A quantitative evaluation of indoor environmental quality in refurbished kindergarten buildings: A Malaysian case study

Accepted Manuscript A quantitative evaluation of indoor environmental quality in refurbished kindergarten buildings: A Malaysian case study Naziah Muhamad Salleh, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman, Mike Riley, Emma Marinie Ahmad Zawawi, Raha Sulaiman PII:

S0360-1323(15)30165-7

DOI:

10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.11.002

Reference:

BAE 4295

To appear in:

Building and Environment

Received Date: 6 October 2015 Revised Date:

1 November 2015

Accepted Date: 3 November 2015

Please cite this article as: Salleh NM, Kamaruzzaman SN, Riley M, Ahmad Zawawi EM, Sulaiman R, A quantitative evaluation of indoor environmental quality in refurbished kindergarten buildings: A Malaysian case study, Building and Environment (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.11.002. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

A QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN

2

REFURBISHED KINDERGARTEN BUILDINGS: A MALAYSIAN CASE STUDY

3

Naziah Muhamad Salleh1,2*, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman1, Mike Riley3, Emma Marinie

5

Ahmad Zawawi4, Raha Sulaiman1

6 7

1

8

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

9

2

RI PT

4

SC

Building Performance and Diagnostic, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603

Building Technology Department, School of Housing Building & Planning, University Science

Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia

11

3

School of Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

12

4

Centre of Research & Graduate Studies, Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, University

13

Technology MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia

TE D

14

M AN U

10

15 16

EP

17

18

AC C

19

20

21

22

23

*

Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +6017-6329464 Fax: +440679675713

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Abstract In Malaysia, the coverage of kindergarten education has improved dramatically in recent times,

3

although many kindergartens are located in buildings that were not originally designed for that

4

purpose. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is considered to be one of the most important factors

5

affecting the physical development of children. Hence, it is essential to evaluate the indoor conditions

6

of those kindergartens which are based in buildings that have been refurbished and adapted from their

7

original purpose. It is posited that such refurbished environments provide sub-optimal IEQ for

8

kindergarten use, which is reflected in user perception and satisfaction. This study presents the results

9

of the IEQ investigations conducted in refurbished kindergarten buildings in Malaysia with the focus

10

on identifying occupants’ satisfaction with the various IEQ factors. The researchers aim to utilize the

11

results of this work to develop a benchmark for analogous studies. 240 refurbished kindergarten

12

buildings in Malaysia were studied to evaluate occupants’ perceptions and levels of satisfaction. The

13

results indicate that the occupants found Air Movement, Ventilation, and Freshness to be of a poor

14

quality due to the high occupancy density. Noise was the least satisfactory IEQ factor due to the

15

closeness of the kindergartens to main roads (external noise), as well as the small size of classrooms

16

(internal noise).It was found that Colour and Attractiveness are the most important IEQ factors from

17

the occupants’ viewpoint. This study provides a practical benchmark for the conversion of buildings’

18

usage.

19

Keywords: Indoor Environmental Quality, Post-Occupational Evaluation, Refurbished Kindergarten

20

Buildings, Occupants’ Perceptions

22

SC

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

21

RI PT

2

23

24

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1.

INTRODUCTION

2 3

Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) plays an important role in the comfort and efficiency of the

4

occupants of indoor environments. Physical comfort refers to meeting the fundamental needs of

5

occupants, such as adequate lighting and space allocation for each individual; psychological comfort

6

involves the occupants’ satisfaction of with their colleagues and management, and a feeling of

7

enjoyment. Many studies [1-9] have identified the contribution of both physical and psychological

8

factors to occupants’ satisfaction in various workplaces. However, the concept of IEQ has gained

9

more prominence as the lifestyle in developed countries has resulted in people spending the majority

10

of their time (approximately 90%) indoors [10]. School children spend about 30% of their time at

11

school, and the indoor environment may well have an influence on their future development [11].

12

Although both adults and children are affected by poor IEQ, young children are arguably of greater

13

concern due to their susceptible immune systems [1, 2, 12]. Among the different physical discomforts

14

derived from poor IEQ, fatigue and the effects of sick-building syndrome have been reported as the

15

most prevalent [2, 13-16]. Studies also show that impairment to the health of students and teachers

16

resulting from poor IEQ could influence students’ performance, behaviour and productivity [2, 4, 6-9,

17

17]. Uline and Moran [18] have reported a certain inability among academics to focus when the

18

learning process is taking place in imperfect environmental conditions.

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

1

Due to the importance of IEQ in schools, many studies have identified building characteristics

20

that affect the occupants’ health and performance. These include indoor air quality, temperature,

21

odours or olfactory effects, visual aspects, acoustics, daylight and artificial lighting, ergonomics and

22

space [1-3, 19-24]. These factors, individually or in combination, influence the comfort of occupants

23

in buildings, although occupants within the same environment often cite differing levels of

24

satisfaction or dissatisfaction with these indoor conditions. One reason is that individuals respond

25

differently to the same conditions; another might be that it is difficult to identify the direct factors

26

affecting occupants’ discomfort and health [5, 25].

AC C

19

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT There is a dearth of information on occupants’ perceptions of IEQ influences in refurbished

2

kindergarten buildings in Malaysia. Hence this research sought to identify occupants’ needs,

3

satisfaction and comfort levels with reference to IEQ. The approach taken was to apply a method of

4

Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) to identify and assess these. POE is the process of evaluating a

5

building’s performance in a systematic way once the buildings have been occupied. This study

6

systematically applied POE to a sample of 240 kindergarten buildings, to gauge the perceptions of

7

occupants relating to IEQ and to consider the impact of IEQ on occupant comfort and performance.

8

The outcome of this process was used to inform an investigation into how well the refurbished

9

kindergarten buildings meet the occupants’ requirements.

SC

RI PT

1

The objectives of this study are: i) to determine the satisfaction level of the occupants of

11

refurbished kindergarten buildings in terms of indoor environment, ii) to assess the importance of IEQ

12

factors relative to overall satisfaction and comfort in these buildings, and iii) to identify any

13

correlation between individuals’ liking scores for individual IEQ factors and their overall perception

14

of the indoor environment. The ultimate objective is to identify the most significant or critical IEQ

15

factors affecting overall satisfaction in order to inform approaches to improving building design,

16

performance and comfort levels. In addition, this should allow the creation of a set of benchmarks for

17

appropriate IEQ in refurbished kindergarten buildings in Malaysia.

