1. Introduction
Promoting sustainability in workplaces, particularly educational settings, has become a global imperative in recent years. This focus on creating environmentally responsible and occupant-centric spaces has led to the emergence of the IEQ as a critical aspect of sustainable building design, affecting occupant well-being, productivity, and overall satisfaction [1]. The importance of studying the IEQ of education buildings lies in the fact that poor IEQ can lead to discomfort, respiratory problems, allergies, and other health issues; also, poor IEQ can affect the student’s academic performance, retention, and attendance [2]. IEQ encompasses thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, acoustic quality, office layout, furnishings, cleanliness, and maintenance, each significantly impacting occupants’ perceptions of their environment [3]. In Saudi Arabia, where higher education buildings perform a significant role in the built environment, assessing and benchmarking occupants’ satisfaction with the IEQ against international green building standards is crucial for advancing sustainability practices [4,5].
Recent studies have indicated the following:
Elements such as temperature, air movement, and CO2 concentration in educational buildings often meet acceptable levels, while other factors like relative humidity, sound, and lighting frequently fall below set standards [1,6].
There is a deficiency in comprehensive studies examining the influence of the building environment on employee performance and satisfaction in such settings.
Studies have verified that these IEQ parameters strongly influence overall satisfaction in educational buildings [6]. Alshuwaikhat et al. [7] identified environmental characteristics like acoustic quality and thermal comfort as crucial influencers of occupants’ satisfaction in office buildings.
Another study comparing an Italian office building’s IEQ with LEED-certified buildings found differences in the satisfaction levels across various categories, including acoustic quality, thermal comfort, cleanliness, maintenance, office layout, and lighting [8].
This research proposes to fill the gap between the building environment on employee performance and their satisfaction in Saudi Arabia, where the concept of sustainability in educational buildings is still emerging, by studying the satisfaction levels of occupants with the IEQ of a higher education building in Saudi Arabia. It seeks to benchmark these satisfaction levels against those reported in international green buildings, providing a comparative perspective. A comprehensive survey using the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) IEQ survey tool was conducted among the occupants of a designated higher education building in Saudi Arabia. This approach aligns with efforts to develop new educational frameworks for green building design in the region [7]. The survey data and data from international buildings will be analyzed and compared using statistical techniques to identify commonalities and differences in the occupants’ satisfaction with each IEQ factor. This suggests the importance of a holistic approach to IEQ that addresses all aspects of the indoor environment [9].
Furthermore, the research will explore the effects of various factors on general satisfaction with the IEQ. The conclusions drawn from this study will be invaluable for building managers, administrators, and policymakers striving to enhance the IEQ and sustainability practices in higher education buildings in Saudi Arabia. By leveraging insights from global best practices and aligning with Saudi Vision 2030 [10], which stresses improving the quality of living and well-being, this research aims to inspire sustainability initiatives in the chosen building and similar academic institutions in the region. It provides actionable insights for enhancing the region’s educational infrastructure quality (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 demonstrates a suggested approach to developing a new educational framework for green building design. It addresses aspects of the quality of the indoor environment and leverages insights from global best practices.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Geographical Location
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital and main financial center, is located in the country’s geographic center and the center of the Arabian Peninsula. As shown in Figure 2a–c, the building under investigation is in Riyadh City.
2.2. Weather Conditions in Riyadh
Riyadh experiences long, hot, and dry summers, while its winters are mild and arid (Figure 3a). It is generally characterized by clear skies throughout the year. While temperamental in the winter, warm days often turn into frigid nights, and summers are extreme, with temperatures peaking at 47 °C. However, low humidity offers some comfort (see Figure 3b). The average annual temperature of Riyadh is 29 °C, with a yearly precipitation of approximately 60 mm (see Figure 3c). Riyadh consistently has wet days throughout the year, with no significant seasonal change. In Riyadh, April experiences the most rainfall, with an average precipitation of 0.3 inches. Riyadh’s average hourly wind speed exhibits moderate seasonal fluctuations throughout the year (see Figure 3d). The period with stronger winds spans 2.9 months, starting on 22 May and ending on 17 August. Conversely, the period with less wind lasts 9.1 months, beginning on 17 August and concluding on 22 May.
2.3. Introduction to Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) and Its Importance
IEQ: ‘Indoor Environmental Quality” represents a domain with diverse sub-domains that affect human life in buildings; these include the indoor air quality (IAQ), lighting, acoustics, thermal comfort, drinking water, electromagnetic radiation, ergonomics, and many related factors. Niza et al. [13] highlighted the association between IEQ and sustainable development goals, stressing the need for enhanced technologies to foster healthy and efficient environments. This connection indicates the broader implications of IEQ in achieving sustainability targets and improving the overall quality of life. In educational buildings, specific parameters like thermal quality, indoor air quality (IAQ), and lighting quality have been shown to influence the healing processes of patients in hospital wards [14], further underscoring the broader implications of IEQ. Additionally, the design and metrological characterization of devices for monitoring IEQ conditions [15] have contributed significantly to maintaining and improving the IEQ standards in educational settings. Given the diverse factors influencing IEQ and their varied impacts, there is a growing consensus on integrating IEQ considerations into the design and management of academic buildings. This integration is essential for fostering environments conducive to learning and teaching while aligning with global sustainability and wellness goals.
2.4. IEQ Parameters and Their Influence on Occupants
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is a critical element in the design and operation of educational buildings, significantly impacting occupant satisfaction, well-being, and working efficiency. Several research findings have explored the influence of different IEQ factors within educational settings, such as thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, and acoustic quality (see Figure 4). Thermal comfort is a critical factor affecting the well-being and productivity of occupants. According to Park et al. [16], key elements influencing thermal satisfaction include the air temperature, size of thermal zones, window quality, and level of temperature control. The study emphasizes the importance of radiant temperature unevenness with building elevation, highlighting the need for careful design considerations to maintain optimal thermal conditions [16]. The air quality within educational buildings also plays a vital role in occupant satisfaction. Research by Faraji et al. [17] indicates that maintaining good air quality is essential for promoting a healthy and productive learning environment. This study underscores the need for efficient ventilation systems and regular air quality monitoring [17]. Lighting quality is another critical IEQ parameter. Studies like that of Kostiainen et al. [18] demonstrate that lighting affects visual comfort and psychologically impacts occupants. The research suggests that appropriate lighting design can enhance one’s mood and cognitive performance, increasing overall satisfaction and productivity [18]. Acoustic quality, too, has been identified as a significant factor influencing IEQ satisfaction. Sakellaris et al. [19] found that noise levels were highly associated with overall comfort in office buildings, including educational settings. The research highlights the need for sound insulation and acoustic design to minimize noise disruptions and enhance occupant comfort [19]. These IEQ factors collectively create an optimal learning and working environment in educational buildings. With the increasing recognition of their importance, there is a growing emphasis on integrating these elements into the layout and operation of educational buildings to ensure healthful, comfortable, and productive conditions for occupants.
2.5. Sustainability in Building Design with a Focus on Saudi Arabia
Additionally, Khoshbakht et al. [20] discussed the benefits of executing green building initiatives in higher education campuses, proposing frameworks and policy implications to enhance the efficacy of these initiatives. They identified essential campus-wide energy policies, such as energy dashboards and operational energy performance certification, which are crucial for promoting sustainability in educational buildings [20]. Furthermore, public perception plays a significant role in adopting sustainable practices. A study by Alqahtany [21] in Riyadh found a high public awareness and positive perception of green roofs, with 94% of the respondents agreeing that green roofs enhance building aesthetics and control the air quality. However, the main challenge identified was the climate, which 91% of the respondents saw as a barrier to implementing green roofs [21]. In conclusion, Saudi Arabia is making significant strides in incorporating sustainable building design, particularly in higher education settings. These efforts are supported by research, policy frameworks, and public perception, which are crucial for advancing sustainable practices in the region.
