Post-Occupancy Evaluation of School Building Performance
Abstract Views
47
Downloads
15
Citations
Share
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published Apr 6, 2025
Abstract viewed = 47 times
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
School buildings are multifunctional structures that accommodate several functions and activities. Such activities require different environmental and functional characteristics for their hosting spaces. This comprehensive research aims to establish a multi-dimensional post-occupancy evaluation (POE) framework to assess primary school buildings’ functional and environmental performance. This framework provides a fast and easy tool to evaluate and improve school building performance. To achieve its objective, the study explores different POE models, design components, and functional criteria affecting school building performance. Moreover, it discusses the impact of design parameters such as location, spatial layout, classroom conditions, auxiliary spaces, finishing materials, and environmental elements on building performance. Three main factors were considered: first, child development and well-being, which means meeting the psychological, social, and safety needs of students; second is functional suitability, which means making sure that each part of the building is designed to fulfill its function and works well with other spaces; and thirdly, environmental suitability, which means creating a comfortable space that encourages learning. The research concludes with an evaluation framework with relative and absolute values for school building design parameters in several performance areas. The proposed model enables digital assessment and presents evaluation results both numerically and graphically.
Introduction
The primary goal of constructing any building is to achieve the highest possible return on investment, whether through direct economic gains or as a service-oriented initiative provided by the government or its affiliated entities to meet the city’s requirements and the needs of its residents. In the latter case, the primary return is social rather than financial profit (Wanget al., 2024). Maximizing the return on investment for any building involves ensuring optimal utilization throughout its lifespan by enhancing its functional efficiency to the highest degree possible. From this perspective, it becomes crucial to establish an evaluation model to measure the functional efficiency of school buildings for a specific educational stage, in this case, the primary level, considering the differences in functional requirements across various school stages (Hassanain & Mahroos, 2023).
The process of post-occupancy evaluation of the suitability level of proposed school building sites for expected activities involves the following main stages (Adamy & Abu Bakar, 2018):
• Stage 1: Identifying the design components that define the characteristics of the school building and the design alternatives that impact its performance (Hadjri & Crozier, 2009).
• Stage 2: Establishing performance criteria that reflect the functional and environmental performance of the building and its ability to provide an appropriate school environment (Khalil & Husin, 2009).
• Stage 3: Determining the relative importance of each design factor in influencing various aspects of school building performance (Khalil & Husin, 2009).
• Stage 4: Formulating a Performance Evaluation Matrix for the school building, including specific equations for different values, minimum and maximum limits, ratios, and densities for each design factor concerning every functional performance aspect of the school building (Elsayedet al., 2023; Khalil & Husin, 2009).
• Stage 5: Developing a model for collecting the school’s design data and linking it to the Environmental and Functional Performance Evaluation Matrix. A digital and graphical model will be created to present the school’s functional and environmental performance evaluation results while integrating them with the Performance Evaluation Matrix.
Providing a fast and efficient tool that offers direct and practical indicators of the school building’s performance in achieving its intended purpose and educational objectives across all functional, environmental, and pedagogical aspects (Hassanainet al., 2022). This tool would be part of the process of enhancing the effectiveness of the existing building while allowing for further studies on the impact of various design factors on the different functional aspects of the school building.
School Building Performance Parameters
Various design and spatial parameters influence the efficiency and performance of a school building, impacting the comfort of its users, including teachers and students. The primary focus is facilitating the educational process, which takes place within the interior and exterior spaces of the building (Takaokaet al., 2015). These elements can be categorized into two main groups:
• Core Design Parameters: Directly impact the instructional performance as a fundamental part of the learning process. For example, classrooms serve as the primary spaces for delivering educational content.
• Supporting Design Parameters: Influence higher-level educational aspects beyond direct instruction. Contributes to developing students’ motor, cognitive, and environmental skills. As an example of such outdoor spaces, play areas, and sports facilities (enhancing physical development). Moreover, libraries and laboratories are essential for supporting cognitive and research skills.
• Common areas and circulation spaces that promote social interaction and movement efficiency.