18 19

2.

20 21

In the Malaysian context, the coverage of kindergarten education has improved dramatically in

22

parallel with the government’s policy of making kindergarten programmes compulsory [26]. Figure 1

23

shows the number of private kindergartens in Malaysia registered with the Ministry of Education. As

24

can be seen, there has been a remarkable rise in the number of private kindergartens, from 2,461 in

25

2000 to 7,550 in 2013 [27, 28]. The Malaysian Government’s goal of increasing the enrolment of

26

young children (aged 4+ and 5+) in kindergartens from 67% in 2010 to 87% in 2012 has been

27

achieved [28].

EP

TE D

M AN U

10

AC C

REFURBISHED KINDERGARTEN BUILDINGS IN MALAYSIA

28

4

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Figure 1. Number of private kindergartens in Malaysia, 2000 to July 2013

SC

2 3

Many private kindergartens in Malaysia have been converted from housing, commercial or

5

institutional buildings. Figure 2 shows different types of premises converted to private kindergartens

6

in Kuala Lumpur [25]. Of these, two-storey houses, followed by single-storey houses, represent the

7

highest number of conversions, at approximately 65% and 21% respectively. Figure 3 shows a typical

8

private refurbished kindergarten building, in which the bedrooms of the two-storey house were

9

converted into classrooms.

10 11

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

4

Figure 2. Types of private kindergartens’ premises in Kuala Lumpur

5

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Figure 3. Two-storey link house refurbished as a kindergarten

SC

2

The number of pupils in the refurbished kindergarten buildings is usually up to 40, with 15 to 20

4

in each classroom. Each classroom is supervised by three teachers and two teaching assistants.

5

Generally, each individual occupant in the classroom requires at least 2m2 of space [29], while the

6

actual total space per room in a refurbished building is 9m2 to 23m2. Figure 4 illustrates a typical

7

classroom in a refurbished kindergarten building.

8 9

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

3

Figure 4. A bedroom converted into a classroom

10 11

The nature of the refurbished buildings also has implications in terms of location and the

12

subsequent impact upon IEQ. Many kindergartens are located on congested streets, which can result

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

in disruption of classes and affect the comfort of occupants. Assessment of IEQ factors in

2

kindergartens located in such congested areas is both important and challenging.

3 4

3.

5 6

This study investigates the IEQ of refurbished kindergarten buildings in Malaysia. 1,000

7

kindergartens were randomly selected from the approved list of the Ministry of Education [27]. The

8

kindergartens were selected according to the type of building (two-storey terrace, single-storey

9

terrace, bungalow, institutional building), the total floor area (80m2 to 420m2), and the type of

10

ventilation (natural and/or mechanical). First, letters were sent to the 1,000 kindergartens to ascertain

11

whether they would be willing to participate in a questionnaire survey. 240 kindergartens granted

12

permission to conduct research on their premises.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study involved two stages: (1) survey questionnaires, and (2) field observations. In the first

14

stage, the questionnaires were distributed among the buildings’ occupants and the feedback was

15

collected and interpreted by experts. The reason for employing this method is that a questionnaire

16

survey provides the most economical and efficient way of gathering standard and stable information

17

from a large sample of individuals [30, 31], in this case spread all over the country. The second stage

18

of the study involved walk-through observation of buildings, identifying individual characteristics in

19

order to identify the setting and context, physical configuration, and physical and environmental

20

features of each building. This approach was used to ensure that the data gathered from the

21

questionnaire could be contextualized with the various physical environments that provide the

22

kindergartens’ facilities. Any specific physical characteristics affecting the IEQ or the general

23

operation of the kindergarten could be identified in this way.

24

3.1

25 26

In order to obtain a good response rate, the questionnaire was designed to be only four pages long. It

27

used a simple format and structure that would be quick to answer, and adequate space was provided

28

for the respondents to give additional free-form comments. Before the questionnaire was sent out, it

29

was piloted with 10 potential respondents from two kindergartens, whose comments and suggestions

AC C

EP

TE D

13

Questionnaire

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT were taken into consideration in the final version. Covering letters and questionnaires were distributed

2

by hand to school administrative staff (teachers, teachers’ aides, clerks and other staffs). The

3

questionnaires were collected within two weeks, during the building observation period. Of the 1,020

4

questionnaires distributed around peninsular Malaysia (to 5-7 staff in each of the 240 kindergartens,

5

encompassing 711 classrooms), 521 were returned; 57 remained unanswered and 60 were incomplete.

6

That is, 404 questionnaires were found to be useful. This response rate was almost 40%, which is

7

valid for a social science study in Malaysia. Krejcie and Morgan’s table to determine sample size

8

shows that, for a population of 1,100, the minimum acceptable size is 285 [32].

RI PT

1

The survey questionnaire was part of the POE to provide information regarding the occupants’

10

perceptions of the buildings’ IEQ. It was adapted from Levermore et al.’s [33] questionnaire,

11

developed in the UK, which is used by a number of organizations including London consultancies.

12

Given the age of the children in the kindergartens, the selected respondents were adult-occupants,

13

who were considered to be better able to evaluate the environmental conditions of the buildings. The

14

questionnaire comprised two sections, as described below.

15

Section (A): General information, such as age, gender, work experience, etc.

16

Section (B): Attitude and perception of the occupants towards the 21 IEQ factors listed in Table 1.

17 18

Table 1 Internal Environment Factors

TE D

M AN U

SC

9

EP

-Noise level -Electric lighting -Amount of daylight -Glare level in the room -Distance to the windows -Room temperature -Ventilation -Amount of air movement -Freshness of your room -Humidity level in the room -Smell in the room

AC C

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21

-Health when in the room -Colours of the room -Attractiveness of the room -Control over local environment -Workspace -Privacy -Immediate colleagues -Management -Workplace, in general -Outward appearance

19 20

The respondents were asked to rate their answers on a seven-point Likert scale for User

21

satisfaction and Degree of importance. The results were then used to elicit an occupant-satisfaction

22

score in order to develop a benchmark for building satisfaction. Regression analysis was used to

23

determine correlations between individual scores and the overall rating of the building.

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3.2

Building Observations

2 3

A walk-through inspection was used by the research team to contextualize the physical environment

4

of each building and to compile an inventory of the building materials and contents of the classrooms.