2.6. Comparative Analysis of IEQ in Saudi Arabian and International Green Buildings
The comparative analysis of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in green constructions, particularly between Saudi Arabian structures and those adhering to international standards like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), offers insightful perspectives on global sustainable building practices. IEQ, a critical aspect of green buildings, encompasses air quality, lighting, thermal comfort, and acoustic performance and is essential for occupant health and productivity. Alzaed et al. [22] highlighted the importance of daily energy savings and water resources in considering sustainability in Saudi Arabian buildings, underscoring the regional emphasis on resource efficiency in green building practices. Internationally, of LEED and Green Globes, an emerging system, the Living, Mustadam in Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States, and the International Green Construction Code (IGCC)/Energy Star in Turkey, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Czech Republic, LEED is the prominent benchmark for sustainable building design, with specific IEQ criteria including parameters like air ventilation, the use of low-emitting materials, and indoor lighting and thermal comfort. These standards are designed to ensure a healthy and productive indoor environment, reducing the ecological footprint of buildings. A study by Lee and Kim found that LEED-certified buildings in the United States exhibited higher occupant satisfaction with the office furnishing quality, indoor air quality (IAQ), and cleanliness and maintenance quality compared to non-LEED-certified buildings [23]. In Saudi Arabia, sustainable building practices are emerging, with a growing emphasis on aligning with global standards. For instance, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) is a LEED-certified project representing the country’s strides in sustainable architecture. Jamoussi et al. [24] critically examined and assessed the present state of sustainable building certification techniques in Saudi Arabia, addressing sustainability strategies and the updated Saudi Building Code. This review underscores the need for a certification system that considers new trends and the local context. A study by Al-Surf et al. [25] examines the level of understanding and utilization of green building rating systems among stakeholders in Saudi Arabia, mainly focusing on the LEED and Mostadam systems. This research investigates which rating system is more effective in addressing energy preservation and water utilization in the Saudi construction market [25]. In conclusion, while Saudi Arabian green buildings, particularly in the higher education sector, progressively incorporate sustainable practices, a comparative analysis with international benchmarks like LEED reveals distinct differences in the application and realization of IEQ standards. These differences underscore the importance of considering local environmental, cultural, and technological factors in developing and implementing sustainable building practices.
The global report of UNESCO, “Culture and Urban Future”, presented a series of analyses and recommendations for fostering the role of culture in sustainable development and emphasized the importance of considering these local environmental, cultural, and technological factors in the context of Saudi Arabian green buildings.
2.7. Challenges in Saudi Arabia Concerning IEQ
Enhancing the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in Saudi Arabian educational buildings presents unique challenges and opportunities influenced by the country’s distinct climatic conditions and cultural factors (Figure 5). Understanding and addressing these challenges is crucial for improving the learning environment and ensuring the well-being of occupants. Saudi Arabia’s harsh climatic conditions, characterized by extreme temperatures and low humidity, pose significant challenges to maintaining optimal IEQ in educational buildings. Alwetaishi’s study [26] published in “Energy and Buildings” highlighted the difficulty in achieving thermal comfort in such an environment, which can significantly affect students’ concentration and learning outcomes. Additionally, while culturally significant, the traditional architectural designs often do not align with modern IEQ standards, as Adenle and Alshuwaikhat [27] noted in their examination of sustainable practices in Saudi architecture. Air quality within educational buildings is another challenge, exacerbated by the reliance on air conditioning systems to combat the heat. A study by Adenle and Alshuwaikhat [27] discussed the influence of air conditioning on the indoor air quality in Saudi schools, noting the prevalence of pollutants and inadequate ventilation as critical concerns.
2.8. Opportunities for Improvement and Adaptation
The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) plays a fundamental role in the health, comfort, and productivity of students and teachers in educational buildings, a fact emphasized by its designation as a critical measurement category by the United States Green Building Council’s LEED [1]. Studies have established a positive association between the IEQ and enhancing students’ learning quality and short-term academic achievements [28,29]. Developing indoor air quality regulations for residential and educational buildings in Saudi Arabia is advocated to improve energy management [30]. The country has seen a growing emphasis on environmental health promotion, spurred by a heightened recognition of physical environmental stressors [31]. The Saudi Arabian government’s push for green building construction aims to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance societal well-being through improved indoor air quality and reduced energy and water usage [25]. However, the dependence on air conditioning, a significant consumer of household electricity in Saudi Arabia, presents a challenge [32]. In response, the Resilience and Environmental Sustainability Assessment Framework (RESAF) was introduced for family buildings to address these concerns [33]. Achieving a high IEQ is a principal goal across all nation-building assessment methodologies [34]. The determinants of IEQ in educational facilities include the indoor air quality, thermal comfort, ventilation flow, lighting, and background noise, each impacting occupant performance [35]. Efforts to create frameworks for evaluating and enhancing the IEQ in educational settings have incorporated Building Information Modeling (BIM) strategies [36]. Additionally, the impact of ventilation rates and indoor temperatures on students’ cognitive performances has been investigated [32], highlighting the significant influence of the IEQ on the productivity and comfort of those within educational environments. The significance of indoor air quality in these buildings is linked to its potential effects on health and efficiency in work or study. At the same time, thermal comfort has been shown to significantly affect productivity in office settings.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Objective
The research objective was to assess occupant satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) within a green university using the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) web-based survey tool and compare it to international buildings examined using the same web-based CBE survey. This tool evaluates various aspects of IEQ, such as thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, acoustic quality, and overall satisfaction. Another objective is to benchmark the building IEQ performance compared to international data.
3.2. Study Design
A cross-sectional survey was performed. The web-based approach allowed for efficient data collection and a broader reach, ensuring diverse participation across departments and occupant categories. The building under investigation is a green building on a private university campus in Riyadh City (Figure 6a–c: Building’s external views and second-floor plan). The building has many sustainable features, such as green walls, shading devices, and enhanced natural lighting.
The Center for the Built Environment at the University of California, USA, developed the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) survey of occupants’ satisfaction. This web-based resource helps determine how well a building performs from the point of view of its occupants. Designers, planners, and facility professionals have considered the survey helpful with every implementation. With its diagnostic branching queries, the core survey is specifically useful for identifying and resolving issues and rating the building’s performance. The core parameters tackled by the survey are thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, acoustic quality, office arrangement, furnishings, cleanliness, and maintenance.
3.3. Survey Instrument
The CBE Occupant Survey was originally created in 2000. Since then, it has continuously developed as a research instrument at the Center for the Built Environment at the University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. It is extensively employed for gathering input from occupants. This online application anonymously assesses indoor environmental quality based on people’s perspectives using the space in question. Specifically, individuals supply subjective evaluations of their contentment, such as their personal workspace, layout, visual privacy, furniture, air quality, lighting and views, cleanliness and maintenance, thermal comfort, and acoustics. The instrument was the web-based survey of the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) at California University in the United States. This tool is renowned for its rigorous and thorough evaluation of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) factors. This tool consisted of a set of organized questions that were evaluated using a Likert scale and spaces, allowing participants to provide open-ended responses.
The survey framework allows for the application of optional modules and custom surveys for specific topics (safety and effectiveness of courtrooms) and users (such as operations, maintenance, and design personnel). In addition, the survey can be coordinated easily with the physical measurements taken at the building. These allow for assembling various detailed images of a building’s output, which is especially useful for the field.
3.4. Participant Recruitment
Participants were recruited from a target population (total of 376) of staff that used the building regularly, including students (323), faculty (42), and staff (11). Recruitment methods involved email invitations and website announcements. The number of respondents was 195 (52%), and 63 completed the questionnaire (32%), which comprises 17% of the population. This response rate complies with the minimum requirements.
In the context of occupant satisfaction surveys, studies have reported response rates ranging from 14% to 40.2% for web-based surveys [37,38]. These response rates indicate a moderate level of engagement from survey participants, allowing for meaningful insights to be gathered regarding occupant satisfaction with various aspects of their environment. According to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), there is a credit for conducting an occupant satisfaction survey for the building occupants on their satisfaction with the environment in the building. The responses must be collected from a representative sample of building occupants comprising at least 30% [39].
3.5. Inclusion Criteria
The participants must be regular occupants of the building to ensure familiarity with the building’s IEQ.
3.6. Data Collection
The web-based survey instrument starts with a consent statement and then gives section-by-section instructions on how to complete the survey. For survey administration purposes, it was hosted on the CBE online platform. The participants received an email with a link to the survey, instructions, and information about the study’s purpose and confidentiality rights. Reminders were sent periodically to encourage participation and enhance the response rate. The survey period was three months to ensure the number of participants was sufficient.
3.7. Data Analysis
To launch the survey, a general announcement was emailed to faculty, staff, and students. Reminders were also sent frequently to encourage building occupants to complete the web-based survey.
The gathered data was analyzed using SPSS Statistics 29 software. Descriptive statistics provided an overview of the IEQ satisfaction levels, and inferential statistics explored relationships between different IEQ factors and occupant satisfaction.
3.8. Ethical Considerations
The study adhered to ethical standards, including obtaining institutional ethical approval and ensuring informed consent, where participants were made aware of the investigation’s purpose, their voluntary participation, and the confidentiality of their responses. Data privacy was maintained, with responses anonymized during analysis.
3.9. Limitations
As with any survey-based research, potential limitations include self-reported data biases and the possibility of a non-response bias. Efforts are made to mitigate these through effective participant engagement strategies and thorough analysis.
3.10. Expected Outcomes
The research aimed to provide comprehensive insights into the occupants’ perceptions of the IEQ of the targeted environment, with the potential to significantly enhance the IEQ and occupant well-being through data-driven decisions.
This research methodology ensured a systematic and ethical approach to gathering and analyzing data on IEQ satisfaction, leveraging the strength and efficiency of the web-based CBE survey tool.
