‘The Lagos Joumel of Environmental Studios 7(2),2010, Adaptive Framework for Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Public Housing Projects in Nigeria Anthony C.O. Iweka; Anthony K. Adebayo & Joseph M. Igwe ‘Department of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria ‘Tonyiweka@ yahoo.com , Akay.adebayo@yahoo.com , Jmigwe@yahoo.com Abstract ‘Government indervention in housing development is fuded in many countries, but inappropriate pereepiton ofthe end-users has made many of such schemes largely unsuccessful. In Nigeria, many researchers have argued that inadequate knowledge of the ature, scope and dimension of housing problems coupled with myopic cancept ofthe people's needs are responsible for public housing faures. Correct as these arguments may be, there Is litle evidence that they are based on a comparison between a ‘clearly articulated theory about how the housing projects are supposed 10 work te., design intent, and the end-users, This ‘Htuation further brings to the fore, the need to have a eurrent and an accurate understanding ofthe performance ofthe houses being provided. Once the inital design intent is established, the techniques of post-occupancy evaluation can be employed fo determine the extent to which it has been met. The paper shows that there are several approaches for understanding and conducting post-occupancy evaluation studies, This sudy examines three approaches that could be adapted and used (o identify ‘id prioritize questions regarding public-sectar housing evaluation in Nigeria, aftr the housing project has been inhabited for some time, Keywords: Building evaluation, dwelling dissatisfaction, environment-behaviour theory, evaluation theories, post-occupancy evaination, public hovsing, Tatroduction ‘oeeupancy evaluation research that focuses on public sector Public sector intervention in housing development in Nigeria _housingia Nigeria, is evident in the studies by several authors. (Atolagbe, 1997; Tiboye, 1997; Olotus, 2000; Hlesanmi, 2005). It has been ‘Theory inthe Context of Evaluation argued that government pantcipation in direct housing Smith (2010) explains that the term ‘theory’ has varied provision was sparred by a belief that itis is duty to ensure _interpreiations, depending on the perspective from which itis Equitable distribution of housing stock that is affordable and viewed. According to hira, a theory is seen in the field of mets acvepiable standards, Although these ideals are science as a more ot les established explanation for some justifiable, atention has been drawn to the need to have @ phenomenon, providing empirically verifiable prediction. cent and accurate understanding of the performance ofthe Evaluation theories onthe other hand, ae generally regarded houses being provided, Olorua and Ajenifuje (2009), for as models. Smith (2010), therefore, desoribed models as example, identified Iwo main reasons responsible forte poor conceptual frameworks that articulate viewpoints on several Tatiog of public housing programmes in Nigeria, viz: underlying theories regarding fundamental issues. inadequate knowledge of the nature, scope and dimension of —Baluation theories are expected to furnish evaluators with housing problems, and myopie concept ofthe housing needs the platform for making multiple decisions about how a of Nigerian poople. This raises a number of important issues. programme is supposed to work, ascertain whether it did Firsdy, most agencies saddled with the responsibility 1o work, and why it did or did not work as intended (Cole, ‘manage housing programmes do dothave adequate capacities 1999). and expertise necessary 10 camy, out such evaluation. ly, the situation heightons the need for the Nigerian Zimring and Wener(1985) assert that there is no formula fora sector to indulge incontinuous assessmentof ‘best evaluation, Instead, evaluation must be assessed in progiammes ang output, The situation in Nigeria isin sharp terms of theit own goals. This view justifies the argument for ‘contrast with What obtains ia some developed countries, a consideration of setting and culture in looking at evaluation where a culeuce of accountability in public sector housing theories, in terms of their appropriateness to Nigerian public delivery is evident. Inthe United States (USA), forexample,a housing domain research. Although the key aim of theory- nation-wide evaluation of 1.3 million public housing uaits in driven post-oecupancy evaluation remains the same, the 4 1992 designated 86,000 as severely distressed (Books, focus and form can vary in different contexts and for different ‘Zugazaga, Wolk & Adams, 2005). stakeholders responsible for public housing delivery in Nigeria Post-occupaney evaluation studies face a number of validity ; problems. According io Cole (1999), most scholars engaged While. a ‘comprehensive theory that is based on clear in evaluation research in the field of housing often fail to definitions of post-occupancy evaluation does not yet exist, make explicit atthe beginning, the theoretical underpinnings