Content uploaded by Tugba Duzenli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tugba Duzenli on Jun 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1659
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION AND
USER SATISFACTION IN URBAN OPEN SPACE
Doruk Görkem Özkan*, Elif Merve Alpak , Serap Yılmaz, Tuğba Düzenli and Ali Özbilen
Department of Landscape Planning and Design, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Today, the number of urban open spaces decreases as
a result of growing number of settlements. However, the
opportunities provided by urban open spaces to people
clearly demonstrate the need for and the importance of ur-
ban open spaces. The aim of this study is to investigate why
activity spaces and space organization that will meet user
needs are not used at the desired level. Research method
was built on spatial analysis method, which is based on
identification of physical condition, and on surveys, which
are based on user ratings. In this study, which focuses on
post-occupancy evaluation method, the users rated space
performance values of the spaces which differ in terms
of space organization and properties and were determined
by spatial analysis method. With four different spaces and
70 participants from each, a total of 280 participants (118
females-162 males) evaluated technical, functional and
aesthetic performance of the spaces they occupy by Likert
attitude scale. The results showed that space performance af-
fects user satisfaction and space usage level. User satisfac-
tion was achieved in spaces with high performance value
which meet user needs, whereas user satisfaction could not
be achieved in spaces with low performance value.
KEYWORDS: post-occupancy evaluation, space performance,
user satisfaction, urban open spaces
1. INTRODUCTION
A space is defined as a volume where users perform
their activities in line with their various needs, and it covers
shared experiences and usage with a variety of characteris-
tics in a city [1]. Urban open spaces make various districts
of a city approach to each other, integrate people as well as
develop a feeling of being a society [2,3]. Facilities of ur-
ban open spaces meet people’s needs in the space they oc-
cupy, and help them be satisfied with that space [4]. Thus,
available urban open spaces where user needs are met are
formed. In this context, when the problem with the fact that
* Corresponding author
urban open spaces are not used is addressed in terms of hu-
man-environment interaction system, it indicates that such
spaces do not meet user needs [5, 6]. However, the purpose
of environmental designers is to create activity spaces that
will meet user needs as well as space organizations that will
enable performance of these activities [7-10].
The aim of this study is to determine performances of
spaces different from each other in terms of space organi-
zations and their properties, and increase user satisfaction
and space usage level. It is intended that these aims support
the following assumptions;
Changing design projects during construction phase af-
fects space performance value.
Space performance value affects user satisfaction and
space usage level.
Nowadays, when the projects are developed by de-
signers in line with these aims, these spaces are not occu-
pied by the users at the desired level [11]. The occupancy
of a space at the desired level, i.e. the fact that it is livable,
is associated with performance value of that space which is
perceived, measured and defined [12]. In order to under-
stand the problem with the fact that a space is not used, first
of all, the construction stage of that space as well as the
space performance, which will be generated by the users’
evaluations (POE) of that space should be examined [13].
Hence, the theoretical frame of this study was created
(Fig.1).
1.1 Urban Open Space Performance Evaluation
On the grounds of meeting user needs, first, the design
process and its various stages should be evaluated in order
to find the most appropriate space organization for the user
[14]. The creation process of a space consists of a series of
performance-based feed-forward and feed-backward steps
including programming – design – construction – occu-
pancy – evaluation – change – re-use [15-17].
In the process of the formation of urban open spaces,
it is the programming stage that provides data for the de-
sign and is the most essential for designed spaces to be live-
able [18]. User demands and expectations are identified
during the programming stage. Identified user demands
and expectations are then transferred to the design stage.
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1660
FIGURE 1 - Framework of the research [11].
Problems in the space that have emerged as a result of
construction of the design are also resolved in the program-
ming stage [18-20]. In this paper, the question of how pro-
gramming data, which is necessary to resolve the problems
that have arisen during occupancy stage of a space after
completion of design and construction processes, will be
generated, becomes the main topic. In this context, post-
occupancy evaluation (POE) method, which involves eval-
uation from the perspective of users of spaces designed and
constructed after they began to be used, will be the focus
of this research.