4. Results
The Results offer a detailed analysis of a survey on the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of a higher education building in Riyadh City structured for varying levels of detail. It begins with an overview of occupant demographics and experiences, providing essential context for interpreting the data. Subsequent sections include visualizations comparing the building’s IEQ to the broader CBE database, snapshots of occupant satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and detailed distributions of responses for each category. The Results also highlight occupant priorities and delve into specific areas of dissatisfaction, identifying challenges within the space. This comprehensive approach allows for a nuanced understanding and targeted improvements in the building’s IEQ.
4.1. General Demographics
Figure 7 below shows basic information about the 63 occupants who completed the survey. Table 1 shows the occupants’ age grouping. Regarding gender, the number of female respondents is 98%, as the building is on a female campus. About age, most of the building users are students, which is reflected in a percentage of 82%. The remaining 18% are faculty and employees teaching in the building or having offices there.
Figure 8 below presents an overview of the occupants’ broad experiences with the space regarding the years working in the building and daily time spent. A total of 54% of occupants stayed in the building for more than two years, which was enough time to assess their level of satisfaction with the building.
The next set of plots in Figure 9 shows the analysis of survey responses by floor, location, and space type. Of the 63 occupants who responded to the survey, 82% reported that they were near a window, and 86% reported being near an exterior wall. A total of 58% of survey responses were from Floor 1, and 42% reported they did not know their location. A total of 70% of the space type is classrooms, and 30% are personal spaces.
4.2. Benchmarking the Building with International Data
Figure 10 demonstrates that the university building is within the range of the international data across most parameters, especially furnishings and acoustical quality, like international buildings. However, the CBE stated that spaces typically struggle with acoustical satisfaction and thermal comfort. On evaluating the general level of satisfaction over the eight parameters, occupants were relatively optimistic about the IEQ except in terms of thermal comfort.
4.3. Satisfaction with the Space
Figure 11 depicts building occupants’ overall satisfaction across various categories, from the highest- to the lowest-performing categories. The figure illustrates this with bars, where red numbers on the left indicate the percentage of dissatisfied occupants, and green numbers on the right show the percentage of satisfied occupants. The survey measured thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, acoustics, cleanliness, visual privacy, and ease of interaction. The most satisfaction was observed in the electric lighting category, with 73% of occupants satisfied, while the temperature category saw the least satisfaction, with only 36% content. This figure serves as a straightforward and practical summary for building managers and designers to identify areas for improvement and observe changes in occupant satisfaction over time.
Figure 12 below illustrates the satisfaction ratings of all 63 survey respondents. Each column represents the occupants, while the rows correspond to the satisfaction question they answered. The occupants are organized so that those with less satisfaction are positioned towards the left, while those with higher satisfaction are positioned towards the right. By examining the rows, the reader can promptly identify problem areas related to environmental quality, and by reviewing the columns, the reader can observe how each tenant has indicated their level of satisfaction.
4.3.1. Layout
The section explores occupants’ perceptions of the layout within classrooms or office workspaces, shedding light on their satisfaction levels with the space provided. The results summarized in Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 reveal that 50% of occupants were content with the space accessible for individual work and storage, while 42% expressed dissatisfaction. In contrast, 52% of occupants were satisfied with the space allocated for student work and storage, with 48% needing more space. Furthermore, 70% indicated satisfaction with the facilitated interaction with co-workers, while 15% reported dissatisfaction.
These results suggest a general trend towards open office layouts among the respondents. However, the high number of neutral responses may indicate a large number of respondents who do not have a personal workspace, use multiple types of workspaces, or did not find the available options applicable to their situation.
In general, the majority of those who responded found the ability to personalize their workspace to be of varying degrees of importance. These results indicate a diverse range of usage patterns, workspace locations, and workspace types among the respondents. However, the high number of neutral responses in each case may indicate the need for additional data collection methods or more tailored survey questions to ensure that the responses more accurately capture the respondents’ experiences and preferences.
4.3.2. Visual Privacy
Though definitely related to how one experiences a space’s layout, the survey benchmarks “visual privacy” as its characteristic. The study has shown that this aspect of environmental quality is central and unique and should be assessed independently. Here, the occupants perceive this characteristic within the space. Figure 16 displays that 60% of the occupants are satisfied with the level of visual privacy, while 30% are not.
This demonstrates that the aesthetic appeal of a workspace holds significant value for many respondents. The ability to control one’s environment appears to be of fair importance to the respondents. This also suggests that a small portion of respondents might be unhappy with their lack of control over this aspect.
4.3.3. Furnishings
The survey results on occupants’ perceptions of comfort and flexibility in terms of furniture layout in classrooms and office workspaces reveal exciting insights, as demonstrated in Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21. In classrooms, 52% of occupants are satisfied with the comfort of their furnishings, while 39% are not. Regarding adjustability, 65% are content with their ability to adjust furniture to meet their needs, with 35% expressing dissatisfaction. Similarly, 52% are comfortable cleaning classroom furniture, while 39% are not. Notably, all participants indicated satisfaction with their ability to adjust furniture. A total of 53% are satisfied with the furnishings’ comfort in office workspaces, and 32% are not. Moreover, 68% of office occupants are content with their ability to adjust furniture, while 16% are not.
Classroom
Figure 17Percentage of satisfaction with the level of comfort regarding the classroom furnishings.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Figure 18Percentage of satisfaction with their ability to adjust furniture to meet their needs.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Figure 19Percentage of satisfaction with the ease of cleaning the classroom furniture.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Office Workspaces
Figure 20Percentage of satisfaction of office workspace occupants with furnishing comfort.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
Figure 21Percentage of satisfaction of office workspace occupants’ ability to adjust the furniture to meet their needs.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
4.3.4. Thermal Comfort
Next, the survey data analysis features occupants’ thermal experiences within the space. Firstly, it examines how satisfied the occupants are with their thermal comfort. As demonstrated in Figure 22, the research has shown that 37% of occupants were satisfied with the temperature of their space, while 48% were not satisfied. While the majority of respondents did not express a preference, the rest were largely spread across the spectrum of satisfaction, with slightly more “dissatisfied” responses than “very satisfied”. This indicates a mixed feeling among respondents about their ability to control the temperature.
4.3.5. Indoor Air Quality
The following section examines how occupants perceive the space’s indoor air quality (see Figure 23). It examines things like stuffy or stale air, cleanliness, and smells. A total of 46% were satisfied with the air quality in their space, while 43% were not. Again, the majority of the respondents did not provide a satisfaction level. However, the respondents who were “very satisfied” outweighed those who were “very dissatisfied.” This implies a moderate level of satisfaction among those who did express an opinion.
4.3.6. Lighting and Views
Occupants’ perceptions of lighting and views within a space play a crucial role in their satisfaction and comfort levels. According to the findings shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25, a significant portion of occupants were satisfied with the lighting conditions in their space, with 74% expressing satisfaction with the amount of electric light available. However, a notable 24% were unsatisfied with the lighting levels. Moreover, when it comes to glare and reflections on screens and surfaces, 60% of occupants reported satisfaction, while 30% were not satisfied. The highest proportion suggests that a slightly higher number of respondents are satisfied with their control over lighting than are dissatisfied.
4.3.7. Acoustic Quality
This section explores how occupants experience the acoustics in a space, as shown in Figure 26 and Figure 27. Specifically, occupants were satisfied with the overall noise level and sound privacy. A total of 56% were satisfied with the noise level of their space, while 26% were not. A total of 53% of occupants were confident with their ability to communicate without their neighbor overhearing and vice versa, while 37% were not. This suggests a moderate level of satisfaction among respondents with their ability to control the acoustics.
4.3.8. Cleanliness and Maintenance
According to the results shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29, 57% of occupants were satisfied with the building’s general cleanliness, while 28% were not. Similarly, 48% of occupants were satisfied with the building’s general maintenance, with 35% expressing dissatisfaction. This indicates that among those who did express an opinion, the respondents were generally more satisfied with their ability to control cleanliness and maintenance.
5. Discussion
Occupants’ satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality of a higher education building in Saudi Arabia has been studied through a comprehensive survey. The respondents were asked about their feelings towards their ability to control various environmental parameters. The distribution of responses across the categories of “very dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”, “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, “satisfied”, “somewhat satisfied”, “very satisfied”, and “valid” gave an overview of the satisfaction levels. However, the large proportion of “valid” responses (those who did not express a preference) could be explored further in future research.
By analyzing the frequencies and percentages of satisfaction levels across various environmental parameters, we have identified those with higher satisfaction and those with low satisfaction. For instance, the parameter “cleanliness” had the highest proportion of “very satisfied” responses, suggesting it is an area of high satisfaction. Conversely, the “views” parameter had higher proportions of “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” responses, indicating that it as an area of lower satisfaction. This analysis allows for a better understanding of the specific areas of the indoor environment that contribute to occupant satisfaction.