5

This survey provided a physical assessment of the buildings and identified, in a systematic way,

6

physical aspects or building characteristics that might have an influence upon occupant satisfaction,

7

internal environment or perceptions of IEQ factors. Walk-through surveys have been successfully

8

utilized as part of POE for education facilities within various POE models, allowing the triangulation

9

of physical data from a building with data relating to the perceptions of the building’s users [34]. Data

10

were collected to characterize the materials and condition of the ceiling, floor, interior walls, exterior

11

walls, and heat, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The survey included visual

12

inspection to check and record the physical design and conditions of the classroom contents. Among

13

the specific items inspected were water stains, mould, air fresheners, candles, pesticides and traps,

14

odours, general cleanliness and lighting quality. These items are frequently identified during building

15

inspections as sources of IEQ problems [27]. Location of the building relative to main roads and

16

surrounding activities, and the number of pupils in each classroom together with the volume of the

17

classroom, were also investigated.

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

1

EP

18

3.3

20 21

Answers to the questionnaires indicate the occupants’ ratings of their satisfaction with the indoor

22

environment as well as providing an indication of how important they find each of the individual

23

environmental factors.

24

The first part of the analysis determines the satisfaction score, or overall liking score, of a building,

25

representing an overall rating for a building’s indoor environment, using Equation 1:

26 27 28

Analysis Methods

AC C

19

 n m  ∑ ∑ i j ,k l j ,k k =1 j =1 OLS =  mni max l max  

  100   

(1)

9

1

where

2

j = questionnaire number

3

k = question number

4

i = importance rating 1 < = i < = 7

5

imax= maximum value of i, (7)

6

lmax= maximum liking rating l (+3)

7

l

8

m = number of completed in questionnaires

9

n = number of questions in the score

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

= liking rating -3 < = l < = +3

10

The second part of the analysis provides a graphical representation of the totals for each answer.

12

This is called a “user satisfaction fingerprint” and normalizes each question to a score between -100%

13

and +100% [33], using Equation 2.

M AN U

SC

11

 m  ∑ i j, k l j, k j=1 FLS = 100   mi max l max  

14

(2)

TE D

15

     

16

The third part of the analysis is similar to the second. However, using Equation 3, a normalized

17

individual score for each person (from -100% to +100%) is calculated.

18

19

AC C

EP

 n  i l ∑ j, k j, k   k =1   FLS = 100  ni max l max   

(3)

20

3.4

Factor Analysis

21 22

Factor analysis combines two or more variables into a single factor, allowing data derived from a

23

large number of variables to be distilled to allow identification of a smaller number of key, significant

24

factors. The correlation between two variables can be summarized in a scatter plot. Previous studies

25

have used factor analysis to establish the underlying dimensions of the occupant questionnaire on

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

indoor environment conditions. A principal axis factor (PAF) with a varimax (orthogonal) rotation

2

was conducted based on the occupants’ perception toward the 21 IEQ factors.

3

4.

RESULTS

5 6

4.1

Building observations

7 8

The data gathered as part of the building walk-through survey was correlated with the perceptions of

9

the occupants towards the building. Of the 240 participating private kindergartens, 92.9% are

10

operating in refurbished residential premises, mostly rented two-storey terraced houses (67.1%) with

11

100-199m2 of floor area. Two-thirds of the buildings are located on medium-local streets with

12

moderate traffic flow less than 50m from the premises. Surprisingly, 96.6% of the classrooms

13

(N=711) identified did not comply with Uniform Building By-Laws (UBBL) requirements of space

14

per person.

SC

M AN U

TE D

17 18

occurrence of each characteristic is shown in bold.

Table 2: Descriptive analysis of refurbished kindergarten buildings Categorical Variables (N=25) Building types

EP

16

The descriptive analysis of the building observations is detailed in Table 2. The most frequent

Ownership of the building

AC C

15

RI PT

4

Age of the building (years)

Programme

Age of pupils

Description Single-storey Terrace Double-storey Terrace Single Bungalow Double Bungalow Shop/office Others Owned Rented <5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 >30 Kindergarten only Daycare only Kindergarten+Daycare Kindergarten +Tuition Kindergarten+Daycare+Tuition >4years 4-6 7-8 >9 Infants (0 months-3years)

% 11.0 67.1 4.6 10.1 0.8 6.3 34.2 65.8 5.9 28.7 33.3 14.3 16.0 1.7 58.2 3.4 30.8 3.4 4.2 1.7 69.2 1.3 20.7 7.2

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT <100m2 100-199m2 200-299m2 300-399 m2 >399 m2 Classroom floor area (mean ± standard deviation) Open area per classroom (mean ± standard deviation) Number of pupils and teachers per classroom (mean ± standard deviation) Required space (minimum 2m2 per not compliant compliant person) Dominantly natural Ventilation type Dominantly air-conditioned Both Small local street Traffic type Medium local street Large local street Expressway Low Traffic density Medium Heavy Floor surface Smooth Carpeted Curtain types None Blinds Textiles Yes Recent renovation Yes Cooking activities Yes Dampness Yes Mould growth Yes Vermin absent Yes Soft toys Twice a day Floor cleaning Daily Twice a week Fan cleaning Weekly Monthly Daily Shelf cleaning Twice a week Weekly Table cleaning Daily Twice a week Weekly Toilet cleaning Daily Twice a week Weekly Weekly Curtain cleaning Monthly Bi-annually Never

9.7 79.3 7.2 3.0 0.8 15.51±5.98 m2 5.30±1.53 m2 16 ± 4 96.6 3.4 33.8 36.3 29.9 12.7 65.0 16.0 6.3 30.4 54.9 14.8 84.8 15.2 62.9 7.6 29.5 54.4 70.9 52.3 54.0 76.0 85.2 30.4 69.6 8.0 85.0 26.5 28.7 19.8 51.5 66.2 28.7 5.1 78.5 19.8 1.7 6.3 46.4 26.6 20.7

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Total floor area

1 2

4.2

Occupants’ survey

3 4

The opinions of adult-occupants in regard to the degree of each IEQ factor were collected through the

5

questionnaire. Figure 5 shows the satisfaction scores of the distinct buildings’ characteristics given by

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

the adult-occupants. It can be seen that the Noise factor was given the lowest satisfaction score, and

2

Colleagues the highest. The respondents specified the external noise level as the most disturbing

3

factor, with the lowest satisfaction score of –13.77. The respondents also gave less favourable satisfaction scores to Smell (+10.22), Humidity

5

(+16.50), and Freshness (+17.95). In contrast, the other three air quality factors, Air Movement,

6

Ventilation, and Temperature, were given higher satisfaction scores of +24.00, +22.36, and +19.73

7

respectively. Daylight, which is critical to the wellbeing of a building’s occupants, was given

8

relatively a high score, indicating a high level of satisfaction.

