiles/PdfFiles/AMADoH.pdf (2004). Accessed 16 Dec 2019
Levermore, G.: Occupants’ assessments of indoor environments: questionnaire and rating scale methods. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 15(2), 113–118 (1994)
EPA: Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation Study Home Page (2020), https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/building-assessment-survey-and-evaluation-study. Accessed Mar 2019
Cohen, R.; Standeven, M.; Bordass, B.; Leaman, A.: Assessing building performance in use 1: the PROBE process. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 85–102 (2001)
Bischof, W.; Bullinger, M.: Indoor conditions and well-being: interim results from the ProKlima study. Indoor Built Environ. 7, 232–233 (1998)
de Dear, R.; Brager, G.: Cooper, D.: Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. Sydne: Final Report, ASHRAE RP-884. ASHRAE (1997)
McCartney, K.; Nicol, F.: Developing an adaptive control algorithm for Europe. Energy Build. 34(6), 623–635 (2002)
Gann, D.; Salter, A.; Jennifer, Whyte J.: Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Build. Res. Inf. 31(5), 318–333 (2003)
Bluyssen, P.; Cox, C.: indoor environment quality and upgrading of european office buildings. Energy Build. 34, 155–162 (2002)
Swanke Hayden Connell Architects.: OPN Workplace Evaluation Survey. Retrieved from Office Productivity Network: http://www.officeproductivity.co.uk/files/OPN%20Survey.pdf (2005). Accessed 16 Dec 2019
Toftum, J.; Wyon, D.; Svanekjar, H.; Lantner, A.: Remote Performance Measurement (RPM): A new, internet-based method for the measurement of occupant performance in office buildings. Proceedings of Indoor Air, (357-61). Beijing, China (2005)
Preiser, W.; Vischer, J.: Assessing Building Performance. Routledge, London (2006)
Aye L.; Charters W. W. S.; Chiazor M.; Robinson J. R. W.: Evaluation of occupant perception and satisfaction in two new office buildings. In: ANZSES 2005, The 43rd Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society Annual Conference, pp. 28–30 (2005)
Humphreys, M.A.: Quantifying occupant comfort: are combined indices of the indoor environment practicable? Build. Res. Inf. 33, 317–325 (2005)
ASTM Standards.: ASTM International. Retrieved from https://www.astm.org/ (2017). Accessed 16 Dec 2019
Hassanain, M.A.: Post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of student housing facilities. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 3(4), 249–256 (2007)
Wong, L.T.; Mui, K.W.; Hui, P.S.: A multivariate-logistic model for acceptance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in offices. Build. Environ. 43, 1–6 (2008)
Choi, J.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.: Analyses of IEQ and user satisfaction in 20 office buildings. In: Proceedings of PLEA—26th Conference on Passive and Low energy Architecture, Quebec, Canada, paper#: 2.3.14, (2009)
NABERS: Australian National Rating System for Environmental Performance of Australian Buildings homepage (2020). https://www.nabers.gov.au/.Cited. Accessed 1 June 2020
Maarleveld, M.; Volker, L.; Van Der Voordt, T.: Measuring employee satisfaction in new offices–the WODI toolkit. J. Fac. Manag. 7(3), 181–197 (2009)
Lai, A.C.K.; Mui, K.W.; Wong, L.T.; Law, L.Y.: An evaluation model for indoor environmental Quality (IEQ) acceptance in residential buildings. Energy Build. 41, 930–936 (2009)
Schakib-Ekbatan, K.; Wagner, A.;Lussac, C.: Occupant satisfaction as an indicator for the socio-cultural dimension of sustainable office buildings—development of an overall building index. In: Proceedings of Conference: Adapting to Change: New Thinking on Comfort (2010)
Cao, B.; Ouyang, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Huang, L.; Hu, H.; Deng, G.: Development of a multivariate regression model for overall satisfaction in public buildings based on field studies in Beijing and Shanghai. Build. Environ. 47, 394–399 (2012)