The general pattern emerging from these results is a high number of neutral responses, which could indicate that the respondents did not find these issues important or relevant or were indifferent. Among those who responded, satisfaction and comfort with the furnishings and equipment vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus on these aspects. This could imply that each individual’s comfort and satisfaction with the physical aspects of their environment can be highly personalized and may not be directly influenced by a general characteristic of the classroom or equipment.
The findings show the areas of least satisfaction, such as “views” and “acoustics”, which have a higher proportion of dissatisfied and very dissatisfied responses. With these identified, appropriate measures for improvement can be taken. For example, the management could review their policies and take corrective actions on aspects such as adjusting window views or reducing noise pollution.
Although the effectiveness of workplace indoor environmental parameters and their impact on the occupants’ performance was not directly assessed in these statistics, one can infer that areas where higher satisfaction levels are observed might contribute positively to the occupants’ performance. Future research should collect more direct measures of occupant performance and correlate these with satisfaction measures to understand the impact of indoor environmental parameters on performance better.
While these statistics provide valuable insights into occupants’ satisfaction with indoor environmental quality, benchmarking against national and international LEED-rated buildings would require comparative data from those buildings. If such data are made available through the shared platform of the Centre for Built Environment (University of Berkley, Berkley, CA, USA), this objective could be achieved. Nevertheless, the current results establish a solid foundation for the comparison and will aid in identifying gaps and areas of improvement for the higher education building in Saudi Arabia.
5.1. General Satisfaction with The Space
This distribution suggests a fairly even spread across the building, with slightly more workspaces in the north area. The relatively high percentage of respondents who did not know their workspace location could suggest a lack of orientation cues in the building or a lack of importance placed on this knowledge by the respondents [40,41].
The findings are associated with previous research emphasizing the significance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) factors in affecting occupants’ satisfaction. Studies have shown that factors like the view, influence over the indoor environment, privacy, layout, size, cleanliness, aesthetics, and furniture are crucial in determining occupants’ satisfaction [42]. Additionally, the measure of space, noise levels, and visual privacy are key factors affecting overall satisfaction [43]. Furthermore, the broader environmental satisfaction domain encompasses various elements such as interaction, personal control, cleanliness, and space layout, all contributing to occupants’ overall satisfaction [44]. Moreover, the impact of IEQ on occupant productivity and health has been extensively studied, highlighting the interconnected nature of factors like thermal conditions, acoustics, aesthetics, indoor air quality, and lighting on occupant satisfaction [45]. Green-certified buildings have been a research focus, with discussions on creating more comfortable, high-performing, healthier-built environments [46]. The role of IEQ in determining occupants’ productivity underscores the importance of considering a holistic approach that integrates physical, attitudinal, social, and demographic components [47]. The depiction of occupants’ satisfaction levels in Figure 5 highlights the critical role of various IEQ factors in shaping occupants’ experiences within buildings. By understanding and addressing these factors, building professionals can enhance occupant satisfaction, well-being, and productivity in indoor environments.
5.2. Layout
These findings align with the existing literature on workspace satisfaction and occupant perceptions. Studies have highlighted the trade-offs between privacy and communication in open-plan office layouts, emphasizing the impact of spatial configuration on occupants’ satisfaction levels [48]. Additionally, research has underscored the importance of indoor environmental quality factors, such as layout, furnishings, thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, and acoustics, in influencing occupants’ overall workspace satisfaction and performance [45]. Moreover, investigations into workspace designs have revealed that occupants in open-plan offices are more likely to experience thermal discomfort, poor air quality, and noise, leading to higher dissatisfaction levels than occupants in other office configurations [49]. The interplay between workspace location, indoor environmental quality, and employee satisfaction within office buildings has also been explored, emphasizing the significance of these factors in shaping occupants’ perceptions of their work environment [50].
Furthermore, studies have probed into the influence of the workspace design on occupant satisfaction, highlighting the need for a balance between teamwork and confidentiality in academic workspaces to enhance occupants’ overall satisfaction and well-being [51]. The correlation between physical workspace conditions, such as thermal, acoustic, and lighting conditions, and occupants’ satisfaction has been a focal point in research to identify key factors contributing to workspace satisfaction [52]. In closing, the results presented in this section underscore the multifaceted nature of occupants’ satisfaction with the workspace layout and interaction dynamics. Building professionals can better tailor workspace designs to meet occupants’ needs and enhance overall satisfaction by considering space allocation, ease of interaction, and environmental quality.
5.3. Visual Privacy
The survey emphasizes the importance of visual privacy as a distinct aspect of environmental quality within spaces, highlighting the need to evaluate it independently. Research has indicated that visual privacy significantly influences occupants’ satisfaction and well-being in workspaces. Studies have shown that visual privacy and acoustic isolation, supported by physical settings, are associated with psychological privacy, emphasizing the significance of creating spaces that provide occupants with a sense of privacy and security [53]. Additionally, factors such as furniture adjustability, colors, textures, air temperature, noise levels, and workspace cleanliness have been identified as crucial elements contributing to employee satisfaction, including considerations for visual privacy [50]. Furthermore, extensive inquiry has been conducted on the influence of workspace design on occupants’ experiences, particularly concerning privacy and interaction. Distractions and a lack of privacy have hurt self-reported productivity among knowledge workers, changing from single-cell offices to shared workspaces, underscoring the importance of addressing privacy concerns in workspace design [54].
Moreover, studies have explored the relationship between stress, workspace attachment, and user satisfaction, highlighting the role of visual privacy in supporting labor productivity and well-being in workspaces [55]. In remote work, there is a growing interest in identifying the experiences of remote workers and the potential for ambient workspaces at home. Research has proposed design concepts for ambient response and human–AI interactions in the built environment to enhance home workers’ experiences. This indicates an increasing focus on creating conducive home workspaces that offer privacy and support well-being [56]. In conclusion, the research findings on visual privacy feature its importance as a critical component of occupants’ satisfaction within workspaces. By addressing visual privacy concerns and creating environments that provide privacy and control, building professionals can enhance occupants’ well-being, productivity, and overall satisfaction in various settings.
5.4. Furnishings
These findings support research emphasizing the importance of the physical environment in educational settings. Studies have shown that factors like comfort, adjustability, and the cleanliness of furnishings play a central role in occupants’ satisfaction and well-being [57,58]. Additionally, the effect of the physical environment on learning outcomes and user experience has been widely recognized [59,60]. For instance, the space/furnishings subscale includes evaluations of the indoor space, furniture, and room layout, which create a conducive learning environment [58]. Furthermore, the results underscore the significance of considering occupants’ needs and preferences when designing educational spaces. Adjustable and comfortable furnishings enhance satisfaction and contribute to overall well-being and productivity [61]. The ability to customize furniture to meet individual requirements is crucial for promoting a positive and conducive workspace [57]. In summary, the survey results highlight the importance of comfort and adjustability in furnishings within educational environments. By prioritizing these aspects, institutions can create spaces that promote satisfaction, well-being, and productivity among occupants.
5.5. Thermal Comfort
Thermal comfort is critical to indoor environments, significantly impacting occupants’ satisfaction and well-being. This finding aligns with studies indicating that thermal comfort is a fundamental requirement for occupants, contributing considerably to dissatisfaction when not met [62]. Moreover, thermal comfort satisfaction has been closely linked to overall satisfaction with the work environment [63]. Various factors influence thermal comfort, including building layout and design. Studies have indicated that an office’s layout significantly affects overall comfort [19]. Additionally, the building shape, orientation, and window-to-wall ratios can impact energy efficacy and thermal comfort, with specific designs offering higher comfort levels [64].
Furthermore, the orientation and form of buildings and adaptive house design are crucial in achieving better indoor thermal comfort [65]. Their behavior and lifestyle changes also influence occupants’ thermal experiences. Research emphasizes the importance of considering changes in occupant behavior, lifestyle, and income when studying thermal comfort, as these factors can lead to rebound or pre-bound effects [66].
Additionally, developing models that evaluate multiple parameters, such as indoor air temperature, mean radiant temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, clothing, and metabolic rate, can provide a comprehensive understanding of thermal comfort [67]. To wrap up, ensuring optimal thermal comfort in indoor spaces is crucial for occupant satisfaction and well-being. The building design, occupant behavior, and environmental conditions significantly determine occupants’ thermal experiences. By considering these factors and implementing strategies to enhance thermal comfort, building occupants can experience improved satisfaction and productivity.