different theoretical points of view have been canvassed by 2 ofthe specific programmes and stody being addressed. Other number of scholars (Preiser 2005; Preiser & Vischer, 2005; researchers suggest that evaluators should base their work on Preiser & Nasar, 2008). Among several broad approaches ‘evaluation theories in order to select appropriate metiods _explicated in literature, this study recommends three that (Shadish et al 1991; Kundin 2010). The vest of this paper could help identify and prioritize questions segarding public ‘examines multiple ways to operationalize selected theoretical sector housing evaluation in Nigeria. These are: programme positions that could be applicable in carrying out a post- evaluation accountability theory, -environment behaviour| ! ‘ho Lagos Fournal of Environmental Studies 7(2), 2010 heory, and Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). Though three approaches are interdisciplinary in nature, they are jot mtusily exclusive and should be seenas complementary. rogramme Evaluation and Accountability Theory. In lhis approsch, programme evaluation is seen as occasioned y the need and desire for accountability. The importance of hhisis advocated more particularly for programmes supported y government agencies. Evalustion models are primarily jerived from social inquiry. In its broadest sense, ccountability can be seen from three dimensions: goal ccountability, process accountability. and outcome untability (Christie, 2003a, 2003b; Christie & Atkin 003). Goel accountability examines if reasonable and [appropriate goals have been established. Process faccountability states whether reasonable and appropriate ‘procedures for achieving those goals have been esteblished and implemented. Outcome accountability evaluates how ‘established goals: have been achieved. Many evaluation techniques are replete with these three accountability types. Applying this theoretical approach in public housing F evaluation in Nigeria will result in performance improvement for governmental agencies responsible for housing development, This approach requires that the housing agencies should first specify objectives that are unambiguous; and criteria for measurement of outcomes. Establishing such benchmarks for publickousing evaluations will make it easy to determine discrepancies. between preconceived relationships and reality Environment-Behaviour Theory Researchers such as Rapoport (1991) and Day (2000) explained environment-behaviour theory in terms of the relationship between people and place and the mechanisms that ink them. It reies on empirical inductive studies that make inguiries regarding what planning and design professionals ought to know about people they are designing. for and how designed environments affect people. This, theoretical perspective relies on a conceptualization of a building that emphasizes the cepecity ofits physical design to afford opportunities for human livability and behaviour. The spatial configuration is primarily regarded as providing the physical context for livability. However, exploiting the opportunities offered by the spatial configuration of buildings are largely a function of the biological nature of people, values, norms and lifestyle. ‘The depth of social and cultural affiliations in Nigeria is well known, Hence, characteristics such as marital status, household structure, employment status, educstion level, ctc,, are strongly connected with physical and structural attributes of public housing, particulary inthe urban setings. Theinteractive nature of the relationships between occupants and the surroundings of public-sector delivered bousing in ‘Nigeria canbe represented by environment-behaviour theoretical approach, Building Performance Evaluation (bpe) According to Preiser and Vischer (2005), the Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) framework emphasizes an evaluation stance throughout a building's life-cycle. In the BPE framework, the delivery ofa building and its life-cycie are defined from the perspectives of all parties who are involved with the building. This framework draws on a model that adopts 2 comprehensive approach to building performance evaluation, applicable to all facility types, as shownin Figure L (fiestive: \ Review (rn) 1g Performance Evaluation Process Modet Source: Preiser & Nasar 2008, P.90 8“The Lagos four of Environmental Siucies 7(2} 2010 tthe centre of the model are quantitative and qualitative building pertonnanee erteria that indicate the expected outcome or performance. Tt shows the six snb-phases involved inthe life cycie ofabuilding {@) Visioning, strategic planning {) Programming (c) Design (6) Construction (e) Occupancy, and (0) Re-cyeling or adaptive re-use. Each of the six sub= phases has internal review and feedback loop that contribute fn validating performance standards that may already exist or thethave to bedeveloped foragivenbuildingtype Inthe ease of building design, goals and performance erteria. are usualiy documented inthe functional programme or brief (Preiser, 