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
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • Buildings like any other products are designed and

    2018-10-22

    Buildings like any other products are designed and constructed with lots of expectations by clients, professionals, users and the community. To clients, buildings require huge capital investment and are expected to bring returns on investment, while to professionals (e.g. architects, builders and engineers) buildings are products of their creativity and imaginative thinking. On the part of users and community, one crucial expectation is that buildings will meet their needs and aspirations by supporting their daily activities (Preiser, 1999; Davara et al., 2006) and ultimately improve the aesthetic quality of the built environment. To this end, van der Voordt and Maarleveld (2006) noted that building performance evaluation (BPE) assesses the architectural, functional, technical and economic value of buildings (product evaluation) or building procurement process (process evaluation). By identifying the major weaknesses and strengths of buildings from the end user\'s perspective (Preiser, 1999; Khalil and Nawani, 2008), BPE contributes to improving the quality of buildings and building projects delivery process (Preiser, 1995; Kim et al., 2005). In addition, PBE also provides feedbacks on causes and effects of environmental issues related to buildings, and thus inform planning and management throughout the building\'s life purchase nfps (Meir et al., 2009) and culminating in the production of sustainable built environment (Zimring, 1988). In sum, BPE is important in understanding the actual performance of buildings in meeting the various expectations of the different stakeholders as compared to predicted performance, and the efficiency of building procurement process. The foregoing helps to explain that BPE can be used in assessing different aspects of buildings and building procurement process, and that the findings can serve different purposes. Depending on the rationale and objective of the research, it is clear that BPE may be intended for the formulation and implementation of government policies, or the development of new theories or research tools or the dissemination of information on the performance of building spaces and fabrics to professionals, contractors and material manufacturers in the building industry as well as to the public. Of the different tools for BPE identified in the literature, existing studies (e.g., Kian et al., 2001; Nawawi and Khalil, 2008; Ilesanmi, 2010; Jiboye, 2012) have shown that user satisfaction surveys have become very valuable tool in assessing the technical performance of buildings and understanding human attitudes, needs and expectations towards building-in-use. In fact Zagreus et al. (2004) pointed out that the views of building users are very important in investigating the performance of buildings in meeting occupants\' needs and expectations. Gupta and Chandiwala (2010) also added that the evaluation of performance of residential environment has traditionally been based either on physical monitoring or user satisfaction surveys. This is principally because users give their views and/or feelings about buildings-in-use based on their experience and interactions with buildings (Vischer, 2008) as compared to the views of professionals who design and construct buildings and never use them (Preiser, 1995; Nawawi and Khalil, 2008; Chohen et al., 2010). It is observed that in the course of exploring residential or housing satisfaction, some researchers adopted satisfaction surveys to examine residents\' satisfaction with the dwelling units in public housing estates in the different countries. For example, in Papua New Guinea and Abuja, Nigeria, Kaitilla (1993) and Ukoha and Beamish (1997), respectively, reported that residents in public housing were dissatisfied with the building features. In contrast, Olatubara and Fatoye (2007) and Fatoye and Odusami (2009) revealed that residents in public housing in Lagos, Nigeria, were most satisfied with building design features, including the number of rooms, the ceiling height, and the location of different rooms in their dwelling units. In Malaysia, Oh (2000) cited in Mohit et al. (2010) found out that middle income households in Bandar Baru Bangi, were satisfied with the space and cost of their houses but dissatisfied with the size of kitchen and plumbing in their houses. Although these studies help to explain that occupants of mass-produced buildings in public housing estates in the different countries are satisfied or purchase nfps dissatisfied with the different components of their dwelling units, little is known of the different factors that determine residents\' satisfaction with the buildings in public housing estates in Nigeria. Furthermore, except Fatoye and Odusami (2009) that related users\' satisfaction with housing to the performance of public housing projects, the existing studies rarely associated occupants\' satisfaction with the performance of residential buildings in public housing projects in the country. Hence, Simple-sequence DNA study was an attempt to bridge this gap in research.