5.6. Indoor Air Quality
The indoor air quality significantly influences occupants’ perceptions of their environment. Studies have shown that the perceived air quality, sick building syndrome symptoms, and productivity are closely linked to indoor air conditions [68,69,70]. Improving the indoor air quality by reducing pollution loads has been associated with enhanced perceived air quality and reduced sick building syndrome symptoms [68]. Additionally, the impact of indoor air temperature and humidity on perceived air quality and symptoms has been highlighted, emphasizing the importance of these factors in maintaining a healthy indoor environment [70]. The significance of indoor air quality has gained global attention, with efforts to enhance building occupants’ comfort, health, and well-being [71]. Research has indicated that addressing the indoor air quality is crucial for promoting the health and well-being of occupants, especially in densely populated areas like office spaces [72]. Occupants’ satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality is a critical aspect that reflects how they perceive their surroundings [73]. Studies have shown that occupants’ perceptions of the indoor air quality is influenced by various factors such as the temperature, air movements, and pollutant concentrations [74,75,76]. Furthermore, the quality of the indoor environment, encompassing thermal, lighting, air, and acoustic qualities, plays a vital role in occupants’ well-being and satisfaction [77]. The association between indoor humidity and occupants’ perceptions of indoor air quality has been highlighted, emphasizing the need to manage indoor humidity levels effectively [78].
Additionally, a building’s multifaceted environmental performance, including indoor air quality, impacts the occupants’ health and satisfaction with living or working spaces [79]. In summary, high indoor air quality is crucial to occupants’ well-being and comfort. Addressing pollution loads, the temperature, humidity, and pollutant concentrations is essential in creating a healthy indoor environment that promotes occupants’ health and productivity.
5.7. Lighting and Views
When asked by occupants whether they were satisfied with the window view from their space, no participants indicated that they experienced some level of dissatisfaction with their window views. Interestingly, all participants indicated satisfaction with the window views from their space, with no one reporting any level of dissatisfaction, as also confirmed in [80]. Research focusing on the benefits of nature in indoor spaces, including natural views from windows, has highlighted the positive impact of biophilic interventions such as indoor plants and natural light on stress reduction and cognitive function [80]. Additionally, studies have shown that indoor plants can influence self-reported perceptions, emotions, cognition, health, and satisfaction, contributing to improved well-being and productivity [81]. Field studies are suggested to explore how lighting can be optimized to enhance indoor environmental workplace satisfaction [82]. Furthermore, optimizing light source layouts and considering factors like illuminance and uniformity can significantly impact occupants’ visual comfort and satisfaction with the lighting conditions [82,83]. Overall, the synthesis of these references stresses the importance of lighting and views in indoor spaces for occupant satisfaction and well-being. Incorporating biophilic elements like natural views and indoor plants, along with optimizing lighting design, can create a more comfortable and visually appealing environment for occupants, ultimately enhancing their overall experience and productivity.
5.8. Acoustic Quality
Occupants’ satisfaction with acoustics in a space is a crucial aspect of their overall experience. The authors of [84] found that occupants in open-plan offices may experience adverse reactions due to overstimulation caused by excessive social contact and interruptions, impacting their satisfaction with the office environment. This result aligns with the findings of [85], who highlighted the potential negative impact of noise on occupant psychological well-being and health in open-plan offices. In the context of indoor environmental quality (IEQ), Frontczak et al. [42] examined the factors affecting occupants’ satisfaction in office buildings. They found that specific indoor environmental parameters significantly influence occupants’ satisfaction levels. Cheung et al. [43] also emphasized the importance of merging various IEQ variables, including sound privacy, into more prominent environmental factors to understand their substantial impact on workspace satisfaction. Zalejska [86] focused on the relationship between occupants’ satisfaction and indoor environment quality, particularly addressing the impact of noise levels on general satisfaction and the perceived acoustic quality. This is in line with another study [87], which calculated acoustical satisfaction based on noise levels and sound privacy, indicating the importance of these factors in determining occupants’ perceptions of acoustics. Overall, the synthesis of these references underscores the significance of acoustics in influencing occupants’ satisfaction with their workspace. The level of noise and sound privacy plays a crucial role in determining occupants’ overall experience, with excessive noise levels and lack of privacy potentially leading to adverse reactions and impacting their well-being and satisfaction.
5.9. Cleanliness and Maintenance
Maintaining cleanliness and addressing maintenance issues are essential aspects of indoor environmental quality that significantly impact occupants’ satisfaction [43]. The study emphasizes the importance of cleanliness as one of the factors influencing occupants’ satisfaction with the space [88]. Additionally, the study highlights the significance of occupants’ satisfaction in the maintenance planning process, indicating that meeting users’ satisfaction contributes to optimizing building costs and enhancing the overall user experience [89,90]. Furthermore, the research suggests that satisfaction with the amount of space is a critical factor influencing occupants’ overall satisfaction, regardless of other demographic variables [42]. This implies that alongside cleanliness and maintenance, the perceived adequacy of space plays a vital role in occupants’ contentment with their environment. In conclusion, the findings underscore the importance of cleanliness and maintenance in shaping occupants’ satisfaction with a building. Addressing these aspects effectively can lead to higher overall satisfaction levels among occupants, contributing to a more positive indoor environment.
6. Conclusions
This study evaluated occupants’ satisfaction concerning the indoor environmental quality of a higher education building in Saudi Arabia through a survey assessing their feelings about control over several environmental parameters. These parameters included layout, temperature, air quality, lighting, views, acoustics, cleanliness, maintenance, and aesthetics. The study employed the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) web-based survey tool to assess occupant satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) within a green university. This tool evaluates various aspects of IEQ, such as thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, acoustic quality, and overall satisfaction. A cross-sectional survey was performed. The CBE Occupant Survey was originally created in 2000 as a research instrument at the Center for the Built Environment at the University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. It is extensively employed for gathering input from occupants. This online application anonymously assesses indoor environmental quality based on people’s perspectives using the space in question. This tool consisted of a set of organized questions that were evaluated using a Likert scale and spaces, allowing participants to provide open-ended responses. Participants were recruited from a target population (total of 376) of staff that used the building regularly, including students (323), faculty (42), and staff (11). Recruitment methods involved email invitations and website announcements. The number of respondents was 195 (52%), and 63 completed the questionnaire (32%), which comprises 17% of the population. The participants received an email with a link to the survey, instructions, and information about the study’s purpose and confidentiality rights. The survey period was three months to ensure the number of participants was sufficient.
It was found that the satisfaction levels differed across various parameters. The respondents were asked about their feelings towards their ability to control multiple environmental parameters. The distribution of responses across the categories of “very dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”, “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, “satisfied”, “somewhat satisfied”, and “very satisfied”. We have identified those with higher and lower satisfaction levels by analyzing the frequencies and percentages of satisfaction across various environmental parameters. For instance, the parameter “cleanliness” had the highest proportion of “very satisfied” responses, suggesting it is an area of high satisfaction. Conversely, the “views” parameter had higher proportions of “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” responses, indicating it as an area of lower satisfaction. This analysis allows for a better understanding of the specific areas of the indoor environment that contribute to occupant satisfaction. The findings show the areas of least satisfaction, such as “thermal comfort” and “acoustics”, which have a higher proportion of dissatisfied and very dissatisfied responses. With these identified, appropriate measures for improvement can be taken. For example, the management could review their policies and take corrective actions such as adjusting window views or reducing noise pollution. Although the effectiveness of workplace indoor environmental parameters and their impact on occupants’ performance was not directly assessed in these statistics, one can infer that areas where higher satisfaction levels are observed might contribute positively to occupant performance. In summary, the results suggest that respondents significantly emphasize technology and the ability to control their workspace environment. The aesthetic appeal also holds considerable importance, while personalization and privacy show a range of opinions. Telecommunication technology is perceived as very important, reflecting the growing need for effective remote communication in today’s workspace environment. These insights could be valuable in guiding office design and workspace policy decisions.
Similar to other survey-based research, this study faced potential limitations such as biases in self-reported data and the risk of non-response bias. Effective participant engagement strategies were employed to address these issues, and a thorough analysis was conducted. On the other hand, the results of this study were based on the survey distributed to the building staff in a private university in Saudi Arabia, including female faculty, staff, and students. The number of occupants who completed the survey is 32% of respondents, which comprises 17% of the total population. It needs to be more significant to generalize the survey results to all the educational buildings on the university campus. The study will be extended to include evaluations of more university buildings occupied by male and female staff participants to investigate the IEQ and general occupant satisfaction levels. It would have been interesting to analyze the study results based on the students’ seniority in the university and examine how the time spent on campus affects their experiences. The same approach can be applied to the staff as well. This can be witnessed as one of the development requirements for future inquiries.
Future research should collect more direct measures of occupant performance and correlate these with satisfaction measures to better understand the impact of indoor environmental parameters on performance. While these statistics provide valuable insights into occupants’ satisfaction with indoor environmental quality, benchmarking against national and international LEED-rated buildings requires comparative data. This objective could be achieved if such data are made available through the shared platform of the Centre of Built Environment (University of Berkley, Berkley, CA, USA). Nevertheless, the current results establish a solid foundation for the comparison and will aid in identifying gaps and areas of improvement for the higher education building in Saudi Arabia. The study’s methodology ensured a systematic and ethical approach to gathering and analyzing data on IEQ satisfaction, leveraging the strength and efficiency of the web-based CBE survey tool.