10 11 12

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

9

RI PT

4

Figure 5. Audit satisfaction fingerprint

13 14 15 16

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

4.3

Perceived Degree of Importance of Factors in the Design or Refurbishment of

2

Occupants’ Ideal Buildings

3

The attitude and perception of respondents regarding the importance of the 21 IEQ factors was

5

ranked. All the factors were given a score greater than 5, indicating that the occupants considered all

6

the IEQ factors to be highly important in the selection of a suitable workplace.

RI PT

4

Figure 6 shows the average importance ranking of IEQ factors in the surveyed kindergartens. The

8

response from the total of 404 adult-occupants reveals that Colour is the most important factor,

9

followed by Attractiveness. Glare Level, Distance to the Window, Humidity, Noise and Smell were given the lowest scores.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

10

SC

7

11 12 13

Figure 6. Average Importance Score Ranks

14

4.4

Factor analysis

15 16

First, 21 variables correlated with at least one other variable with a value of at least .3, suggesting

17

reasonable factorability. In other words, a factorability of .3 indicates that the variables account for.

18

An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy confirmed that the sample

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

was factorable (KMO=.876), that is above the recommended value of .6, and Bartlett’s test of

2

sphericity was significant (χ2 (210) = 3618.74, p < .05). The items were correlated for further factor

3

analysis. The diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix for all items were over .5, supporting the

5

inclusion of each item in the factor analysis. Finally, the communalities were all above .3, further

6

confirming that each item shared some common variance with other items. Given these overall

7

indicators, factor analysis was conducted with all 21 items. See Tables 3 and 4.

RI PT

4

8

Code

Component

EP

TE D

Air movement Ventilation Freshness Amount of daylight Privacy Temperature Immediate colleagues Management Workplace in general Outward appearance Health Attractiveness Colour Control over local environment Smell in the room Humidity level Noise Electric lighting Glare level Distance to window Workspace

AC C

R8 R7 R9 R3 R17 R6 R18 R19 R20 R21 R12 R14 R13 R15 R11 R10 R1 R2 R4 R5 R16

Items

KMO Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity df Sig.

SC

Table 3: Factor Analysis of Indoor Environmental Quality in Refurbished Kindergarten Buildings 1 .826 .820 .703 .612 .540 .447

2

3

M AN U

9 10

.391

4

5

.423

.497

.848 .818 .688 .532 .465

.394

.344 .845 .830 .404 .758 .566 .551

.471 .430

.382 .479

.352 .554 .544 .537 .516

.876 3618.742 210 .000

11 12

Principal components analysis was used because the primary purpose was to identify and compute

13

composite coping scores for the factors underlying the short version of the occupants’ perceptions.

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

The initial eigenvalues showed that the first factor explained 33.75% of the variance, the second

2

factor 9.49%, the third 6.83%, the fourth 5.65% and the fifth 5.12%. This means that factors one to

3

five have eigenvalues just over 1; each of the five factors explaining 60.83% of the variance was

4

preferred because of its previous theoretical support.

8

Table 4: Total Variance Explained Total

Initial Eigenvalues % of Variance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

7.088 1.993 1.434 1.185 1.075 .978 .888 .765 .670 .635 .612 .546 .480 .469 .465 .429 .387 .310 .222 .205 .165

33.750 9.491 6.827 5.645 5.121 4.656 4.228 3.642 3.191 3.025 2.914 2.601 2.287 2.234 2.212 2.042 1.843 1.474 1.055 .977 .785

Cumulative % 33.750 43.241 50.068 55.713 60.834 65.489 69.718 73.360 76.551 79.575 82.489 85.091 87.378 89.611 91.823 93.865 95.709 97.183 98.238 99.215 100.000

TE D

M AN U

SC

Component

EP

6 7

RI PT

5

The eigenvalues (Figure 7) on the scree plot levelled off after five factors, with an insufficient

10

number of primary loadings and difficulty in interpreting the sixth or subsequent factors. There was

11

little difference between the varimax and oblimin solutions, so both were examined in the subsequent

12

analyses before deciding on an oblimin rotation for the final solution.

AC C

9

16

1

Figure 7. Factor Analysis Scree Plot

2

4

The factors were accordingly ordered and grouped by size sample, with interpretative labels suggested, as shown in Table 5.

5

TE D

3

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5: Variables Contributing to Factors

6 FACTOR 1-Air Quality 1 .826 2 .820 3 .703

Air movement Ventilation Freshness

R18 R19 R20

Immediate colleague Management Workplace in general

FACTOR 3-Appearance 1 .845 2 .830 3 .404

R14 R13 R15

Attractiveness Colour Control over local environment

FACTOR 4-Intrusion 1 .758

R11

Glare level

FACTOR 5-Workplace 1 .516

R16

Amount of working space

AC C

FACTOR 2-General 1 .848 2 .818 3 .688

EP

R8 R7 R9

7 8 9

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

4.4.1

Reliability analysis

Reliability analysis was conducted to ensure the validity and consistency of the construct items

4

used for each variable [35]. Table 6 presents the coefficient alpha value for all the variables in this

5

study. The α value for Office in General (dependent variable) was .85, which is considered good. The

6

independent variables, Air Quality (α=.93), Appearance (α=.87) and Intrusion (α=.90) were

7

considered to have good reliability. Therefore, all of the dependent and independent construct

8

variables were valid and reliable since the alpha values were greater than .6 [36].

RI PT

2 3

SC

9

11 12

Table 6: Reliability of Construct Variables Constructs Dependent Variable General Independent Variables Air Quality Appearance Intrusion

Cronbach Alpha, α

Acceptability

0.85

Good

0.93 0.87 0.90

Good Good Good

TE D

13

M AN U

10

14 15

4.4.2

16 17

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is applicable if there are two or more groups to compare; it is a

18

statistical method that yields values that can be tested to determine whether a significant relation

19

exists between variables.