2003). The evaluation of a design has to be according to how itis used rather than how i€ appears 10 the designer. BPE at design phase is a way of systematically ensuring that the building quality. is protected during daceupation and operation, Post-occupancy evaluation is based on the assumption that a building is designed and buik to support and enhance the Elements of Research performance of the activities and goals ofits occupants. The performance concept provides a basis for comparing explicitly stated performance criteria for buildings with the factual performance as measured or perceived by building ‘occupants and evaluators (Figure2). Among the very early works on building performance was an evaluation of the schoo! consinuction systems development project in California, by Ezra Ehreakrantz ad his associates (Preiser, 2005), The mest important elements of performance that are measured, evaluated and used in post-occupancy evaluation research for improvement of buildings are in the domnains of technical, functional and behavioural Generally, the framework for performance evaluation research is based on establishing a conection between the | tealuation of buildings and three aspecs, as shown in Figure | 2 These are (i) measurement technology, i) data bases and jnformation systems, and (iii) the’ development of performance criteria fr buildings (Preiser, 2005. Building Process Goals Outcomes 16 Heat DATA BASE/ INFORMATION Scare SYSTEM PLANNING J PROGRAMME T DESIGN I CONSTRUCTION | ‘MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY |__+| POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION (POE) | [= ceturaney Figured: The Performance Evaluation Research Framework ‘Source: Assessing Building Performance: Preiser Vischer, 2005, Measurement technology refers 10 the techniques and technological tools that are employed to support data collection and analysis of post-occupancy evaluations ‘Among such cools are interviews, questionnaire surveys, direct observation, mechanical recording of human behaviour, measurement of light and acoustic levels, video recording, mapping of behaviour and sill photogrephy. Data bases and information systems fora given agency and/or building type oan be ofa general nature describing the design intent in the form of programmatic statements, Specific performance criteria contained in stich programmes for a given facility provide an indication of how the design was expected to meet these criteria, Performance measures collected ftom post-occupancy evaluations are generally compared with specific performance criteria derived from data bases, which arc usually inthe form of teshnical manuals and design guides. The performance concept and framework for systematic evaluation of built facilities is 4 methodological approach towards achieving higher quality in buildings, accountability, in the building process and ultimately, enhanced building utilization and user satisfaction. The framework attempts 0 compare initial ambitions with actual outcomes. ‘The performance concept advocated for use in post- occupancy evaluations hinges on explicitly stating theThe Lagos Jour of Environmental Studies 7(2). 2010 performance requirements that are expected from a building, designing the building accordingly, and eventually ‘comparing the actual performance of the building with that ‘which was initially stated inthe building programme. Emphasis is on validating the goals and performance eritetia as understood from the designs, using established internationally accepted measurement standards, In the case of public housing in Nigeria, there is need to establish and illustrate what performance standards should be attained in the pursuit of suitable dwelling, Aspects that engender dissatisfaction such as size of houses, number and sizes of rooms end dining/living areas, storage space, toilet and bath facilities, and kitehen, must be specified. The performance information should also inelude neighbourhood ‘Characteristics and physical conditions of the house. Issues of focation and attachment as well as safety may equally be considered, Post-occuipaney evaluation, therefore, becomes a process for comparing what the housing agencies prescribed for the different components of specific projects with the real and/or fctual experience of the users. For example, most public housing units are designed to overcome household crowding problems (also regarded as dwelling density or household Deenpancy-ratio). Therefore, 2 theory or statement that delineates haw the housing wits are supposed to be occupied must firstbe clearly understood and described by the housing agencies and designers. Ths is considered necessary becmse ‘every residential apartment is designed for a specific aumber bf people. Comparisons as described here help to reveal the extent of discrepancy or congruence between what the housing agency thinks dwelling density should be theoretically, and what is observed during the evaluation process ( that is, what the dwelling density actually is during habitation. Conclusion ‘This paper reveals the need for periodie performance mudit of all public sector delivered housing projects, particularly in Nigeria. The study discovered that post-occupancy evaluation research is not cornmon in Nigeria’ public housing sector, and even when it is done, suck a study usually faces validity problems, These problems are attributed to failure to ‘explicitly state the theoretical underpinnings of the specific projects atthe on-set, The essence of evaluation theories is fo provide an informed basis for understanding how a public housing programme is supposed to work, ascertain whether it did work, and why itdid or did not workas intended. ‘The literature is besieged with several approaches for carrying out post-occupancy evaluation studies. Three of suck approaches have been identified in this study as being Very relevant and appropriate to Nigeti’s socio-cultural setting: (3) Programme evaluation accountability theory, (i) Environment-behaviour theory and (iii) Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). Adapting these approsch to the Nigerian context requires the agencies responsible for public housing delivery to unsmbiguously prescribe the expected performance standards for all especie of each project. In realty, it must be staied that the boundary line 30 between these approaches is highly amorphous; hence adherence to one approach over another one is largely @ philosophical decision. This also suggests that post ‘occupancy evaluation of public sector housing in Nigeria can beachieved using a combination of these epproaches References Atolabe, A. M. O. (1997). Affordable shelter for the urban Jow-income classes in Nigeria: Local resources strategies. In B. Amole (Ed), The house in Nigeria:Conference proceedings (274-278). Obafemi Awolowo University, Te ie, Brierley, E. S. (2004), The social and environmenal influence of the Parket-Morris Report. Special Issue, 18th TAPS~ Conference(123-129). Vienna. Brooks, F, Zugazaga, C. Wolk, J. & Adams, M. A. (2008). Resident perceptions of housing, neighbourhood, and economic conditions after relocation from public housing ‘undergoing HOPE VI redevelopment. Research on Social ‘Work Practice, 15(6),481-490. Christie C. AL & Aikin, M. C. (2003). The user-oriented evalator’s role in formulating a programme theory: Using a theory-driven approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 24,373-386. Christie, C.A (20032). The practice-theory relationship. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 1-5 Christie, C. A. (20036), Winat guides Evaluation? A study of fhow evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 7-35. Cole, GE. (1999), Advancing the development and application of theory based evaluation in the practice of public health, American Joumal of Evaluation, 20(3), 453470. Day, L. L. (2000), Choosing a house: The relationship between dwelling type, perception ofprivacy and residential satisfaction. Joumai of Planning Education and Research, 19, 268-275. Forbes, L H. (2003), Improving educational facilities design and construction through post oceapancy evaluation facility planning and standards. Mien: FL. TMlesanmi, A.O. (2005). An evaluation of selected public ‘pousing schemes of Lagos State Development and Property Corporation, Lagos, Nigeria (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Obafemi Awolowo University,le-Ife Kooymans, R, & Haylock, P. (2006). Post occupancy evalnation and workplace Productivity. Oeeasional Research Paper. iniversty of South Australia, Kundin, D.M, (2010). conceptiat framework for how evaluators make everyday practice decisions. American Journal of Evalwation, 31(3), 347-362, Olotwah,A..O. (2000). The challenge of housing in Nigeria. In 0. B. Akinbatnijo, A. S. Fawehini, D. R, Oguasemi, & A. Olotuah (Eds.), Effective housing inthe 21stcentury Nigeria: The environmental forum (pp. 16-21). ‘Akure: Federal University of Technology. Oloniah, A. O. & Ajenifuia, A. 0. (2009), ‘Architectural education and housing provision in Nigeria CEBE Transactions, 6(17), 85-102. Preiser, W. F. E. (2008). Building performance assessment: From POE to BPE, e personal perspective. Architecture nce Review, 48(3), 201-205. Preiser, W.F.E de Nasar JL. 2008}. Assessing‘The Lagos Journal of Environmental Studios 702), 2010 building performance: Its evolution from post occupancy evaluation, Intemational Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 84-99, Preiser, W. FE. & Vischer, F.C. (Bds.), (2005). Assessing building performance, Oxford: Elsevier. Rapoport , A. (1991), Behavioral factors in housing design. Lecture Notes from Course at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukec. 3 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1990). Foundations of programme evaluation: ‘Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Smith, N.L. (2010), Characterizing the evaluand in evaluating theory, American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 383-389. Zimnring, C, & Wener, R. (1985). Evaluating evaluation, TAIT. Enviroumentand Behaviour, 17(1),