Conceptualization, H.S. and W.L.; methodology, H.S., and W.L.; investigation, H.S., E.A., and W.M.; resources, C.M.; data curation, W.L., E.A., and W.M.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S.; writing—review and editing, H.S., W.L., E.A., W.M., and C.M.; visualization, H.S. and W.M.; supervision, H.S., and W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors will make the raw data supporting this article’s conclusions available on request. Due to privacy concerns, the data are not publicly available.
The study was conducted at Prince Sultan University (PSU), Saudi Arabia, with generous material support from the university. The authors thank the Educational Research Lab (ERL) and College of Architecture and Design (CAD) for their efforts in this investigation. The authors also appreciate PSU’s support in funding research publication fees.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Diagram for the approach to sustainable workplace environments in educational buildings. Source: developed by authors.
![View Image - Figure 2. (a–c) Geographical location of the university building. Source [11].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/24/O6nIZ?_a=ChgyMDI2MDQwNDA4MDgzOTY4MzoyMjQ1MzgSBzEzODMzMjMaCk9ORV9TRUFSQ0giDTIxNi43My4yMTYuMjQqBzIwMzI0MjIyCjMwODQ3ODI1MTA6C0lubGluZUltYWdlQgEwUgZPbmxpbmVaA0lMSWIEVEhVTWoKMjAyNC8wMS8wMXIKMjAyNC8xMi8zMXoAggEgUC0xMDAwMDg0LTIwMTM5NS1TVEFGRi1udWxsLW51bGySAQZPbmxpbmXKAWdNb3ppbGxhLzUuMCBBcHBsZVdlYktpdC81MzcuMzYgKEtIVE1MLCBsaWtlIEdlY2tvOyBjb21wYXRpYmxlOyBDbGF1ZGVCb3QvMS4wOyArY2xhdWRlYm90QGFudGhyb3BpYy5jb20p0gESU2Nob2xhcmx5IEpvdXJuYWxzmgIHUHJlUGFpZKoCG09TOkVNUy1GdWxsVGV4dC1nZXRGdWxsVGV4dMoCD0FydGljbGV8RmVhdHVyZeICAU7yAgD6AgFZggMDV2ViigMcQ0lEOjIwMjYwNDA0MDgwODM5NjgzOjQ0MzUwOA%3D%3D&_s=oKXQbSOy8GD3EbdvxUHPQK7PFJY%3D "View Image - Figure 2. (a–c) Geographical location of the university building. Source [11].")
![View Image - Figure 2. (a–c) Geographical location of the university building. Source [11].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/36/O6nIZ?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=n17nS1%2FNmZ%2Fw8FkMurKqqAunE3s%3D "View Image - Figure 2. (a–c) Geographical location of the university building. Source [11].")
![View Image - Figure 3. Riyadh’s annual weather averages. Source: [12].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/38/O6nIZ?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=D%2B%2FUahKLQ%2BJCM1fJl%2BXoX%2F5QBQ4%3D "View Image - Figure 3. Riyadh’s annual weather averages. Source: [12].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. IEQ factors for design and operation of educational facilities to guarantee a healthy, comfortable, and productive environment for occupants. Source: developed by authors.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Significant challenges in enhancing IEQ in Saudi Arabia for green educational buildings and the well-being of occupants. Source: developed by authors.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. (a–c) Building’s exterior view and plan layout. (a) Exterior view of the building showing shading elements on elevation. (b) Exterior view of the building showing exterior pedestrian and car parking on elevation. (c) The second-floor plan for the university building shows the classrooms on the right side and the main library on the left side.
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Overview of occupants’ broad experiences and time spent in the building. Source: survey analysis.
Enlarge this image.Figure 11. Summary of the occupants’ satisfaction levels with the 17 items in the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) Occupant Survey.
Enlarge this image.Figure 12. All individual satisfaction votes for every occupant who completed the survey.
Enlarge this image.Figure 13. Percentage of satisfaction with the amount of space available for student work and storage.
Enlarge this image.Figure 14. Percentage of satisfaction with the amount of space available for individual work and storage.
Enlarge this image.Figure 15. Percentage of satisfaction with the ease of interaction with co-workers.
Enlarge this image.Figure 23. Percentage of satisfaction of occupants with the air quality in space.
Enlarge this image.Figure 24. Percentage of satisfaction of occupants with the amount of electric light in their space.
Enlarge this image.Figure 25. Percentage of satisfaction of occupants with glare and reflections on screens and surfaces.
Enlarge this image.Figure 26. Percentage of satisfaction of occupants with the noise level of the space.
Enlarge this image.Figure 27. Percentage of occupants’ satisfaction with their ability to communicate without their neighbor overhearing and vice versa.
Enlarge this image.Figure 28. Percentage of satisfaction of occupants with the cleanliness and maintenance of the space.
Enlarge this image.Figure 29. Percentage of satisfaction of occupants with the building’s general maintenance of the space.
Occupant age groups.
| # | Age Group | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18–30 | 52 | 82% |
| 2 | 31–40 | 5 | 8% |
| 3 | 41–50 | 5 | 8% |
| 4 | 51–60 | 1 | 2% |
References
1. Aguilar, A.J.; de la Hoz-Torres, M.L.; Ruiz, D.P.; Martínez-Aires, M.D. Monitoring and Assessment of Indoor Environmental Conditions in Educational Building Using Building Information Modelling Methodology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 13756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113756] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36360631]
2. Zhang, F.; Liu, S.; Hu, W.; Yadav, M. Editorial: Effects of Indoor Environmental Quality on Human Performance and Productivity. Front. Built Environ.; 2022; 8, 1095443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.1095443]
3. Tahsildoost, M.; Zomorodian, Z.S. Indoor Environment Quality Assessment in Classrooms: An Integrated Approach. J. Build. Phys.; 2018; 42, pp. 336-362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744259118759687]
4. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). Sustainability at KAUST. Available online: https://www.kaust.edu.sa/en/study/sustainability (accessed on 1 November 2023).
5. López-Chao, V.; Pena, V.L. Purpose Adequacy as a Basis for Sustainable Building Design: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Higher Education Classrooms. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 11181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132011181]
6. Labib, W.; Sirror, H.; Abowardah, E.S.; Metwally, W. Effect of Indoor Environmental Quality on Work Productivity in Educational Buildings: A Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2022; 1026, 012057. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1026/1/012057]
7. Alshuwaikhat, H.; Adenle, Y.; Saghir, B. Sustainability Assessment of Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 750. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8080750]
8. Roumi, S.; Zhang, F.; Stewart, R. Global Research Trends on Building Indoor Environmental Quality Modeling and Indexing Systems—A Scientometric Review. Energies; 2022; 15, 4494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15124494]
9. Brink, H.W.; Lechner, S.; Loomans, M.M.; Mobach, M.P.; Kort, H. Understanding How Indoor Environmental Classroom Conditions Influence Academic Performance in Higher Education. Facilities; 2023; 42, pp. 185-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-12-2022-0164]
10. Saudi Vision 2030. Vision 2030. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://vision2030.gov.sa/en (accessed on 12 March 2023).
11. Google Earth Maps. Available online: https://earth.google.com/web/@24.73612004,46.70173485,623.23231194a,1206.01078189d,35y,153.26999419h,0t,0r/data=OgMKATA (accessed on 28 April 2024).
12. World Weather Online. Available online: https://www.worldweatheronline.com/riyadh-weather-averages/ar-riyad/sa.aspx (accessed on 1 April 2024).