AC C

EP

Scores for factors from the questionnaires

20

Based on the five factor scores generated, a further analysis on the differences between each

21

factor in the questionnaire was carried out. Using SPSS, one-way ANOVA and t-tests were performed

22

to determine the statistical significance of differences among the means of the groups in five selected

23

variables. Further analysis was carried out on the IAQ factors, as shown below and in Table 7.

24 25 26

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 7. Analysis of Total Variance

3 4 5

AIR QUALITY

GENERAL

APPEARANCE

INTRUSION

WORKPLACE

Building type

Fr

*0.77

*0.91

*0.03

*0.03

*0.51

Ventilation type NaV=183 AC= 221 Work category

t1

**0.09

**0.80

**0.41

**0.06

**0.62

Fr

*0.72

*0.08

*0.80

*0.02

*0.86

Age

Fr

*0.07

*0.06

*0.10

Number of people in building Hours in building

Fr

*0.00

*0.90

*0.03

Fr

*0.69

*0.00

*0.46

Classroom’s floor area

Fr

*0.23

*0.11

*0.04

Space/person t1 *0.14 requirement (<2m2/person) Not Complied with: 372 Complied with: 32 Fr =F ratio Oneway Analysis of Variance, *p<0.05 **p<0.01

*0.25

*0.14

RI PT

N

*0.14

*0.82

*0.16

*0.00

*0.17

*0.07

*0.69

*0.11

*0.14

*0.45

SC

SAMPLE

M AN U

1 2

t1 = t-test for independent sample

a) Analysis one: Type of building

8

The questionnaire had five sub-groups based on building types, as detailed in Table 2.

TE D

6 7

An analysis of variance revealed significant differences at the 5% level in the Appearance

10

[F(4,403)=2.73, p= 0.03] and Intrusion [F(4,403)=2.67, p= 0.03] factor score. On the other hand, there

11

are non-significant differences at the 5% level in the Air Quality, General and Workplace scores. Post

12

hoc analyses using the Tukey HSD for significance indicated that the average number of errors was

13

significantly lower in the Bungalow condition towards general and intrusion factors than in the other

14

three factors.

15 16

b) Analysis two: Type of ventilation

17

There are two major groups of ventilation: natural (n=183) and air conditioning (n=221). The few

18

hybrid/mixed ventilation systems were considered as air-conditioning, because most of the

19

kindergartens turned on the air conditioning as early as 10 am, or whenever they felt the temperature

20

increased in the building.

AC C

EP

9

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The t-test for independent samples revealed non-significant difference at the 5% level for other

2

factors. This means that there is little difference between the two types of ventilation. This may be

3

because most classrooms, whether ventilated naturally or mechanically, could be easily controlled by

4

the occupants to achieve the required comfort level. Hence, it is no slightly different for both of

5

ventilation as both types of the ventilation can help the peoples to adjust as their comfort level.

RI PT

1

6

c) Analysis three: Work category

8

An analysis of variance revealed significant differences at the 5% level in Intrusion [F(3,403)=4.9, p=

9

0.02]. However, there were non-significant differences at the 5% level in the other factors. Post hoc

10

analyses using the Tukey HSD for significance indicated that the average number of clerks had a

11

higher opinion of intrusion than the “others” category.

12 13

d) Analysis four: Respondents’ Age

14

An analysis of variance revealed non-significant differences at the 5% level in all the factors,

15

indicating that all age groups have the same opinion about the environmental factors.

16 17

e) Analysis five: Number of people in the building

18

The questionnaire had four subgroups based on number of people in the building: group one – less

19

than 2 people (n = 7), group two – 3-5 people (n = 10), group three – 6-10 people (n = 19), group

20

four- 10-20 people (n=132), group f – 20-30 people (n = 121) and more 30 people (n = 115).

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

7

An analysis of variance revealed significant differences at the 5% level in the Air Quality

22

[F(5,403)=7.22, p= 0.00], Appearance [F(5,403)=2.43, p= 0.03] and Workplace [F(5,403)=4.81, p=

23

0.00] factors. Post hoc analysis using the Tukey HSD for significance indicated that the mean score of

24

group people in the building was lower than a workplace of 2 people in air quality and the workplace

25

in general. It is clear that crowded buildings will result in an unpleasant environment, with degraded

26

freshness, smell, ventilation and temperature, and affecting opinions about the workplace in general.

AC C

21

27

Figure 8 explains the negative relation between dissatisfaction levels and the total hours staff

28

spend in the building. Surprisingly, results for satisfaction level had a similar range, where time spent

29

in the building had a negative relation to the satisfaction level; in other words, the more time spent in

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

the kindergarten building, the greater the satisfaction of the occupants. Nevertheless, for some

2

occupants, more time spent in the building generated unpleasant feelings towards it. A similar result

3

was found between the perception of the workplace and the class floor area.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

4

TE D

5

Figure 8: Scatter plot of total hours spent in the building and the class floor area with the perception of the building in general

9

f) Analysis six: Time spent in the building

10

EP

6 7 8

The questionnaire had four sub-groups for the number of hours spent in the building each day. An analysis of variance revealed significant differences at the 5% level in the General factor

12

[F(4,403)=5.82, p= 0.00]. Post hoc analyses using the Tukey HSD for significance indicated that the

13

mean score for the group spending 4-6 hours in the building was lower than that for those spending

14

more than 10 hours there.

15 16

g) Analysis seven: Classroom floor area and space requirement

17

There were four sub- groups here: <10m2(n=46), 10-20m2(n=315), 20-30m2(n=39) and >30m2(n=4).

18 19

AC C

11

A

one-way

between-subjects

ANOVA

was

conducted

to

compare

the

effect

of

workplace/classrooms’ floor area with the five factors of IEQ. There was a significant effect of floor

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

area towards the classroom’s external appearance at the p<.05 level for all four groups [F(3, 339) =

2

2.837, p = 0.04]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the highest mean

3

score was for classrooms with a floor area more than 30m2.

4 5

4.5

Multiple Linear Regression

7 8

Multiple linear regression was conducted to determine the variable best predicting liking for the

9

workplace in general (R20). It was used to identify the extent of the influence of the independent

10

variables (IVs) toward the workplace in general (DV) and to report on the proportion of the variance

11

accounted for by the model used in this study, the significance of the model used and the significance

12

of the independent variables. Therefore, the independent variables chosen from factor one, Indoor Air

13

Quality, were R7: Ventilation; R8: Air Movement; and R9: Freshness. Moreover, the standardized β

14

values ascertained the extent of the effect of independent and dependent variables, and determined the

15

relative effect, which are the independent variables with the greatest influence on the dependent

16

variable.