1.2 Post Occupancy Evaluation
Expert architects, urban planners, interior designers,
psychologists, sociologists and environmental designers
have focused on human behavior in their research on phys-
ical environment and laid the foundation of post-occu-
pancy evaluation studies. Although such studies mainly
concentrated on architectural structures from the past to the
present, they expanded to cover evaluation of urban open
spaces today.
Post-occupancy evaluation is the evaluation process of
a space whose design and construction processes have been
completed and which has been occupied for a length of
time [21-23]. In other words, it is an evaluation method by
which a user’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his/her
physical environment during occupancy stage is investi-
gated [24]. In this way, the user evaluates space perfor-
mance of the designed project after completion of its con-
struction. Programming data obtained as a result of this
evaluation is transferred to design process so that the de-
signed environment becomes more livable and practical.
According to Preiser, livability and quality of a space de-
pends on its performance in the face of user needs and re-
quirements [12]. Within the scope of this research, the ob-
jectives are as follows:
Determine how well the urban open space meets users’
expectations during usage stage based on users’ opinions,
Investigate the reason for dissatisfaction to be deter-
mined during occupancy stage, develop new design tar-
gets that will meet demands or expectations and im-
prove space performance,
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1661
Ensure space quality and user satisfaction by improving
space performance [12, 25-28].
In line with the abovementioned objectives, perfor-
mance and quality concepts were explained within the
scope of post-occupancy evaluation in this research.
1.3 Urban Open Space Performance and Quality
Performance concept, which is referred to as a meas-
urable behavior of a space, is the degree to which user
needs and requirements are met. Performance indicators
are the values referring to livability which are experienced,
perceived and measured by users. Therefore, performance
concept is used to define desired characteristics of a mate-
rial, component or system in fulfilling user requirements.
In environmental design, performance concept is directly
associated with quality of a space. Performance and quality
of a space varies with components making up the environ-
ment, people who generate and use it, and activities taking
place in it [15]. Space performance value is indicative of
quality of the space, hence, user satisfaction [29].
Preiser, Rabinowitz and White [12] noted that perfor-
mance dimensions used to determine user satisfaction are
comprised of three dimensions, including technical perfor-
mance, functional performance and aesthetic performance.
Evaluation of performance dimensions is beneficial in
terms of determining the features of an available space and
making positive changes, and provides guidance on deter-
mining programming criteria to minimize negative aspects
in new formations [12, 13].
Technical performance is defined as structural perfor-
mance concentrating on elements and components of a
space (flooring elements, equipment, water elements and
closed functional spaces). Technical performance criteria
include cleanliness, maintenance state, construction qual-
ity, strength, etc. of space elements and components. Func-
tional performance covers concepts including variety of ac-
tivities, the adequacy of activity spaces, equipment, green
areas, closed functional spaces, consistency of access to ac-
tivities, comfort of equipment, and fitness of activity
spaces to their intended purpose, security, integrity and
continuity. Aesthetic performance includes concepts of
harmony, integrity and continuity of flooring elements,
equipment and green areas in terms of pattern, texture and
color. These concepts are performance criteria which were
used to determine user satisfaction in the study.
Within the scope of this study, the relationship be-
tween the space comprised of a design project and its actual
implementation in the respective area and the user was ex-
plained in terms of human-environment interaction. There-
fore, users’ reaction to built urban open space was dis-
cussed in accordance with their needs and requirements. It
is possible to acquire knowledge about users’ assessments
of the space they have used by a post-occupancy evaluation
study, which allows determination of performance value
(technical- functional-aesthetic) of the space used. The de-
termined performance value was evaluated within the
scope of construction and usage processes, which are
among programming-design-construction-occupancy pro-
cesses of urban open spaces. Because the study area was
found to have high performance when its design project
was reviewed during discussions with experts and design-
ers. The evaluations conducted during the study were built
on this assumption. Therefore, the design performance was
not evaluated in our study. By evaluating construction and
usage processes, it would be possible to determine any
spaces which were reflected or could not be reflected from
design to construction as well as performance value of
these spaces and hence their impact on user satisfaction.