13. Niza, I.L.; Bueno, A.M.; Broday, E.E. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Technological Advances, Impacts and Challenges in the Management of Healthy and Sustainable Environments. Urban Sci.; 2023; 7, 96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7030096]
14. Nimlyat, P.S.; Salihu, B.; Wang, G.P. The Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) on Patients’ Health and Comfort in Nigeria. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt.; 2022; ahead of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-06-2021-0089]
15. Astolfi, A.; Puglisi, G.; Murgia, S.; Minelli, G.; Pellerey, F.; Prato, A.; Sacco, T. Influence of Classroom Acoustics on Noise Disturbance and Well-Being for First Graders. Front. Psychol.; 2019; 10, 2736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02736] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31920797]
16. Park, J.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A. Post-Occupancy Evaluation and IEQ Measurements from 64 Office Buildings: Critical Factors and Thresholds for User Satisfaction on Thermal Quality. Buildings; 2018; 8, 156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings8110156]
17. Faraji, A.; Rashidi, M.; Rezaei, F.; Rahnamayiezekavat, P. A Meta-Synthesis Review of Occupant Comfort Assessment in Buildings (2002–2022). Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15054303]
18. Kostiainen, T.; Welling, I.; Lahtinen, M.; Salmi, K.; Kähkönen, E.; Lampinen, J. Modeling of Subjective Responses to Indoor Air Quality and Thermal Conditions in Office Buildings. HVAC&R Res.; 2008; 14, pp. 905-923. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2008.10391046]
19. Sakellaris, D.; Saraga, D.; Santamouris, M.; Livada, I.; Assimakopoulos, M.N. Perceived Indoor Environment and Occupants’ Comfort in European “Modern” Office Buildings: The OFFICAIR Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2016; 13, 444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050444] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27120608]
20. Khoshbakht, M.; Gou, Z.; Dupre, K. Campus Green Buildings: Policy Implications for the Implementing, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Campus Green Building Initiatives. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2019; 294, 012004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/294/1/012004]
21. Alqahtany, A. Green Roofs as an Approach to Enhance Urban Sustainability: A Study of Public Perception in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Buildings; 2022; 12, 2202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122202]
22. Alzaed, A.N.; Al-Buzz, W.W. Possibility of Implement Strategies of Green Buildings in Building Constructions at Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Achieve Sustainable Development. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng.; 2016; 13, pp. 68-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9790/1684-1305056873]
23. Lee, Y.S.; Kim, S.-K. Indoor Environmental Quality in LEED-Certified Buildings in the U.S. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.; 2008; 7, pp. 293-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.7.293]
24. Jamoussi, B.; Abu-Rizaiza, A.; Al-Haij, A. Sustainable Building Standards, Codes, and Certification Systems: The Status Quo and Future Directions in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 10314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141610314]
25. Al-Surf, M.; Balabel, A.; Alwetaishi, M.; Abdelhafiz, A.; Issa, U.; Sharaky, I.; Shamseldin, A.; Al-Harthi, M. Stakeholder’s Perspective on Green Building Rating Systems in Saudi Arabia: The Case of LEED, Mostadam, and the SDGs. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 8463. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13158463]
26. Alwetaishi, M. Impact of Building Function on Thermal Comfort: A Review Paper. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.; 2016; 9, pp. 928-945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.2016.928.945]
27. Adenle, Y.; Alshuwaikhat, H. Spatial Estimation and Visualization of CO2 Emissions for Campus Sustainability: The Case of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 2124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9112124]
28. Brink, H.; Loomans, M.; Mobach, M.; Kort, H. Classrooms’ Indoor Environmental Conditions Affecting the Academic Achievement of Students and Teachers in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Indoor Air; 2020; 31, pp. 405-425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.12745] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32969550]
29. Atyah, R. The Effects of the Physical Environment Design on Teachers’ Workplace Comfort: A Critical Review. Int. J. Archit. Spat. Environ. Des.; 2020; 14, pp. 17-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/CGP/v14i03/17-30]
30. Algarni, S.; Khan, R.; Khan, N.; Mubarak, N. Particulate Matter Concentration and Health Risk Assessment for a Residential Building During COVID-19 Pandemic in Abha, Saudi Arabia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 65822-65831. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15534-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34322813]
31. Alsufyani, A.; Almalki, K.; Almutairi, A.; Aljuaid, S.; Alsufyani, B. Educational and Behavioral Models for Promoting Health in Saudi Arabia: A Theoretical Overview. Cureus; 2020; 12, e9471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.9471] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32874800]
32. Ahmed, R.; Mumovic, D.; Bagkeris, E.; Ucci, M. Combined Effects of Ventilation Rates and Indoor Temperatures on Cognitive Performance of Female Higher Education Students in a Hot Climate. Indoor Air; 2022; 32, e13004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.13004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35225384]
33. Almulhim, M.; Hunt, D.; Rogers, C. A Resilience and Environmentally Sustainable Assessment Framework (RESAF) for Domestic Building Materials in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3092. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12083092]
34. Banani, R.; Vahdati, M.; Shahrestani, M.; Clements-Croome, D. The Development of Building Assessment Criteria Framework for Sustainable Non-Residential Buildings in Saudi Arabia. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2016; 26, pp. 289-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.07.007]
35. Alzahrani, H.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Rana, M.; Aburas, H. Evaluating the Effects of Indoor Air Quality on Teacher Performance Using Artificial Neural Network. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2022; 21, pp. 604-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2021-0372]
36. Al-Sulaihi, I.; Al-Gahtani, K.; Alsugair, A.; Tijani, I. Assessing Indoor Environmental Quality of Educational Buildings Using BIM. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. B; 2015; 4, pp. 451-458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17265/2162-5263/2015.08.006]
37. Bergeson, S.C.; Gray, J.; Ehrmantraut, L.A.; Laibson, T.; Hays, R.D. Comparing Web-Based with Mail Survey Administration of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey. Prim. Health Care Open Access; 2013; 3, 1000132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2167-1079.1000132] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24078901]
38. Bergeson, S.C.; Gray, J.; Ehrmantraut, L.; Jang, H.; Kwak, Y.; Park, J.; Kim, D.; Lee, J. Parental Satisfaction with Pediatric Emergency Care: A Nationwide, Cross-Sectional Survey in Korea. Korean J. Pediatr.; 2015; 58, 466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3345/kjp.2015.58.12.466]
39. U.S. Green Building Council. Reference Guide for Building Operations and Maintenance; LEED v4 Edition U.S. Green Building Council: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017.
40. Alkhayyal, B.A.; Labib, W.; Alsulaiman, T.; Abdelhadi, A. Analyzing Sustainability Awareness Among Higher Education Faculty Members: A Case Study in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 6837. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11236837]
41. Khattak, A. Are Environmental Sustainability Thoughts a Panacea for Environmental Performance? Social Innovation and Moderating Role of Green Innovation. Int. J. Innov. Sci.; 2023; ahead of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2022-0190]
42. 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; 2011; 22, pp. 119-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00745.x]
43. Cheung, T.; Schiavon, S.; Graham, L.; Tham, K. Occupant Satisfaction with the Indoor Environment in Seven Commercial Buildings in Singapore. Build. Environ.; 2021; 188, 107443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107443]
44. Luna-Navarro, A.; Hunt, G.; Overend, M. Dynamic Façades—An Exploratory Campaign to Assess Occupant Multi-Domain Environmental Satisfaction and Façade Interaction. Build. Environ.; 2022; 211, 108703. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108703]
45. Lee, J.; Kim, D.; Lee, S.; Jeong, J. Indoor Environmental Quality Survey in Research Institute: A Floor-by-Floor Analysis. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 14067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132414067]
46. Altomonte, S.; Schiavon, S.; Kent, M.; Brager, G. Indoor Environmental Quality and Occupant Satisfaction in Green-Certified Buildings. Build. Res. Inf.; 2017; 47, pp. 255-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1383715]
47. Chen, C.; Yılmaz, S.; Pisello, A.; Simone, M.; Kim, A.; Hong, T.; Zhu, Y. The Impacts of Building Characteristics, Social Psychological and Cultural Factors on Indoor Environment Quality Productivity Belief. Build. Environ.; 2020; 185, 107189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107189]
48. Kim, D. Health-Oriented Sustainable Buildings in the Context of Qatar. QSci. Proc.; 2016; 2016, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2016.qgbc.21]
49. Haapakangas, A.; Hongisto, V.; Varjo, J.; Lahtinen, M. Benefits of Quiet Workspaces in Open-Plan Offices—Evidence from Two Office Relocations. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2018; 56, pp. 63-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.003]
50. Aboulfotouh, A.; Tolba, O.; Ezzeldin, S. The Impact of Workspace Location and Indoor Environmental Quality on Employees’ Satisfaction Within Office Buildings: A Case Study in Cairo. Indoor Built Environ.; 2020; 31, pp. 2094-2114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X20944561]
51. Parkinson, T.; Schiavon, S.; Kim, J.; Betti, G. Common Sources of Occupant Dissatisfaction with Workspace Environments in 600 Office Buildings. Build. Cities; 2023; 4, pp. 17-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bc.274]
52. Freihoefer, K.; Guerin, D.A.; Martin, C.S.; Kim, H.; Brigham, J.K. Occupants’ Satisfaction with, and Physical Readings of, Thermal, Acoustic, and Lighting Conditions of Sustainable Office Workspaces. Indoor Built Environ.; 2013; 24, pp. 457-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X13514595]