These design parameters are crucial in shaping the school building’s overall functional and environmental performance, ensuring a conducive learning environment (Ariani & Mirdad, 2015).
School Site Parameters
This includes the nature of the urban surroundings of the school building, which is determined by the following design factors and indicators:
• The nature of the surrounding urban environment (newly planned area–old area–informal settlement–uninhabited area).
• Proximity to environmental pollution sources, such as (cell towers, high-voltage power lines, sewage treatment units, workshops or factories emitting noise or gases, flood paths, areas prone to falling rocks, etc.).
• Ease of access to the school site, considering factors like (flat land, rugged terrain, unpaved roads, garbage accumulation, sewage water, etc.).
• The type of road on which the school building is located (highway–main road–secondary road–local street).
• Availability of a sufficiently wide sidewalk that protects students from oncoming traffic when exiting the school and accommodates the number of students and parents during peak times at the end of the school day.
• Availability of parking spaces within or near the school premises, providing adequate space for school buses and a portion of parents’ vehicles without negatively impacting traffic flow on surrounding streets.
Architectural Layout Aspects
Several building types are commonly used as successful school designs. The following are the commonly utilized by governmental agencies as typical schools (Ariani & Mirdad, 2015):
• Strip Model: As shown in Fig 1a, it is a rectangular arrangement of elements, where the corridor may be positioned in the center or on one side. The building length typically ranges between 20 m and 30 m.
• Finger Model: A layout where buildings are arranged similarly to the fingers of a hand. The spacing between structures depends on the prevailing climate of the area. As illustrated in Fig. 1b.
• Courtyard Model: Fig. 1c shows a design in which school elements are arranged around a single internal courtyard. Orienting openings towards the courtyard can help mitigate noise issues.
• Multiple Courtyard Model: A design approach where buildings are grouped around multiple internal courtyards, as shown in Fig. 1d.
• Compact Model: A single-building school design that incorporates all elements. The ground floor may be elevated on columns, allowing for an open internal courtyard. as shown in Fig. 1e.
Fig. 1. Types of school building composition.
Floor Number
Floor numbers are crucial for elementary school buildings. It impacts the student’s circulation and evacuation in emergency cases. The typical height of the school building is affected by the available area and municipal regulations. According to local education authorities, the maximum number of school buildings is one to four floors.
School Building Size
The number of classrooms in the building is another factor impacting the design, performance control, and spatial relationship between the primary and supporting components of the design. The minimum school design is one growing class: two preschool classes, six classes, and supporting spaces. In conclusion, local authorities are licensing only schools with a minimum of eight classes and a maximum of forty-eight classes.
Building Proportions
Building shape and proportion impact its environmental performance. The climatic region of the school building and its orientation are the main factors influencing its form and composition. The preferred ratio between the length and width of the school building varies based on its climatic regions as follows:
• Hot and humid regions: The design favors elongation, with a length-to-width ratio 1.7:1, as shown in Fig. 2a.
• Hot and semi-arid regions: A more significant difference between length and width is needed, reaching up to 1.5:1, as shown in Fig. 2b.
• Hot and arid regions: A more compact form is preferable in the strip model, with a ratio of 1.3:1, as shown in Fig. 2c.
Fig. 2. Orientation and school ratios in different climate regions: a) Best ratio 1:1.7, b) Best ratio 1:1.5, c) Best ratio 1:1.3.
Building Orientation
Building type and region are the main factors impacting its design and sub-component orientation. Fig. 3 illustrates the best orientation of different types in different climatic regions to achieve the best environmental performance (Khalil & Nawawi, 2008).
Fig. 3. School building types and orientation for each climatic region.
Building Components
In addition to classrooms, the school building contains four different types of spaces to accommodate the functions needed. Educational, supporting services, administration, and open spaces are complimentary spaces. The spatial arrangement of the elements of these types impacts educational facilities’ functionality. The following indicators determine the factors (Ariani & Mirdad, 2015; Shakiret al., 2011):
1. Educational spaces:
• Laboratories (chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, languages)–their capacity and available equipment.