17 18

Table 8. Multiple regression variables towards Workplace

.442a

1

R Square

TE D

R

Adjusted R Square

EP

Model

M AN U

SC

RI PT

6

.195

.189

Model Summaryb Std. Error of the R Square Estimate Change .887 .195

Change Statistics F df1 df2 Change 32.300 3 399

Sig. F Change .000

19 20 21

AC C

a. Predictors: (Constant), R7, R9, R8 b. Dependent Variable: R20

Table 9. Independent variable ANOVAb Model 1

Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares 76.322 314.268 390.591

df 3 399 402

Mean Square 25.441 .788

F 32.300

Sig. .000a

22 23

Tables 8 and 9 indicate the effect between the IEQ and the Workplace in general. The findings

24

show that the value of R-squared for Freshness, Air Movement and Ventilation (indoor environment

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

elements) is 0.195. This means that these factors explain 19.5% of the adult-occupants’ perception

2

towards their workplace. This regression is significant at 0, F(3,399)=32.3, p<.05. The adjusted 19.9% R-squared shows the strength of the model for this study. The standardized β

4

values also explain the importance of the indoor environment factors selected, and give a measure of

5

the contribution of each independent variable to the model. A large β value indicates that a unit

6

change in these independent variables has a large effect on the dependent variable.

RI PT

3

Table 10 indicates that the independent variables have a positive relation, except for Air Movement

8

(R8), towards the dependent variables. Ventilation (R7) has the highest significant correlation (0.23)

9

with the dependent variables. The regression for Ventilation is positive, t=3.87, p<0.00. The study

10

also found that Ventilation (β=0.389, t=3.869, p<0.05) is the most influential factor in determining the

11

adult-occupants’ perception towards the Workplace in general, followed by Freshness (β=0.236,

12

t=4.128, p<0.05). However, Air Movement (β=-0.03, t=-0.399, p=.69) does not significantly influence

13

the model.

M AN U

SC

7

14

Table 10. Coefficient and significant level for every independent variable towards Workplace in general (R20). R9(Freshness) R8(Air movement) R7(Ventilation)

19

5.

t

Sig.

.236 -.030 .286

4.128 -.399 3.869

.000 .690 .000

DISCUSSION

AC C

18

β

EP

17

TE D

15 16

20

The vast majority (92.9%) of the 240 participating kindergartens are based within buildings that

21

were previously residential, and there is a strong tendency for the use of two-storey terraced houses

22

within the size range of 100-199m2 of floor area. This may be a consequence of the availability of

23

such properties or a reflection of their proximity to the population they serve within residential

24

communities. Two-thirds of the buildings are located on medium-local streets with moderate traffic

25

flow less than 50m from the premises, suggesting that the location tends to be similar for these types

26

of premises. Surprisingly, within the sample buildings the vast majority of the classrooms (96.6%;

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

N=711) did not comply with Uniform Building By-Laws (UBBL) requirements of space per person.

2

This suggests that the conditions are more heavily occupied that envisaged by the UBBL, which may

3

have an impact upon perceptions of IEQ. Within the data from the occupant survey, the Noise factor was given the lowest satisfaction

5

score, and Colleagues the highest satisfaction. As most of the refurbished kindergartens employ only

6

4 to 7 staff members, it is perhaps not surprising that the highest satisfaction scores were given to

7

Colleagues and Management. The reason may be the strong bonds developed between the small teams

8

of staff and management, and their relationship with pupils, indicating a mutually beneficial

9

interaction. The adult-occupants confirmed that the bright and cheerful Colours of wall paint, as well

10

as decorative wall murals, are very attractive to them and also to the pupils, hence, these were given

11

the next highest satisfaction scores.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

4

The respondents noted external Noise level as the most disturbing IEQ factor, probably because

13

the majority of the refurbished buildings are located in urban areas where there is normally a high

14

volume of traffic. Moreover, the internal Noise level was referenced by as quite disturbing during

15

teaching periods.

TE D

12

Respondents also gave less favourable satisfaction scores to Smell, Humidity, and Freshness. This

17

is considered alongside the data relating to the proportion of rooms that fail to achieve the space

18

requirements of the UBBL, which suggests that there is over-occupation or even overcrowding of

19

classrooms. Overcrowding in classrooms which had previously been bedrooms (9m2 to 23m2) may

20

contribute to an unpleasant environment, uncomfortable for the students and contributing to breathing

21

difficulties. It is much harder for air to circulate freely in a crowded classroom, thereby making some

22

students more likely to feel faint or suffer nausea. As supported by Fang et al. [37], the intensity of

23

fatigue, headache and difficulty in breathing increased when the students worked in an environment

24

with poor air circulation and an unpleasant smell. This would be especially true in Malaysia’s

25

equatorial climate, with high humidity throughout the year. As pointed out by Bienfait et al. [38], high

26

humidity has an impact on the occupants resulting in unpleasant odours that require much more

27

ventilation. Air freshness will improve as humidity and odour decrease, improving the air quality of

28

the building [37]. However, it was also noted that the other three air quality factors, Air Movement,

AC C

EP

16

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Ventilation, and Temperature, were given higher satisfaction scores suggesting that the issue is

2

associated with the specific aspects of air moisture content and odour contaminants rather than being a

3

general reflection on air quality and ventilation overall. Daylight which is critical to the well-being of building’s occupants was given relatively a high

5

satisfaction score. The reason for this is the rooms are located toward the core of the space of the

6

refurbished kindergarten buildings which will allow for maximum daylight penetration to the rooms.

7

Moreover, the kindergartens use light-colored surfaces on walls and desks to reflect daylight around

8

the space, which has been noted to have addition benefits in terms of user perception. Pleasant color

9

schemes and the presence of coordinated art objects have potential impacts on occupants’ satisfaction

10

and well-being [15]. Site observations indicated that the refurbished kindergarten buildings have

11

pleasant indoor colors. In addition, the attractiveness of the indoor environment of the buildings was

12

perceived to be improved by murals and other art objects. The Glare Level, Distance to the Window,

13

Humidity, Noise and Smell were given the least scores implying their less important value from the

14

adult-occupants’ standpoint.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

4

Overall, satisfaction levels were lower for buildings with higher numbers of occupants, and it is

16

clear that crowded buildings will result in an unpleasant environment, affecting opinions on the

17

Workplace in general. As already reported, there was a negative relation between dissatisfaction

18

levels and the total hours staff spend in the building. In other words, the more time spent in the

19

kindergarten building, the greater the satisfaction of many occupants. Nevertheless, for some

20

occupants, more time spent in the building generated unpleasant feelings towards it. A similar result

21

was found between the perception of the workplace and the classroom floor area. The mean score of

22

the group spending 4-6 hours in the building was lower than that for those spending more than 10

23

hours there. This is due to the long exposure to the same environment, which might also affect the

24

liking variable.