53. Lee, Y. Office Layout Affecting Privacy, Interaction, and Acoustic Quality in LEED-Certified Buildings. Build. Environ.; 2010; 45, pp. 1594-1600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.01.007]
54. Morrison, R.; Stahlmann-Brown, P. Perceptions and Performance of Knowledge Workers Transitioning from Single-Cell Offices to Shared Workspaces: Evidence from Panel Data. J. Manag. Psychol.; 2020; 36, pp. 366-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2019-0531]
55. Nappi, I.; Ribeiro, G.; Cochard, N. The Interplay of Stress and Workspace Attachment on User Satisfaction and Workspace Support to Labour Productivity. J. Corp. Real Estate; 2020; 22, pp. 215-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-05-2019-0026]
56. Margariti, E.; Ali, R.; Grave, R.; Verweij, D.; Smeddinck, J.; Kirk, D. Understanding the Experiences of Remote Workers: Opportunities for Ambient Workspaces at Home. Front. Comput. Sci.; 2021; 3, 673585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.673585]
57. Fabozzi, M.; Dama, A. Field Study on Thermal Comfort in Naturally Ventilated and Air-Conditioned University Classrooms. Indoor Built Environ.; 2019; 29, pp. 851-859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19887481]
58. Cassidy, D.; King, E.; Wang, Y.; Lower, J.; Kintner-Duffy, V. Teacher Work Environments Are Toddler Learning Environments: Teacher Professional Well-Being, Classroom Emotional Support, and Toddlers’ Emotional Expressions and Behaviours. Early Child Dev. Care; 2016; 187, pp. 1666-1678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516]
59. Woolner, P.; Hall, E.; Higgins, S.; McCaughey, C.; Wall, K. A Sound Foundation? What We Know About the Impact of Environments on Learning and the Implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxf. Rev. Educ.; 2007; 33, pp. 47-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094693]
60. Barri, M. Evaluation of Physical Aspects of Classroom Environment in Terms of the Humanistic Approach: A Comprehensive Theoretical Framework. J. Educ. Train. Stud.; 2020; 8, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v8i11.4974]
61. Uherek-Bradecka, B. Classroom Design for Children with an Autism Spectrum. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 960, 022100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/960/2/022100]
62. Li, B.; Wang, J.; Gao, Z.; Gao, N. Light Source Layout Optimization Strategy Based on Improved Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm. Math. Probl. Eng.; 2021; 2021, 8099757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8099757]
63. Borsos, Á.; Zoltán, E.S.; Pozsgai, É.; Cakó, B.; Medvegy, G.; Girán, J. The Comfort Map—A Possible Tool for Increasing Personal Comfort in Office Workplaces. Buildings; 2021; 11, 233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060233]
64. Pathirana, S.; Rodrigo, A.S.; Halwatura, R. Effect of Building Shape, Orientation, Window to Wall Ratios and Zones on Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort of Naturally Ventilated Houses in Tropical Climate. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng.; 2019; 10, pp. 107-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40095-018-0295-3]
65. Ahmad, S.; Yetti, A.E.; Ali, N.E.; Sanusi, M.S.; Samsudin, P.Y. Adaptation of Traditional Malay House Design Towards Housing Comfort and Satisfaction. Malays. J. Soc. Space; 2022; 18, pp. 216-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17576/geo-2022-1803-14]
66. Malik, J.; Bardhan, R.; Banerji, P. Rethinking Indoor Thermal Comfort in the Era of Rebound and Pre-Bound Effect for the Developing World: A Systematic Review. Indoor Air; 2020; 30, pp. 377-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.12664] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32149411]
67. Alaidroos, A.; Almaimani, A.; Krarti, M.; Qurnfulah, E.; Tiwari, A. Influence of Building Envelope Characteristics on the Effectiveness of PMV-Based Controls for Schools Located in Saudi Arabia. Indoor Built Environ.; 2022; 31, pp. 2411-2429. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X221107504]
68. Wargocki, P.; Wyon, D.; Sundell, J.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P. The Effects of Outdoor Air Supply Rate in an Office on Perceived Air Quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) Symptoms and Productivity. Indoor Air; 2000; 10, pp. 222-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004222.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089327]
69. Wargocki, P.; Wyon, D.; Baik, Y.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P. Perceived Air Quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) Symptoms, and Productivity in an Office with Two Different Pollution Loads. Indoor Air; 1999; 9, pp. 165-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.1999.t01-1-00003.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10439554]
70. Fang, L.; Wyon, D.; Clausen, G.; Fanger, P. Impact of Indoor Air Temperature and Humidity in an Office on Perceived Air Quality, SBS Symptoms, and Performance. Indoor Air; 2004; 14, pp. 74-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00276.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15330775]
71. Cincinelli, A.; Martellini, T. Indoor Air Quality and Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2017; 14, 1286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111286]
72. Lueker, J.; Bardhan, R.; Sarkar, A.; Norford, L. Indoor Air Quality Among Mumbai’s Resettled Populations: Comparing Dharavi Slum to Nearby Rehabilitation Sites. Build. Environ.; 2020; 167, 106419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106419]
73. Kamaruzzaman, S.; Egbu, C.; Mahyuddin, N.; Zawawi, E.; Chua, S.; Azmi, N. The Impact of IEQ on Occupants’ Satisfaction in Malaysian Buildings. Indoor Built Environ.; 2017; 27, pp. 715-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X16689493]
74. Kabanshi, A.; Yang, B.; Sörqvist, P.; Sandberg, M. Occupants’ Perception of Air Movements and Air Quality in a Simulated Classroom with an Intermittent Air Supply System. Indoor Built Environ.; 2017; 28, pp. 63-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X17732613]
75. Langer, S.; Ramalho, O.; Ponner, E.; Derbez, M.; Kirchner, S.; Mandin, C. Perceived Indoor Air Quality and Its Relationship to Air Pollutants in French Dwellings. Indoor Air; 2017; 27, pp. 1168-1176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.12393]
76. Zhang, X.; Fan, Y.; Yu, W.; Wang, H.; Zhao, F.; Tao, H.; Fu, Z. Investigation of Indoor Air Quality and Staff Satisfaction in Underground Buildings in Xi’an, China. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.; 2021; 30, pp. 3365-3373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/130966]
77. Danza, L.; Belussi, L.; Salamone, F. A Multiple Linear Regression Approach to Correlate the Indoor Environmental Factors to the Global Comfort in a Zero-Energy Building. E3S Web Conf.; 2020; 197, 04002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202019704002]
78. Rode, C.; Grau, K. Moisture Buffering and Its Consequence in Whole Building Hygrothermal Modeling. J. Build. Phys.; 2008; 31, pp. 333-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744259108088960]
79. Lai, J.; Yik, F. Perception of Importance and Performance of the Indoor Environmental Quality of High-Rise Residential Buildings. Build. Environ.; 2009; 44, pp. 352-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.03.013]
80. Yin, J.; Arfaei, N.; MacNaughton, P.; Catalano, P.; Allen, J.; Spengler, J. Effects of Biophilic Interventions in Office on Stress Reaction and Cognitive Function: A Randomized Crossover Study in Virtual Reality. Indoor Air; 2019; 29, pp. 1028-1039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.12593] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31418925]
81. Han, K.; Ruan, L. Effects of Indoor Plants on Self-Reported Perceptions: A Systematic Review. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 4506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11164506]
82. Kulve, M.; Schlangen, L.; Lichtenbelt, W. Interactions Between the Perception of Light and Temperature. Indoor Air; 2018; 28, pp. 881-891. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ina.12500]
83. Roy, S.; Majumder, S.; Bhattacharya, S.; Sardar, I. Simulation and Analysis of the Effects of Room Surface Reflectance Combinations on a Proposed Retrofit Illumination System of an Office. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2021; 19, pp. 1620-1647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-10-2020-0400]
84. Kim, J.; Dear, R.D. Workspace Satisfaction: The Privacy-Communication Trade-Off in Open-Plan Offices. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2013; 36, pp. 18-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007]
85. Blasio, S.D.; Shtrepi, L.; Puglisi, G.E.; Astolfi, A. A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Impact of Irrelevant Speech Noise on Annoyance, Mental Health and Well-Being, Performance and Occupants’ Behavior in Shared and Open-Plan Offices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020280]
86. Zalejska-Jonsson, A. Perceived Acoustic Quality and Effect on Occupants’ Satisfaction in Green and Conventional Residential Buildings. Buildings; 2019; 9, 24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings9010024]
87. Dawe, M.; Karmann, C.; Schiavon, S.; Bauman, F. Field Evaluation of Thermal and Acoustical Comfort in Eight North American Buildings Using Embedded Radiant Systems. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0258888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258888] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34699543]
88. Watchman, M.; Potvin, A.; Demers, C. A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of the Influence of Wood on Environmental Comfort. BioResources; 2017; 12, pp. 8704-8724. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15376/biores.12.4.8704-8724]
89. Ayo-Adejuyigbe, M.; Gyanwali, M. The Significance of Occupants’ Satisfaction on the Maintenance Planning Process. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2022; 1101, 062040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1101/6/062040]
90. Khahro, S.H.; Kumar, D.; Siddiqui, F.H.; Ali, T.H.; Raza, M.S.; Khoso, A.R. Optimizing Energy Use, Cost, and Carbon Emission through Building Information Modelling and a Sustainability Approach: A Case Study of a Hospital Building. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073675]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Labib, Wafa 1
; Abowardah, Eman 1
; Metwally, Walaa 1 ; Mitchell, Connie 2 1 Architecture Department, College of Architecture and Design, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia;
2 Linguistics and Translation Department, College of Humanities and Sciences, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 12435, Saudi Arabia;