• Art education units (drawing, music, visual arts, vocational workshops, etc.)–their capacity and available equipment.
• Library (size, available furniture, number of books, etc.).
• Student skill development units (school theater, multi-purpose hall, etc.)–their capacity and available equipment.
2. Supporting Service Units:
• Cafeteria (its size, number of tables, size of the supporting kitchen).
• Prayer room (its size, available furnishings and facilities, location of the ablution area, and its suitability for students’ dimensions).
• Healthcare services, including a doctor’s room and an isolation room (its capacity and furnishings).
• Restrooms (number of units, suitability of dimensions for students, distribution across the building’s floors).
3. Administrative spaces are required for managing the educational process:
• Assistant principal’s office–its size and relationship with other building design elements.
• Principal’s office in terms of its size and position relative to other design elements to ensure full supervision of the building.
• Social worker’s office–its size and proximity to classrooms.
• Teachers’ Offices–their number, size, and positioning to facilitate supervision and control over classrooms and student movement.
• Storage Areas–total space, distribution, and variety in sizes.
4. Open Spaces:
• Courtyards (size, type—internal or external, protection from weather conditions).
• Sports Fields (size, location, relationship with other building elements).
Performance Indicators of Spatial Relationships of Building Elements
Functional considerations play a crucial role in the overall success of a school building. The spatial distribution of school elements, including security, supervision, flexibility, and the smooth movement of materials and equipment, directly influences various functional aspects. Arranging related spaces adjacent to each other (functional proximity) helps streamline operations, positively impacting activities and organizational efficiency (Shakiret al., 2011).
This concept is measured through the degree of functional adjacency, represented in an adjacency matrix. Fig. 4 presents school-building components and their spatial relationships.
Fig. 4. School design components relationship diagram.
Vertical and Horizontal Circulation Elements (Saudi Building Code, 2022)
Several design factors influence the suitability of horizontal circulation corridors, including (corridor length to stairs or exits, corridor width, type (single or double), style (internal or open to the outside), and dimensions as follows: (AlKasabi & Al lahaim, 2024)
• Corridors serving one direction with outward-opening doors:
– 100–500 students: Width between 1.7 m and 2.00 m
– 500–1000 students: Minimum width of 2.20 m
– More than 1000 students: Minimum width of 2.50 m
• Corridors serving two directions with outward-opening doors:
– 100–500 students: Width between 1.7 m and 3.00 m
– 500–1000 students: Minimum width of 2.20 m
– More than 1000 students: Minimum width of 2.50 m
• The minimum height of circulation corridors should be 2.30 m
• Door Width Standards:
– Classroom doors: Minimum width of 0.90 m, minimum height of 2.00 m.
– Halls accommodating more than 300 students: At least two entrances and two staircases, if not on the ground floor.
– Halls accommodating more than 800 students: At least three entrances and two staircases.
– Main exit doors in schools should allow for complete evacuation within 2.5 minutes in case of fire, under international standards.
Vertical Circulation Elements: These include stair width, riser height, and the availability of elevators for students with disabilities. Additional considerations include:
• Stair type: (Internal–External)
• Staircase position to other building elements.
• Stair width regulations should follow the same width standards as corridors and doors.
Classroom arrangement method: It is preferable to arrange classrooms on one side of the corridor (single-loaded), as this approach ensures adequate lighting and ventilation. The number of classrooms on a single side should not exceed eight, with each classroom ranging between 48 m2–52 m2. Fig. 5 presents the different patterns for corridor distribution.
Fig. 5. Types of class arrangements.
Classroom Related Aspects
Number of students per classroom and student density (m2/student): The optimal capacity ranges between 30–35 students, and the student-to-area ratio should have a minimum space of 1.17 m2. Classroom width is determined by the distribution of windows on the classroom walls. If windows are placed on one side, the width should not exceed 6.00 m. Simultaneously, classroom height should range between 3.2 m and 4.3 m to ensure proper human scale, adequate natural ventilation, and optimal air circulation. In comparison, Acoustic considerations determine classroom depth. The teacher’s voice should reach at least 68 decibels in the last row. The maximum depth to achieve this is approximately 7 m (Abdelatiaet al., 2010). Fig. 6 displays key dimensions, angles, and proportions for optimal visibility and acoustics.