Newsham, G.; Birt, B.J.; Arsenault, C.; Thompson, A.J.L.; Veitch, J.; Mancini, S.; Galasiu, A.D.; Gover, B.N.; Macdonald, I.; Burns, G.J.: Do green buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Build. Res. Inf. 41, 415–434 (2013)
Joseph, A.; Quan, X.; Keller, A.; Taylor, E.; Nanda, U.; Hua, Y.: Building a knowledge base for evidence-based. Intell. Build. Int. 6(3), 155–169 (2014)
Palmer, J.; Armitage, P.: Innovate UK, building performance evaluation programme: Early findings from nondomestic projects. Innovate UK, London (2014)
Soccio, P.: A new post occupancy evaluation tool for assessing the indoor environment quality of learnıng environments. In: Evaluating Learning Environments Snapshots of Emerging, Issues, Methods and Knowledge, vol. 8, pp. 195–210. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/191747 (2016)
Leesman.: Leesman: Is your workplace working? Retrieved from Leesman Index: http://leesmanindex.com/ (2016). Accessed 16 Dec 2019
Lee, P.; Lee, B.; Jeon, J.; Zhang, M.; Kang, J.: Impact of noise on self-rated job satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: a structural equation modelling approach. Ergonomics 59(2), 222–234 (2016)
Frontczak, M.; Wargocki, P.: Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Build. Environ. 46(4), 922–937 (2011)
Esfandiari, M.; Zaid, S.M.; Ismail, M.A.; Aflaki, A.: Influence of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in green office buildings: a review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 56, 385–390 (2017)
Kline, R.B.: Principles And Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications, NY (2011)
Frontczak, M.; Andersen, R.V.; Wargocki, P.: Questionnaire survey on factors influencing comfort with indoor environmental quality in Danish housing. Build. Environ. 50, 56–64 (2012)
Huang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Ouyang, Q.; Cao, B.: A study on the effects of thermal, luminous, and acoustic environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices. Build. Environ. 49, 304–309 (2012)
ASHRAE, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (2013)._ Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy_(ANSI/ASHRAE Standard No. 55).
de Dear, R.J.; Brager, G.S.: Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: revisions to ASHRAE Standard 55. Energy Build. 34(6), 549–561 (2002)
Lovins, A.: Air-Conditioning Comfort: Behavioral and Cultural Issues. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, United States (1992)
Zhao, J.; Lam, K. P.; Loftness, V.; Ydstie, B. E.: Occupant individual thermal comfort data analysis in an office. In: First International Symposium on Sustainable Human–Building Ecosystems, pp. 108–116 (2015)
de Dear, R.J.; Brager, G.S.: Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Trans. 104(1), 145–167 (1998)
Wagner, A.; Gossauer, E.; Moosmann, C.; Gropp, T.; Leonhart, R.: Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field studies in German low energy office buildings. Energy Build. 39(7), 758–769 (2007)
Atmaca, I.; Kaynakli, O.; Yigit, A.: Effects of radiant temperature on thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 42, 3210–3220 (2007)
Jing, S.; Li, B.; Tan, M.; Liu, H.: Impact of relative humidity on thermal comfort in a warm environment. Indoor Built Environ. 22(4), 598–607 (2013)
Valančius, R.; Jurelionis, A.: Impact of temperature variation on energy consumption and productivity of the occupants in office buildings. Energetika 58(3), 141–147 (2012)
Fountain, M.E.; Arens, E.A.: Air movement and thermal comfort. ASHRAE J. 35(8), 26–30 (1993)
Wargocki, P.; Bako-Biro, Z.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.O.: Air quality in a simulated office environment as a result of reducing pollution sources and increasing ventilation. Energy Build. 34(8), 775–783 (2002)
Bluyssen, P.: Towards an integrative approach of improving indoor air quality. Build. Environ. 44(9), 1980–1989 (2009)