Thus, it was intended to evaluate user satisfaction with re-
spect to the current space and turn that space into a more
practical space. In line with these assumptions, it was
found appropriate to conduct spatial analysis in order to ex-
amine the current spaces and make a survey by asking users
to rate these spaces in order to determine space perfor-
mances of such spaces.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Study Area
The aim of this study was to improve usage level of
urban open spaces by a post-occupancy evaluation study,
which evaluates designed environments. Since the study
focused on urban open areas, it was agreed to select an area
important for the city of Trabzon as the study area. In order
to identify what affects space usage level, presence of
space organizations with various characteristics in the
study area was taken into consideration. Since the city of
Trabzon is a coastal city and the spaces available for
coastal usage in Trabzon increasingly dwindle, it was in-
tended to improve usage level of Trabzon coast(between
Ganita tunnel and the borders of Beşirli), whose design
project was developed and constructed, and this region was
selected as the study area (Fig. 2).
The research was conducted in 9 km-long and about
250 m-wide Trabzon coastal arrangement, which is parallel
to Samsun-Sarp highway, located between Kanuni Park
(Turkish - Hungarian Friendship Park) and Beşirli region
in the city center of the province of Trabzon, in northern
Black Sea region, Turkey. The construction of Trabzon
Coast carried out by making a made-up ground in order to
increase the city's declining use of the coast was completed
in 2007. Design and construction phases were completed
and usage phase began. It was observed that its usage level
is low so in order to investigate the reasons for this and
improve usage level, this area was selected for a post-oc-
cupancy evaluation study.
Trabzon Coast Project Coastal zone, which constitutes
the main theme of this study, is comprised of Beşirli region,
Toklu region, Ayasofya region, Faroz region and Ganita
region. In the study area, design project was not con-
structed in Faroz region and Ganita region so both of these
regions were excluded from the study. Design projects
developed for other regions of the study area were con-
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1662
FIGURE 2 - Location of the study area (Source: Photos by Doruk Görkem ÖZKAN)
structed to varying extents, which was thought to create
different space performance values. Based on the assump-
tion that different performance values will cause differ-
ences in space usage levels, these spaces were evaluated
within the scope of study area. Another factor effective in
the selection of these spaces was that the users show a wide
range of socio-demographic characteristics.
2.2 Methods
Research methodology was built on spatial analysis,
which is based on determination of physical condition, and
on surveys, which are based on user ratings. Performance-
based analyses were carried out by survey method, and it
was aimed to reach a conclusion by comparing user re-
quests with physical findings.
2.2.1 Spatial Analysis
In the first stage, design and construction projects of
open spaces in Trabzon coast were obtained and photo-
graphed. The primary purpose was to compare the spaces
to be discussed in the study within the scope of design and
construction projects, and determine any resulting differ-
ences. In line with this purpose, it would be established
how well the objectives of the design were reflected to the
area after the construction. Based on the assumption that
spaces which have been constructed in accordance with
their design projects meet user needs and requirements bet-
ter and are used more, the objectives of this stage were to:
Compare design projects and their construction (access
and activity spaces, functional relationships and hard
floor, green area, equipment ,water element, closed func-
tional spaces)
Classify differences between design projects of the spaces
compared, and their actual construction in the respective
area.
In line with these objectives, analyses were conducted
using AutoCAD (Computer Aided Design) 2010 software
by spatial analysis technique (Fig.3).
2.2.2 Survey Instruments
The key objective of the second stage is to consider
spaces and equipment with varying extents of construction,
which result from the differences between the design pro-
ject and construction project determined in the previous
stage, and identify their impact on user satisfaction. Based
on the assumption that performance value, which is indic-
ative of the extent of user satisfaction, of preferred open
spaces in Trabzon coast, set forth by their spatial charac-
teristics, is higher than that of non-preferred open spaces,
the objectives of this stage are to: Determine preferred and
non-preferred open spaces, establish values of these open
spaces in terms of performance criteria previously defined
by literature search so that the assumption can be tested,
compare performance values of preferred and non-pre-
ferred open spaces and determine which one of the perfor-
mance criteria is a more significant criterion in user satis-
faction and choice of space.