Fig. 6. Viewing angles and class dimensions.
The windowsill height should be at least 1.10 m to prevent students from being distracted by outside activities. A high-level window facing the corridor is preferred to enhance ventilation and air circulation, allow for easy monitoring and supervision, and minimize distractions while maintaining airflow. However, care should be taken as it may contribute to noise transmission. Table I presents the ideal and minimum classroom dimensions for elementary schools, along with the recommended space per student, based on studies and international standards, while considering local environmental conditions (Hassanainet al., 2022).
• Interior Finishes (Walls–Floors–Ceilings) may vary in their type and impact on the visual and acoustics characteristics of the classroom. Materials lists include carpet, tiles, ceramic, parquet, etc. Colors, texture, and glossiness level of interior surfaces (Walls–Floors–Ceilings) affect the overall experience of the classroom. Warm colors should be used in areas that attract students’ attention. Surrounding areas should have less attention-grabbing colors to maintain focus. Glossy or reflective surfaces should be avoided to reduce glare and distractions (Ariani & Mirdad, 2015).
• Natural Lighting is an essential aspect of classroom design. Window width, placement, height, and glass type should ensure adequate natural light. Natural lighting should be complemented by artificial lighting throughout the school day. Researchers suggest the illumination level to be not less than 150 lux in the farthest corner of the classroom (Abdelatiaet al., 2010).
• Artificial lighting is affected by its type (fluorescent, warm white, etc.) and placement (ceiling-mounted, wall-mounted, etc.). The lighting system should provide uniform illumination across the entire space. A combination of natural and artificial lighting should ensure approximately 300 lux in students’ work areas (Abdelatiaet al., 2010; Macielet al., 2023).
• Providing natural ventilation and temperature control to the classroom’s internal environment significantly influences the students’ experience. Proper window design, wall insulation, and ceiling treatments should help regulate indoor temperatures (H. Sanoff, 2015). Openings should ensure a minimum air exchange rate suitable for different climatic regions. Climate control methods may include central air conditioning, split units, window units, or ceiling fans. The cooling capacity should be appropriately measured in BTUs to ensure a comfortable learning environment (Macielet al., 2023).
| Area rate m | Optimum dimensions | Student area m2 | Minimum dimension | Number of students in class | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Height | Width | Length | Height | Width | Length | |||
| 1.40 | 3.20 | 6.00 | 8.40 | 1.17 | 3.20 | 5.40 | 7.80 | 36 |
| 1.44 | 3.20 | 7.20 | 7.20 | 1.20 | 3.20 | 6.60 | 6.60 | 36 |
Establishing Performance Indicators of School Building
Decision-making in the evaluation process is based on predefined indicators aligned with strategic objectives. Establishing evaluation criteria for school buildings plays a key role in assessing their functional and educational performance, helping to clearly understand their capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses (Ahn, 2016). Based on the general functional objectives of a school building and the needs of primary school students, the following indicators have been established:
1. Meeting the Needs of Primary School Children in the School Environment (Ariani & Mirdad, 2015):
• Supporting children’s cognitive development.
• Introducing children to their local environment.
• Providing for children’s physiological needs.
• Encouraging imagination and creative abilities.
• Ensuring scale suitability for building dimensions, spaces, and furniture, from restrooms to classrooms, desks, courtyards, and surrounding structures.
• Ensuring safety from natural hazards (storms, lightning, floods) and human-made risks (electrical units, pollution sources).
• Enhancing children’s aesthetic awareness.
• Creating a child-friendly learning environment that integrates play and education.
2. School Functionality Efficiency Aspects (Shakiret al., 2011):
• Ensuring easy movement between different building components.
• Establishing strong spatial relationships between functional areas.
• Providing safety and security for occupants.