ASHRAE, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. _Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality_(ANSI/ASHRAE Standard No. 62.1 User’s Manual) (2016)
Wyon, D.P.: The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air 14(7), 92–101 (2004)
Szczurek, A.; Maciejewska, M.; Teuerle, M.; Wyłomańska, A.: Method to characterize collective impact of factors on indoor air. Physica A 420, 190–199 (2015)
EPA.: Home Page (2020). An Office Building Occupants Guide to Indoor Air Quality. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/office-building-occupants-guide-indoor-air-quality. Accessed 2018
Seppänen, O.; Fisk, W.J.; Lei, Q.: Ventilation and performance in office work. Indoor Air 16(1), 28–36 (2006)
Papadopoulos, A.M.; Avgelis, A.: Indoor environmental quality in naturally ventilated office buildings and its impact on their energy performance. Int. J. Vent. 2(3), 203–212 (2003)
Singh, A.; Syal, M.; Grady, S.C.; Korkmaz, S.: Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity. Am. J. Public Health 100(9), 1665–1668 (2010)
Cohen, S.; Weinstein, N.: Noise and Stress. In: Evans, G.W. (ed.) Environmental Stress. Cambridge University Press, New York (1982)
Sundstrom, E.; Town, J.P.; Rice, R.W.; Osborn, D.P.; Brill, M.: Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environ. Behav. 26(2), 195–222 (1994)
Jensen, K.; Arens, E.: Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assessed by occupant surveys. In: Indoor Air 2005: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Tsinghua University Press, China, pp. 2401–2405 (2005)
Sundstrom, E.; Sundstrom, M. G.; Eric, S.: Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. CUP Archive (1986)
Cowan, J.P.: Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Wiley, New York (1994)
Jakubiec, J.A.; Reinhart, C.F.: Predicting visual comfort conditions in a large daylit space based on long-term occupant evaluations: a field study. In: 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 3408–3415 (2013)
Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Katafygiotou, M.; Mazroei, A.; Kaushik, A.; Elsarrag, E.: Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: a review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5(1), 1–11 (2016)
Van Den Wymelenberg, K.; Inanici, M.: A critical investigation of common lighting design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos 10(3), 145–164 (2014)
Sakhare, V.V.; Ralegaonkar, R.V.: Indoor environmental quality: review of parameters and assessment models. Arch. Sci. Rev. 57(2), 147–154 (2014)
HarperCollins,: Collins Thesaurus of English Language-Complete and Unbridged, 2nd edn. HarperCollins, NY (2002)
Boubekri, M.: Daylighting Design: Planning Strategies and Best Practice Solutions. Birkhäuser, Germany (2014)
Aries, M.; Veitch, J.; Newsham, G.: Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J. Environ. Psychol. 30(4), 533–541 (2010)
Colenberg, S.; Jylhä, T.; Arkesteijn, M.: The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being—a literature review. Build. Res. Inf. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098
Lee, Y.S.: Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings. Build. Environ. 45(7), 1594–1600 (2010)
Candido, C.; Thomas, L.; Haddad, S.; Zhang, F.; Mackey, M.; Ye, W.: Designing activity-based workspaces: satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Build. Res. Inf. 47(3), 275–289 (2019)
Vischer, J.C.: The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers. Calif. Manag. Rev. 49(2), 62–79 (2007)
Miles, A. K.: The ergonomics and organizational stress relationship, Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University (2000)
Pastore, L.; Andersen, M.: Exploring the influence of contemporary facade design on occupant satisfaction: a preliminary study in office buildings. PLEA 2017 Design to Thrive, Edinburgh (2017)
ISO 2631-2. (2003). Mechanical vibration and shock—Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration—Part 2: Vibration in buildings.