During the survey stage, four spaces selected in the
previous stage were rated using 5 point Likert attitude
scale. In the study, surveys were conducted with users
available at study areas. In order to obtain more reliable
results, surveys were conducted with 280 users residing in
Trabzon on weekdays and at the weekend. The purpose of
the survey is to determine quality of a space by perfor-
mance and identify satisfaction and dissatisfaction of users
with the spaces they have used. In line with this purpose, it
was aimed to determine values of preferred and non-pre-
ferred spaces in Trabzon coast in terms of technical, func-
tional and aesthetic performance criteria found by literature
search, using 5 point Likert attitude scale. The study of
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1663
Preiser et al. [12] study was helpful in developing closed-
ended questions developed for determination of perfor-
mance values. Content of closed-ended questions are given
in Table 1. Agreement of participants to these concepts
were rated by 5 grades and included ratings of ‘I strongly
agree’(1), ‘I agree’(2), ‘ I neither agree nor disagree(3), ‘I
disagree’(4), ‘I strongly disagree’(5) Performance levels
established as a result of statistical analyses and classifica-
tion of these performance levels are given in results sec-
tion.
FIGURE 3 – Spatial analysis process.
TABLE 1 - Statements in the attitude scale of the survey.
Technical Performance Functional performance Aesthetic performance
Flooring elements
Equipment
Seating elements
Coverage elements
Lighting elements
Litter box elements
Water elements
That closed functional spaces are
clean, well-maintained and strong.
Variety of activity spaces
Adequacy of activity spaces, equipment,
green areas and closed function areas
Consistency of access to activities
Comfort of equipment
Fitness of activity spaces and equipment
to their intended purpose
Security
Continuity
Integrity
Harmony of activity spaces, flooring elements, equipment,
green areas and closed functional areas in terms of pattern
and color.
Integrity and continuity of activity spaces, flooring ele-
ments, equipment, green areas and closed functional areas
in terms of pattern and color.
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1664
In the survey, in addition to 5-point Likert attitude scale,
efforts were made to obtain data regarding preference, fre-
quency and length of use by the following questions:
- Which region do you use the most in Trabzon Coast?
- How often do you use this area?
- How much time do you spend in this area?
3. RESULTS
3.1 Results obtained by Spatial Analysis
As mentioned in methods section of the research, spa-
tial analysis process is the stage at which data regarding
design and construction processes is collected in the re-
search model. Design project of urban open spaces of Trab-
zon coast and their current state in the area were analyzed.
As a result, it was determined to what extent activity spaces,
equipment and access designated in the design were fulfilled.
Thereby, the extent of construction of urban open spaces of
Trabzon coast was determined and classified. Spaces ana-
lyzed in space analysis process were Beşirli region, Toklu re-
gion, Ayasofya region and Coastal zone (Fig. 4).
As a result of the spatial analyses conducted in Beşirli
region, Toklu region, Ayasofya region and Coastal zone,
when we list the differences between their design projects
and their actual construction in the respective area in in-
creasing order, the order is as follows: Coastal Region,
Ayasofya Region, Toklu Region and Beşirli Region.
FIGURE 4 - Determination of differences between design project and construction projects of Beşirli, Toklu, Ayasofya Regions and coastal
zone by comparison.
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1665
TABLE 2 -Visit related characteristics
Visit Characteristics Coastal zone
N
=70 (%)
Ayasofya Region
N
=70 (%)
Toklu Region
N
=70 (%)
Beşirli Region
N
=70 (%)
Frequency of Use
Everyday 10 14,3 1 1,4 3 4,3 - -
Every weekend 19 27,1 24 34,3 4 5,7 6 8,6
Several days a week 27 38,6 27 38,6 30 42,9 26 37,1
Several times a month
amountanhsssmonth 11 15,7 16 22,9 30 42,9 31 44,3
Several times a year 3 4,3 2 2,9 3 4,3 7 10,0
Length of Use
Less than half an h. 1 1,4 1 1,4 6 8,6 12 17,1
Half an hour 8 11,4 14 20,0 24 34,3 37 52,9
1-2 hour(s) 28 40,0 41 58,6 33 47,1 17 24,3
2-3 hours 21 30,0 9 12,9 5 7,1 3 4,3
More than 3 hours 12 17,1 5 7,1 2 2,9 1 1,4
Whether these differences determined in the first stage
have any impact on performance values of the spaces, user
satisfaction of and preference for the spaces are explained
by comparing them with findings obtained at the end of the
second stage of the study.