• Protecting the building from external environmental conditions.
• Facilitating supervision and control over building elements and entrances.
• Ensure flexibility in adapting spaces for various activities throughout the day and year.
• Matching space dimensions with functional requirements.
• Designing the building layout to enhance workflow efficiency.
• Considering users’ size, number, and height in space planning.
• Allowing building openings and structures to connect effectively with the external environment.
• Ensuring cost-effectiveness in building performance.
3. Environmental Performance and Comfort Levels for Users (Macielet al., 2023):
• Optimizing natural lighting levels and direction, especially in classrooms.
• Ensuring adequate and well-distributed artificial lighting, with proper intensity at key areas (such as the board and students’ desks).
• Providing sufficient natural ventilation through appropriate openings.
• Incorporating temperature control systems for various spaces.
• Protecting the building from external noise pollution.
• Implementing noise reduction strategies to enhance the learning environment and improve student focus.
School Building Performance Evaluation Framework
The proposed framework provides a structured method for assessing the relative impact of different design factors on the functional performance of the building. The environmental and functional performance matrix for school buildings includes various design parameters and indicators of performance aspects. The impact of design parameters on school buildings’ performance aspects does not carry the same weight across all evaluation criteria. For example, the “architectural building form” affects multiple performance aspects to varying degrees, such as design flexibility, ease of connectivity between building elements, control over student movement inside the building, exposure to external noise, exposure to environmental factors, and students’ connection to the outdoor environment (Kükrer & Eskin, 2021). Each design parameter has a varying level of impact on different performance aspects of the school building. For example, the air conditioning system affects internal noise levels in building spaces, operational cost-efficiency, and the connection of indoor spaces with the external environment. The proposed framework consists of the following structured columns and rows:
• Columns: Represent various previously categorized and analyzed design parameters, including different alternatives for each design factor.
• Rows: Represent indicators and attributes that define the quality of a school building’s functional and environmental performance.
To quantify these differences, the study proposes a five-level grading system for evaluating each design parameter on the performance aspects, where the most influential parameters receive the highest score of five points. In contrast, the less influential factors receive progressively lower scores, down to the least affected aspects, which receive the lowest score of one point. This differentiation helps produce more accurate and credible evaluation results based on whether a particular design factor is met (Zhang & Zhang, 2023).
School Building Performance Evaluation Framework
As shown in Table II, the framework is structured as a matrix, where:
• Rows represent design factors.
• Columns represent performance evaluation aspects.
• Each colored cell represents a relation between the design parameter and the performance aspect. Each of these defined cells contains a value between 1 and 5, indicating the relative importance of the impact of the design parameter on the corresponding evaluation aspect.
| Child needs | Functional efficiency | Environmental performance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive development | Physiological needs | Encourage imagination and creativity | Ensure scale suitability | Safety from natural & artificial hazards | Enhance aesthetic awareness | Create learning environment | Exposure to natural environmental | Ensure easy movement | Establish strong spatial relationships | Provide safety and security | Protect from external weather | Supervision and control over elements | Space flexibility and adaptability | Space Suitability for functions’ requirements. | Enhanced workflow efficiency | Consider users’ size, number, and height | Connect effectively with the external environment | Ensuring cost-effectiveness | Natural lighting | Artificial lighting | Nature ventilation | Climate control | External noise | internal noise | |||
| Building information | Building type | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| Number of floors | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||
| Classroom | Classes numbers | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Class dimensions | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| Students number | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Finishings and textures | Finishings | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| Colors | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| Natural lighting and ventilation | Window dimensions | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||
| Transparency | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Artificial lighting | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||
| Airconditioning | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||
| Class door width | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Supporting spaces | Labs | Chemistry | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
| Physics | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Biology | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Computer | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Language | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Art | Art room | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Music | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Workshops | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||
| Library | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Health services | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Prayer | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Toilets | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Restaurant | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Theatre | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Administrative spaces | Vice | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Headmaster | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Social office | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teachers rooms | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Storages | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Open spaces | Courtyards | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||
| Playgrounds | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