Griffin, M.J.: Handbook of Human Vibration. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)
Schiavi, A.; Rossi, L.; Ruatta, A.: The perception of vibration in buildings: a historical literature review and some current progress. Build. Acoust. 23(1), 59–70 (2016)
Nawawi, A.H.; Khalil, N.: Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants’ satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings. J. Build. Apprais. 4(2), 59–69 (2008)
Arens, E.; Xu, T.; Miura, K.; Zhang, H.; Fountain, M.; Bauman, F.: A study of occupant cooling by personally controlled air movement. Environ. Build. 27(1), 45–59 (1998)
Brager, G.; Paliaga, G.; de Dear, R.: Operable windows, personal control, and occupant comfort. ASHRAE Trans. 110(2), 17–35 (2004)
Seshadhri, G.; Topkar, V.: Validation of a questionnaire for objective evaluation of performance of built facilities. J. Perform. Constr. Fac. 30(1), 4014191/1–4014191/7 (2014)
Brown, Z.; Cole, R.J.: Influence of occupants’ knowledge on comfort expectations and behaviour. Build. Res. Inf. 37(3), 227–245 (2009)
Galasiu, A.D.; Veitch, J.A.: Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy Build. 38(7), 728–742 (2006)
Kwon, S.H.; Chun, C.; Kwak, R.Y.: Relationship between quality of building maintenance management services for indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Build. Environ. 46(11), 2179–2185 (2011)
Amaratunga, D.; Baldry, D.; Sarshar, M.: Assessment of facilities management performance—what next? Facilities 18(1/2), 66–75 (2000)
Shaw, D.; Haynes, B.: An evaluation of customer perception of FM service delivery. Facilities 22(7/8), 170–177 (2004)
Edirisinghe, R.; London, K.A.; Kalutara, P.; Aranda-Mena, G.: Building information modelling for facility management: are we there yet? Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 24(6), 1119–1154 (2017)
Lai, A.W.; Lai, W.M.: Users’ satisfaction survey on building maintenance in public housing. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 20(4), 420–440 (2013)
Au-Yong, C.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, F.: Improving occupants’ satisfaction with effective maintenance management of HVAC system in office buildings. Autom. Constr. 43, 31–37 (2014)
Tenório, Alves; de Morais, G.; Casado Lordsleem Júnior, A.: Building maintenance management activities in a public institution. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 26(1), 85–103 (2019)
Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.C.: Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4(1), 7 (2000)
Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G.: A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Psychology Press, Hove (2004)
Carvalho, J.; Chima, F.O.: Applications of structural equation modeling in social sciences research. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 4(1), 6–11 (2014)
Raykov, T.; Marcoulides, G.A.: A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Struct. Equ. Model. 7(2), 292–308 (2000)
Bagozzi, R.; Yi, Y.: Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40(1), 8–34 (2012)
Kline, R.B.: Methodology in the Social Sciences. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York (2005)
Brown, T.A.: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. The Guilford Press, New York (2006)
Hoyle, R.H.: The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In: Hoyle, R.H. (ed.) Structural Equation modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)
Byrne, B.M.; Watkins, D.: The issue of measurement invariance revisited. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 34(2), 155–175 (2003)
Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey (2006)
Jöreskog, K.G.: A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 34(2), 183–202 (1969)
Werner, C.; Schermelleh-Engel, K.: Structural equation modeling: Advantages, challenges, and problems. Introduction to SEM with LISREL (2009).