3.2 Results Based on the Survey
Visit-related characteristics: Frequency and length
of use of a space is indicative of success of that space so
frequency and length of use of the spaces were also inves-
tigated. In order to establish how often the users in urban
open spaces of Trabzon coast use the open space in the re-
spective region, frequency distributions and percentages
were found (Table 2).
Users in Coastal zone and Ayasofya region mainly use
these regions several times a week and every weekend,
whereas users in Toklu and Beşirli regions mainly use
these regions several times a month. Frequency distribu-
tions and percentages showing the length of visits to urban
open spaces of Trabzon coast are given in Table 3.
When all regions are evaluated, it is evident that the
users who use the respective region for more than 3 hours
are mostly those living in coastal zone. Those who use the
respective space for less than half an hour were found to be
mainly those living in Beşirli region.
TABLE 3 - Usage Levels of Urban Open Spaces
Urban Open Spaces of Trabzon Coast Frequency Percentage
Coastal region 131 46,8
Ayasofya Region 83 29,6
Toklu Region 28 10,0
Beşirli Region 18 6,4
Faroz Region 14 5,0
Ganita Region 6 2,1
Total 280 100
Determination of performance values of urban
open spaces. Performance values of regions were deter-
mined by the Anova test by taking the average of the re-
spondents’ answers to the questions related to functional
performance, aesthetics performance and technical perfor-
mance (Fig. 5). As a result, the statistically more significant
performance criterion was established. Hence, the levels of
regions by their performance values were determined.
When performance values of the regions were com-
pared by Duncan test after applying Anova test, all perfor-
mance criteria were found to be significant for the regions.
Functional performance, one of the performance criteria,
was established to be more significant than aesthetic and
technical performance criteria, with values of F=51,480,
sig:0,000. Aesthetic performance values were F=19,572,
sig:0,000, while technical performance values were
F=18,874, sig:0,000. Functional, aesthetic and technical
performance values of coastal zone were 3.5048, 3.4514,
and 3.2000, respectively. Functional, aesthetic and tech-
nical performance values of Ayasofya region were 3.0254,
3.0914, and 3.2619, respectively. Functional, aesthetic and
technical performance values of Toklu region were 2.8333,
2.7629, and 3.1048, respectively. Lastly, functional, aes-
thetic and technical performance values of Beşirli region
were 2.2016, 2.3857, and 2.2905, respectively. As a result
of this evaluation, it is evident that functional, aesthetic and
technical performance values of coastal zone were higher
than those of other regions. Functional and aesthetic per-
formance values of Ayasofya region were moderate,
whereas its technical performance value was high. Toklu
region had moderate functional and technical performance
values, however, a low aesthetic performance value. Func-
tional, aesthetic and technical performance values of
Beşirli region were all low.
Collective assessment of all performance criteria of
urban open spaces. Performance values of regions were
determined by the Anova test by taking the average of the
respondents’ answers to the questions of functional perfor-
mance, aesthetics performance and technical performance.
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1666
Mean overall performance of the coastal region was deter-
mined as 3.4353, while those of Ayasofya, Toklu and
Beşirli regions were 3.0866, 2.8605 and 2.2714, respec-
tively (Fig. 6). According to these results, it is clear that the
highest value for overall performance was obtained for
Coastal region, whereas the lowest was obtained for Beşirli
region. Coastal and Ayasofya regions had high, Toklu re-
gion medium and Beşirli region low performance values.
Determination of user satisfaction level in urban
open spaces. Frequencies of user satisfaction in regions
where the survey was conducted are presented in Fig. 7.