AC C

EP

TE D

15

25

There was a significant effect of floor area towards the classroom’s external appearance. The

26

highest mean score was for classrooms with a floor area more than 30m2. The greater the floor area,

27

the better the appearance of the building, allowing more efficient use of space for a more pleasing

28

design. However, there was no significant relation between the space requirements per person and

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

contribution to an unpleasant environment among the five factors determined earlier. Other variables

2

caused discomfort to the occupants. Analysis of the effect between the IEQ and the Workplace in general indicated that 19.5% of the

4

variation in the adult-occupants’ perception towards their workplace can be explained by Freshness,

5

Air Movement and Ventilation. The study found that Ventilation and Freshness are the most

6

influential factor in determining perceptions towards the Workplace in general, and therefore the two

7

most significant indoor environment factors. However, Air Movement does not significantly influence

8

the model. This is related to the overcrowding in the building. Good ventilation ensures the comfort

9

level and might improve the quality of the learning environment. The comfort level is related to IEQ

10

performance (e.g. control of ventilation, temperature and lighting). Less air movement is needed

11

because many of the learning activities in the building use plentiful supplies of loose paper. Hence,

12

limiting air movement in the classrooms prevents pupils from being distracted by papers flying

13

around.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

3

14

6.

CONCLUSION

TE D

15

This study examined the IEQ of 240 refurbished kindergarten buildings in Malaysia. The four

18

IEQ factors, Colleagues, Management, Attractiveness, and Colours, are considered as the most

19

satisfactory factors from the occupants’ point of view. Daylight is also an important factor, and

20

occupants were pleased with the daylighting in the buildings, whichallow for the maximum

21

penetration of light. The occupants referenced Noise, followed by Smell, Glare Level and Distance to

22

window as the least satisfactory features. Noise was given a negative score because of the high

23

external noise from the main roads, as well as internal noise in the small classrooms. The occupants

24

were not also satisfied with the air quality in general, and therefore, they considered Humidity,

25

Freshness, and Ventilation as moderately low features of satisfaction.

AC C

EP

16 17

26

The attitude and perception of adult-occupants regarding the importance of the 21 IEQ factors

27

were ranked, with Colours and Attractiveness in the lead. Glare Level and Distance to the Window

28

were given the lowest scores, implying their less important value from the occupants’ standpoint. The

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT factor analysis indicated that Air Movement followed by Ventilation, Freshness, and Daylighting are

2

the most important IEQ factors in occupants’ preference for their workplace. The analysis also

3

identified significant variables related to the demographic information and Air quality, Appearance,

4

Intrusion and Workplace in general. There was no significant difference between natural ventilation

5

and air conditioning in the refurbished kindergarten buildings. There was also no significant

6

difference between Age group and Air quality, Appearance, Intrusion and Workplace in general. For

7

the work category, this study indicated that the perception of clerks is higher for intrusion, tan for

8

teacher assistants and housekeepers. There is also a significant difference between the number of

9

people in the building, time spent in the building, classroom floor area, and attitudes to the workplace

SC

10

RI PT

1

in general.

Most refurbished kindergarten buildings in Malaysia were found not to comply with minimum

12

space regulations concerning children, teachers and other staff, leading to uncomfortable conditions. It

13

is suggested that the authorities take this issue into account and provide sufficient space for the

14

occupants of the building with the focus on the comfort of occupants. Because the noise level was

15

considered relatively high in most of the refurbished kindergarten buildings in this study, it is

16

recommended that the authorities select those premises for the purpose of conversion into

17

kindergartens which are further from main roads; with lower levels of external noise, pupils can better

18

concentrate on their activities. Moreover, the results from the survey found that the occupants are

19

dissatisfied with the air quality of the buildings, especially the unpleasant odours that come from the

20

toilet facilities. Therefore, it is essential that the authorities consider the location of classrooms and

21

their distance from toilet facilities when housing or commercial buildings are converted to

22

kindergarten usage. Since the occupants were satisfied with the existing wall colours and also gave

23

the highest liking score to colour and attractiveness, the authorities should keep in mind the

24

importance of colour schemes and art objects in the interior environment, and their influence on the

25

comfort and wellbeing of occupants.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

11

26

Further research will take a qualitative approach through interview and case studies to further

27

understand and examine the results obtained from the questionnaire. Future research topics include

28

addressing the cultural habits of occupants, and the effects of outdoor conditions on IEQ in

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

refurbished kindergarten buildings in Malaysia.

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the High Impact Research (HIR) grant,

5

no. UM.C/625/1/HIR/ASH/013 established by the University of Malaya

RI PT

3

6 7

REFERENCES

9

[1] Montzamani A, Mike W, Nicol F. Aircraft noise, overheating and poor air quality in classrooms

11 12 13

in London primary school, Building and Environment, 2012; 52: 129-141.

[2] Mendell M, Heath G. Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student

M AN U

10

SC

8

performance? A critical review of the literature, Indoor Air, 2004;15: 27 – 52. [3] Putih M, Adnan M, Ibrahim MH, Noh NM, Che’ Ahmad CN. An analysis of comfortable

14

teaching and learning environment: community response to climate change in school, Social and

15

Behavioral Sciences, 2014; 116: 285 – 290.

16

[4] Treputtharata S, Tayiam S. School climate affecting job satisfaction of teachers in primary education ,Khon Kaen ,Thailand, Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014; 116: 996 –

18

1000.

TE D

17

19

[5] Sulaiman MA, Wan Yusoff WZ, Pawi S, Wan Kamarudin W N. Indoor environmental quality

20

(IEQ) of higher education Iinstitutions (HEIs): A user perception survey, Journal of Clean Energy

21

Technologies, 2013; 1: 318-321.

[6] Lee MC, Mui KW, Wong LT, Chan WY, Lee EWM, Cheung CT. Student learning performance

23

and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in air-conditioned university teaching rooms, Building

24

and Environment, 2012; 49: 238-244.