Nunnally, J.: Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)
Tekçe, I.; Artan, D.; Ergen, E.: Ofis Binalarında Bina Yönetim Hizmetleri ve Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti—Facility Management Services and Occupant Satisfaction in Office Buildings, Uluslararası katılımlı 7. İnşaat Yönetimi Kongresi, Samsun (2017)
Artan, D.; Ergen, E.; Tekçe, I.: Acoustical comfort in office buildings. In: 7th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACEU 2019). Singapore, Berlin (2019)
Tekçe, I.; Artan, D.; Ergen, E.: An empirical study of visual comfort in office buildings. In: International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings & Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, 9–11 Sept, KES Virtual Conference Centre Platform (2020)
Bentler, P.; Yuan, K.: Structural equation modeling with small samples: test statistics. Multivar. Behav. Res. 34(2), 181–197 (1999)
Garver, M.S.; Mentzer, J.T.: Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J. Bus. Logist. 20(1), 33 (1999)
Dunn, S.C.; Seaker, R.F.; Waller, M.A.: Latent variables in business logistics research: scale development and validation. J. Bus. Logist. 15(2), 145 (1994)
Bentler, P.: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107(2), 238–246 (1990)
Byrne, B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Erlbaum, New Jersey (1998)
Marsh, H.W.; Balla, J.R.; McDonald, R.P.: Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychol. Bull. 103(3), 391 (1988)
Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R.: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 21(2), 230–258 (1992)
Garson, G. D.: Factor Analysis, from Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm. Accessed 24 April 2018. (2009)
Byrne, B.M.: A primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming For Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. Springer, New York (1989)
Cooper, R.D.; Schindler, P.S.: Business Research Methods, 8th edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Edition, New Delhi (2003)
Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C.: Analysis, Multivariate Data. Prentice Hall International. Inc, Upper Saddle River (1998)
Mardia, K.V.: Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57(3), 519–530 (1970)
Satorra, A.; Bentler, P.M.: Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: von Eye, A., Clogg, C.C. (eds.) Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research, pp. 399–419. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (1994)
Bollen, K.A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley, New York (1989)
Ratner, B.: Statistical and Machine-Learning Data Mining: Techniques for Better Predictive Modeling and Analysis of Big Data. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Cambridge (2017)
Yun, G.Y.; Kong, H.J.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.T.: A field survey of visual comfort and lighting energy consumption in open plan offices. Energy Build. 46, 146–151 (2012)
Van Duijnhoven, J.; Aarts, M.P.J.; Rosemann, A.L.P.; Kort, H.S.M.: Office lighting characteristics determining occupant’s satisfaction and health. Lighting for Modern Society: Proceedings of The Lux Europa, pp. 384–388 (2017)
Ryherd, E.E.; Wang, L.M.: AB-10-018: The effects of noise from building mechanical systems with tonal components on human performance and perception. ASHRAE Trans. 116(2), 540–552 (2010)
Evans, G.W.; Johnson, D.: Stress and open-office noise. J. Appl. Psychol. 85(5), 779 (2000)
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A.; Helenius, R.; Keskinen, E.; Hongisto, V.: Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices–longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics 52(11), 1423–1444 (2009)
Danielsson, C.B.: Office Experiences. In: Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P. (eds.) Product Experience. Elsevier, New York, pp. 605–628 (2008)
Berleant, A.: The environment as an aesthetic paradigm in art and philosophy: mutual connections and inspirations. Dialectics Humanism 1(2), 95 (1988)
Elsbach, K.D.; Bechky, B.A.: It’s more than a desk: working smarter through leveraged office design. Calif. Manag. Rev. 49(2), 80–101 (2007)
Vilnai-Yavetz, I.; Rafaeli, A.; Yaacov, C.S.: Instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism of office design. Environ. Behav. 37(4), 533–551 (2005)
Kim, J.; de Dear, R.: Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J. Environ. Psychol. 36, 18–26 (2013)
Lee, Y.S.; Guerin, D.A.: Indoor environmental quality differences between office types in LEED-certified buildings in the US. Build. Environ. 45(5), 1104–1112 (2010)
Veitch, J.A.; Charles, K.E.; Newsham, G.R.: Workstation design for the open-plan office IRC Ottawa, National Research Council of Canada (2004)
Rupp, R.F.; Vásquez, N.G.; Lamberts, R.: A review of human thermal comfort in the built environment. Energy Build. 105, 178–205 (2015)
Bluyssen, P.; Oliveira Fernandes, E.; Groes, L.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P.; Valbjorn, O.; Bernhard, C.; Roulet, C.: European indoor air quality audit project in 56 office buildings. Indoor Air 6(4), 221–238 (1996)
Humphreys, M.A.; Nicol, J.F.: Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal comfort. ASHRAE Trans. 104(1B), 1162 (1998)
Day, J.K.; Gunderson, D.E.: Understanding high performance buildings: the link between occupant knowledge of passive design systems, corresponding behaviors, occupant comfort and environmental satisfaction. Build. Environ. 84, 114–124 (2015)
Leaman, A.; Bordass, B.: Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 129–143 (2001)
Korkmaz, S.; Messner, J.; Riley, D.R.; ve Magent, C.: High-performance green building design process modeling and integrated use of visualization tools. J. Arch. Eng. 16(1), 37–45 (2010)
Bordass, B.: Learning more from our buildings-or just forgetting less? Build. Res. Inf. 31(5), 406–411 (2003)
Woo, J.H.; Menassa, C.: Virtual retrofit model for aging commercial buildings in a smart grid environment. Energ. Build. 80, 424–435 (2014)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank M. Can Özkan for his contribution to data collection.