The highest satisfaction value was obtained for Coastal re-
gion (58.6%), followed by Ayasofya, Toklu and Beşirli re-
gions (52.9, 32.9, and 21.4, respectively). If the whole
study area is considered, 41.4% of users were demonstrated
to be satisfied with coastal region, whereas 58.6% were
demonstrated to be dissatisfied. A χ2 – test was conducted
to establish if these values were statistically significant or
not, and the test revealed that they were significant (χ2 =
25,904; 3 df , p<0,01)
FIGURE 5 - Performance values of the regions
FIGURE 6 - Mean performance values of the regions
FIGURE 7 - Frequency distributions of satisfaction values by regions
PerformanceValue
PerformanceValuesofTheRegions
Functional
Performance
AestheticPerforma
nce
Technical
Performance
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1667
In order to find if there is any statistically significant
difference between the regions by satisfaction, Tukey hsd
test was conducted, and the results are given in Table 4.
There is a significant difference by satisfaction between
Coastal region and Beşirli, Toklu regions; Beşirli region
and Coastal, Ayasofya regions; Toklu region and Coastal
region, and between Ayasofya region and Beşirli region.
User satisfaction and space performance relation-
ship in urban open spaces. As a result of χ2 test con-
ducted with crosstabs analysis in order to establish if user
satisfaction and space performance relationship in open
spaces of Trabzon coastal region is significant or not, it was
identified that performance criteria created significant dif-
ference in establishing satisfaction(p<0.01). χ2 results of
performance criteria are given in Table 4.
According to the results of χ2 test given in Table 5, the
most effective performance criterion in establishing satis-
faction is functional performance criterion, followed by
aesthetic and technical performance criteria. It was ana-
lyzed if there is any statistical difference between perfor-
mance criteria and satisfaction in the regions by applying
χ2 test to each region using Crosstabs analysis.As a result
of χ2 test, except for aesthetic performance criterion in
Coastal region and technical performance criterion in
Ayasofya region, all performance criteria caused a statisti-
cally significant difference in emergence of satisfaction
and dissatisfaction, (p<0,01) (Table 6). The most effective
performance criterion in formation of satisfaction and dissat-
isfaction in all regions is functional performance criterion.
TABLE 4 - Differences by significance of satisfaction between the re-
gions
Survey regions p<0,01
Coast Beşirli
Toklu
Ayasofya
0,000
0,008
0,891
Beşirli Coast
Toklu
Ayasofya
0,000
0,481
0,001
Toklu Coast
Beşirli
Ayasofya
0,008
0,481
0,62
Ayasofya Coast
Beşirli
Toklu
0,891
0,001
0,62
TABLE 5 - χ2 results between performance criteria and satisfaction
Performance Criteria χ2df P<0,01
Functional performance 138,202 30 0,000
Aesthetic performance 126,531 20 0,000
Technical Performance 84,201 12 0,000
Comparison of Spatial Analysis Results and Find-
ings related to Usage Levels of Urban Open Spaces.
Spatial analysis studies were conducted in Coastal, Beşirli,
Toklu and Ayasofya regions in the research. Design pro-
jects of these regions and their actual construction in the
respective area were compared and any significant differ-
ence was demonstrated (Fig. 5). As a result of spatial anal-
yses, if such pieces of construction are classified by their
fitness to design projects, they can be be listed as Coastal
region, Ayasofya region, Toklu region, Beşirli region in
decreasing order. Findings of the second stage of the study
were compared with this result, obtained from
TABLE 6 - χ2 test conducted in Coastal, Ayasofya, Toklu and Beşirli regions
Performance Criteria χ2 df P<0,01
Coastal region
Functional performance 43,885 20 0,001
Aesthetic performance 24,719 15 0,054
Technical Performance 34,083 12 0,002
Ayasofya region
Functional performance 39,243 19 0,003
Aesthetic performance 33,578 15 0,004
Technical performance 16,674 10 0,082
Toklu region
Functional performance 56,326 20 0,000
Aesthetic performance 34,733 16 0,004
Technical Performance 26,034 10 0,004
Beşirli region
Functional performance 48,717 20 0,000
Aesthetic performance 47,975 15 0,000
Technical Performance 23,026 9 0,006
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1668
spatial analysis. In the second stage, the spaces which were
used the most were identified (Table 3). As a result, usage
levels of urban open spaces in descending order are as fol-
lows: Coastal region, Ayasofya region, Toklu region, Beşirli
region. As can be seen, space usage level increases with
decreasing difference between design project and construc-
tion project. The region with the least difference between
design project and construction project is Coastal region,
and the region which is used the most is also the Coastal re-
gion. The region with the most difference between design
project and construction project is Beşirli region, and the re-
gion which is used the least is also Beşirli region.