AC C

EP

22

25

[7] Huang L, Zhu Y, Ouyang Q, Cao B. A study on the effects of thermal, luminous, and acoustic

26

environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices, Building and Environment, 2012; 49:

27

304-309.

28 29

[8] Passero CRM, Zannin PHT. Acoustic evaluation and adjustment of an open-plan office through architectural design and noise control, Applied Ergonomics, 2012; 43: 1066- 1071.

30

[9] Hawes BK, Brunyě, TT, Mahoney CR, Sulivan JM, Aall CD. Effects of four workplace lighting

31

technologies on perception, cognition and effective space, In. Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,

32

2012; 42: 122-128.

33 34

[10] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Health Threats to Children. O.O.T. Administrator, ed., Washington, D.C.; 1996.

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 2

[11] De Guili V, Da Pos O, de Carli M. Indoor environmental quality and pupil perception in Italian primary schools, Building and Environment, 2012; 56: 335-342.

3

[12] Zhang G, Spickett J, Rumchev K, Lee AH, Stick AS. Indoor Environmental Quality in a “Low

4

Allergen” School and Three Standard Primary Schools in Western Australia, Indoor Air. 2006;

5

16: 74-80.

6

[13] Musa AR, Abdullah NAG, Che-Ani AI, Tawil NM, Tahir MM. Temperature analysis for indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of UKM architecture studio, Procedia, Social and Behavioral

8

Science, 2012; 60: 575-581.

10 11 12 13

[14] Tarcan E, Varol ES. A Qualitative study of facilities and their environmental performance, MEQ, 2004; 15: 154-173.

[15] Frontczak M, Wargocki P. Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in

SC

9

RI PT

7

indoor environment, Building & Environment, 2011; 46: 922-837.

[16] Issa MH, Rankin JH, Atalla M, Christian AJ. Absenteeism, performance and occupants satisfaction with the indoor environmental of green Toronto schools, Indoor built Environ, 2011;

15

20: 511-523.

16

M AN U

14

[17] Earthman GI. Prioritization of 31 Criteria for School Building Adequacy, American Civil

17

Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland, Baltimore, MD. 2004. Retrieved from

18

http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/ACLUfacilities_report1-04.pdf

19

13.03.12)

21 22

on

[18] Uline C, Moran MT. The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and

TE D

20

(accessed

student achievement, Journal of Educational Administration, 2008; 46: 55-73. [19] Rosen KG, Richardson GG. Would removing indoor air particulates in children’s environment reduce rate of absenteeism- a hypothesis, The Science of the Total Environment, 1999; 234: 87-

24

93.

25 26

EP

23

[20] Buckley J, Schneider M, Shang Y. LAUSD School Facilities and Academic performance, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.edfacilities.org (accessed on 3.10.2010) [21] Shendell DG, Prill R, Fisk WJ, Apte MG, Blake D, Faulkner D. Associations between classroom

28

CO2 concentrations and student attendance in Washington and Idaho, Indoor Air, 2004; 14: 333-

29

41.

30 31 32 33

AC C

27

[22] Yang W, Sohn J, Kim J, Son B, Park B J. Indoor air quality investigation according to age of the school buildings in Korea, Journal of Environmental Management, 2009; 90: 348-354. [23] Zhang Y, Barret P. Findings from a post-occupancy evaluation in the UK primary schools sector, Facilities Journal, 2010; 28: 641-666.

34

[24] Pegas PN, Nunes T, Alves CA, Silva JR, Vieira SLA, Caseiro A, Pio CA. Indoor and outdoor

35

characterization of organic and organic compounds in city centre and suburban elementary

36

schools of Aveiro, Portugal, Atmospheric Environment, 2012; 55: 80-86.

29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 2 3

[25] Chiang CM, Lai CM. A study on the comprehensive indicator of indoor environment assessment for occupants’ health in Taiwan, Building and Environment, 2002; 37: 387- 392. [26] Ministry of Education. Education development Plan for Malaysia 2001-2010, 2001. Retrieved

4

from planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Malaysia/Malaysia%20development%plan%202001-

5

2010summary.pdf (accessed 14.4.2012)

9

[28] Tenth Malaysia Plan. Speech by the Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib Bin tun Abdul

Razak; Introducing the Motion to Table The Tenth Malaysia Plan on June 2010, 2010. Retrieved

10

from

11

15.3.2012)

12 13 14 15

RI PT

8

Education. 2013.

http://www.pmo.gov.my/dokumenattached/speech/files/RMK10_Speech.pdf

(accessed

SC

7

[27] Educational Planning and Research Division. Malaysian Educational Statistics. Ministry of

[29] Uniform Building By Law Act 1333. Laws of Malaysia, 16th ed., MDC Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. 2009.

[30] Bluyssen PM, Cox C. Indoor Environment Quality and Upgrading of European Office Buildings,

M AN U

6

Energy & Building, 2002: 34: 155-162.

16

[31] Sarantakos S. Social Research, Palgrave, New York, NY. 1998.

17

[32] Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and

19 20 21 22 23

Psychological Measurement, 1970; 30: 607-610.

[33] Levermore GJ, Lowe D. Ure J. Occupant Feedback Questionnaire Producing a Fingerprint and a Score ASHRAE. 1999.

TE D

18

[34] Riley M, Kokkarinen N, Pitt M. Assessing post occupancy evaluation in higher education facilities. Journal of Facilities Management 2010; 8(3): 202-213. [35] Masrom M. Technology acceptance model and E-learning. In: 12th International Conference on Education, 21-24 May 2007, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei

25

Darussalam, 2007.

27

[36] Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. UK: John Wiley & Son. 2009.

AC C

26

EP

24

28

[37] Fang L, Wyon DP, Clausen G, Fanger PO. (2004). Impact of indoor air temperature and humidity

29

in an office on perceived air quality, SBS symptoms and performance. Indoor Air, 2003; 14(s7):

30

74-81.

31 32

[38] Bienfait D, Fanger PO, Fitzner K. Guidelines for ventilation requirements in buildings. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1992.

33 34 35 36 37

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights IEQ is the factors affecting the physical development of children.

•

“Air Movement”, “Ventilation”, and “Freshness” scored poor quality.

•

“Color” and “Attractiveness” are the most important IEQ factors.

•

“Noise” factor is the least satisfactory IEQ factor.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

•