Funding
This research was funded by a grant from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), under Grant No. 116M177. TUBITAK’s support is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendices
Appendix A. Questionnaire form
1.1 Section 1: Background
Name, Surname (optional):
Gender (optional):
Position:
Number of employees in the office:
1.2 Section 2: Occupant Satisfaction
How satisfied are you with the following criteria? Please indicate your satisfaction level.
Occupant Satisfaction Dimensions & Indicators | Questionnaire (1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied 3 = neutral 4 = satisfied 5 = very satisfied) | |
|---|---|---|
1 2 3 4 5 | ||
(TC) | Thermal Comfort | |
(TC1) | Temperature | How satisfied are you with the temperature in your office? |
(TC2) | Radiant temperature | How satisfied are you with the radiant temperature in your office? |
(TC3) | Relative humidity | How satisfied are you with the relative humidity in your office? |
(TC4) | Temperature variation | How satisfied are you with the temperature variation in your office? |
(TC5) | Air flow | How satisfied are you with the air flow in your office? |
(IAQ) | Indoor Air Quality | |
(IAQ1) | Fresh air amount | How satisfied are you with the fresh air amount/air quality (i.e., stuffy/stale air) in your office? |
(IAQ2) | Natural ventilation | How satisfied are you with the natural ventilation in your office? |
(IAQ3) | Odor | How satisfied are you with the odor (e.g. from air pollution, materials, WC, humidity) in your office? |
(AC) | Acoustical Comfort | |
(AC1) | Noise levels | How satisfied are you with the noise levels (e.g. outside, people, HVAC, lighting equipment, office equipment, background noise) in your office? |
(AC2) | Echo | How satisfied are you with the echo levels in your office? |
(AC3) | Acoustic privacy | How satisfied are you with the acoustic privacy in your office? |
(VC) | Visual Comfort | |
(VC1) | Daylighting | How satisfied are you with the amount of daylight in your office? |
(VC2) | Artificial lighting | How satisfied are you with artificial lighting (sufficiency, flickers) in your office? |
(VC3) | Glare | How satisfied are you with the glare levels (i.e., sun, sky, lights) in your office? |
(VC4) | Reflection | How satisfied are you with the reflection levels (e.g. on a computer screen, on reflective surfaces) in your office? |
(VC5) | Visual privacy | How satisfied are you with visual privacy in your office? |
(VC6) | View from window | How satisfied are you with the view from window in your office? |
(BD) | Building Design | |
(BD1) | Amount of space | How satisfied are you with the amount of space in your office? |
(BD2) | Layout | How satisfied are you with the layout (i.e., supports/barriers interaction, connections/distance between service spaces, degree of enclosure/layout of the workspace) in your building? |
(BD3) | Interior Design | How satisfied are you with the interior design (i.e., aesthetic, durability of materials, functionality, colors, patterns, greenery, customization, availability storage/meeting rooms) of your office? |
(BD4) | Furniture | How satisfied are you with the furniture (i.e., adjustability, ergonomy, comfort) of your office? |
(BD5) | Exterior design | How satisfied are you with the exterior design (i.e., image, accessibility) of the building? |
(BD6) | Vibration conditions | How satisfied are you with the vibration conditions (e.g. mechanical equipment, human activity, wind) of the building? |
(BS) | Building Services | |
(BS1) | Personal Control | How satisfied are you with the personal control options (i.e., windows, blinds, electronic appliances, heating/cooling/ventilation) of the building? |
(BS2) | Usability of control devices | How satisfied are you with the usability of control devices (e.g. availability and clarity of user manual and availability of fine-tuning options of control devices) of the building? |
(BS3) | Facility Management/Service Quality | How satisfied are you with the facility management/service quality (i.e., availability of amenities/facilities, safety, cleanliness of the building, complaint response rate/speed, waste management services, pest control services) of the building? |
(BS4) | Maintenance-Repair | How satisfied are you with the maintenance-repair services (i.e., maintenance and repair period and repairing leakage and cracks) of the building? |
(OS) | Overall Satisfaction from Office Building | All parameters considered, how do you rate the overall satisfaction of the office building environment? |