Comparison by Frequency and Length of Use of
Urban Open Spaces, whose Spatial Analyses Were
Conducted. Frequency and length of use of open spaces of
Trabzon coastal region are given in Table 2. As can be un-
derstood from this table, the region which is used most re-
quently is the coastal region, whereas the region which is
used least frequently is Beşirli region. Similarly, the region
which is used for the longest time is mostly the coastal re-
gion, while the region which is used for the shortest time is
mostly Beşirli region.
Comparison by Performance Values of Urban
Open Spaces, whose Space Analyses Were Conducted.
As a result of spatial analysis, implementation levels of
spaces were revealed. Accordingly, the spaces can be listed
in decreasing order as follows:
1. Coastal Region
2. Ayasofya Region
3. Toklu Region
4. Beşirli Region.
Performance values of the spaces were also revealed
by 5-point Likert attitude scale. And these values can be
listed in decreasing order as follows:
1. Coastal Region (3,4353)
2. Ayasofya Region (3,0866)
3. Toklu Region (2,8625)
4. Beşirli Region (2,2714).
As these results suggest, the difference between design
project and construction project shows the same order as
spatial performance values. This result validates the as-
sumption of the research.
When performance values of urban open spaces of
Trabzon coast by the region which is used the most were
tested by χ2 using crosstabs analysis, they were shown to
be statistically significant (χ2 =321,402; df 260, p< 0,01).
Comparison by User Satisfaction of Urban Open
Spaces, Whose Space Analyses Were Conducted. Satis-
faction level of users in urban open spaces of Trabzon coast
is presented in Figure 8. The region with the highest user
satisfaction was Coastal region, followed by Ayasofya and
Toklu regions and the region with the lowest user satisfac-
tion was Beşirli region. As is clear from this table, coastal
region, in the case of which the difference between design
project and construction project is the least, has the highest
satisfaction level, whereas the region, in the case of which
such difference is the most, has the lowest satisfaction
level.
Comparison of user satisfaction as well as fre-
quency and time of occupancy of urban open spaces of
trabzon coast. Presence of any statistical difference be-
tween user satisfaction and frequency of use of urban open
spaces of Trabzon coast was investigated by applying χ2
test using crosstabs analysis. The χ2 test demonstrated that
there is a statistically significant significant difference be-
tween user satisfaction and frequency of use ( χ2 = 11,383;
4 df, p< 0,05).
All these findings support the following assumptions
of the research:
Changing design projects during construction stage
negatively affects space performance and decreases
user satisfaction.
Spaces constructed as specified in their design projects
meet user needs and requirements to a larger extent.
Therefore, their performance values are high.
Spaces with higher performance values are preferred
more and used more frequently and for a long time, and
they create a variety of activities by a higher percentage
and have a higher level of satisfaction. Spaces with
lower performance values are preferred less, and used
for a shorter time, and less number of activities take
place in them and they have a lower level of satisfaction
(Fig. 9).
FIGURE 9 - Correlation between performance value and user satisfaction
High desirability
Intensive and long-term usage level
High variety of activities
High level of satisfaction
Low desirability
Short-term usage level
Low variety of activities
Low level of satisfaction
(-)Performance value (+)
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1669
4. DISCUSSION
By the courtesy of spatial analysis study, design pro-
ject of Trabzon coast was for the first time compared with
its actual construction in the respective area. As a result of
the comparison, differences including the fact that spaces
and equipment in the design project were not applied, they
underwent formal and functional changes and the actual
construction involves elements which were not designed in
the first place, were identified. Within the scope of these
differences, the spaces were classified by their level of im-
plementation.
In the second stage of the study, performance values of
open spaces of Trabzon coast were determined and classi-
fied by user surveys.