Appendix B. Intercorrelations
Correlations
TK1 | TK2 | TK3 | TK4 | TK5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TK1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .631** | .503** | .698** | .615** | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||
TK2 | Pearson Correlation | .631** | 1 | .544** | .612** | .521** | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||
TK3 | Pearson Correlation | .503** | .544** | 1 | .592** | .586** | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||
TK4 | Pearson Correlation | .698** | .612** | .592** | 1 | .640** | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||
TK5 | Pearson Correlation | .615** | .521** | .586** | .640** | 1 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
IHK1 | IHK2 | IHK3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IHK1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .664** | .540** | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | |||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||||
IHK2 | Pearson Correlation | .664** | 1 | .339** | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | |||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||||
IHK3 | Pearson Correlation | .540** | .339** | 1 | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | |||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 |
AK1 | AK2 | AK3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AK1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .608** | .520** | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | |||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||||
AK2 | Pearson Correlation | .608** | 1 | .428** | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | |||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | ||||
AK3 | Pearson Correlation | .520** | .428** | 1 | |||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | |||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 |
GK1 | GK2 | GK3 | GK4 | GK5 | GK6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GK1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .522** | .409** | .367** | .435** | .615** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
GK2 | Pearson Correlation | .522** | 1 | .636** | .570** | .391** | .435** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
GK3 | Pearson Correlation | .409** | .636** | 1 | .744** | .393** | .392** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
GK4 | Pearson Correlation | .367** | .570** | .744** | 1 | .432** | .393** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
GK5 | Pearson Correlation | .435** | .391** | .393** | .432** | 1 | .425** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
GK6 | Pearson Correlation | .615** | .435** | .392** | .393** | .425** | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
BT1 | BT2 | BT3 | BT4 | BT5 | BT6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BT1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .698** | .631** | .555** | .324** | .369** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
BT2 | Pearson Correlation | .698** | 1 | .760** | .622** | .445** | .494** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
BT3 | Pearson Correlation | .631** | .760** | 1 | .651** | .472** | .506** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
BT4 | Pearson Correlation | .555** | .622** | .651** | 1 | .439** | .537** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
BT5 | Pearson Correlation | .324** | .445** | .472** | .439** | 1 | .532** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
BT6 | Pearson Correlation | .369** | .494** | .506** | .537** | .532** | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
BH1 | BH2 | BH3 | BH4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BH1 | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .681** | .564** | .565** | ||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |||
BH2 | Pearson Correlation | .681** | 1 | .635** | .616** | ||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |||
BH3 | Pearson Correlation | .564** | .635** | 1 | .712** | ||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |||
BH4 | Pearson Correlation | .565** | .616** | .712** | 1 | ||
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||||
N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tekce, I., Ergen, E. & Artan, D. Structural Equation Model of Occupant Satisfaction for Evaluating the Performance of Office Buildings. Arab J Sci Eng 45, 8759–8784 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04804-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04804-z