The main purpose of collective evaluation of findings
obtained from spatial analysis and the survey is to assess
whether the difference between design projects and their
actual construction in the respective area affect space per-
formance, frequency and length of use, preference for the
space, activities taking place and user satisfaction. Spatial
analysis and surveys, which were conducted to determine
whether the spaces, which were constructed, to a large ex-
tent, as specified in their design projects, have a higher per-
formance value or not, demonstrated that spaces which
were constructed, to a larger extent, as specified in their
design projects, have an increased performance value.
Thus, such spaces with an increased performance value
were also shown to have an increased level of preference,
frequency of use, user satisfaction and a longer time of use.
The findings obtained from spatial analysis and the survey
are consistent with the results of Preiser’s, Rabinowitz’s,
White and Preiser’s ,Vischer’s performance- based post-
occupancy evaluation studies.
Length of use of a space with the highest level of im-
plementation and performance value is higher than that of
spaces with lower level of implementation and perfor-
mance value. Level of satisfaction increased in spaces with
high performance values and these spaces were occupied
more frequently and for longer times. Spaces with lower
performance value proved to have lower levels of prefer-
ence. In other words, it was seen that the users do not use
these spaces in general and use them for a short time.
Amerigo and Aragones [30] noted that users use spaces
they are satisfied with, for a long time, and those spaces
they are not satisfied with for a short time or they do not
use them at all. Considering the effects of level of imple-
mentation and performance on satisfaction level, our find-
ings support Amerigo and Aragones’ findings [30] as well
as Canter and Rees’ findings [31].
Carr at al. [32] investigated spaces within the scope of
urban open spaces and emphasized that establishing user
requirements is essential in terms of success of a space. Ju-
ran [33] argued that one of the main objectives is the fact
that a space should meet user needs. Alexander [34] con-
ducted initial studies of post-occupancy evaluation and
highlighted that during a design stage, user requirements
targeted by the design should be evaluated. Findings of this
study are supported by these previous investigations. In
summary, the results of this study demonstrated that if user
needs and requirements are met in open spaces of Trabzon
coast, space performance will be increased, user satisfac-
tion will be ensured and space usage level will be in-
creased.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a post-occupancy evaluation study was
conducted in line with an approach of evaluating a space
whose design and construction processes have been com-
pleted and which has been occupied for a certain period of
time. Hence, the focus was placed on users of designed
spaces and requirements of these users, and users satisfac-
tion and dissatisfaction with their physical environment
during usage stage were evaluated.
One of the most important aspects of this investigation
is to determine the degree to which the projects developed
by designers in order to meet user needs and requirements
were fulfilled after the construction, and to test users’ sat-
isfaction and dissatisfaction with the current space.
Studies that have concentrated on user satisfaction
usually failed to consider the effects of differences between
a design project and a construction project on user satisfac-
tion. This constitutes the unique aspect of this study. At the
beginning of the study, it was stated that urban open spaces
are not used at the desired level despite the need for and the
importance of urban open spaces. Therefore, this paper
seeks to address why urban open spaces are not used at the
desired level.
In order to investigate this issue, design projects and
their actual implementation in the respective area were
compared and the effects of resulting differences on func-
tional, aesthetic and technical performances of the space
were examined. As a result, the effects of performance cri-
teria on user satisfaction and dissatisfaction, i.e. livability,
availability of that space were identified. In view of these
effects, the most effective performance criterion in estab-
lishing user satisfaction was discovered to be functional
performance criterion. This is a result of the differences be-
tween implementation levels of the spaces. These differ-
ences mostly have negative impacts on factors such as va-
riety of activity spaces, adequacy of equipment and closed
functional spaces and access to activity spaces. Therefore,
functional performance criterion was more effective than
aesthetic and technical performance criteria in establishing
satisfaction and dissatisfaction of users.
Thus, user satisfaction was demonstrated to be achiev-
able in spaces for which the difference between its design
project and construction project is low and for which the
performance value is high.
Accordingly, the most important contribution made by
this study to practice is that this study defined the criteria
for user satisfaction and space performance, as distinct
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1670
from previous user satisfaction studies which evaluated
available spaces, however, did not consider the effects on
user satisfaction of any differences between available
spaces and their design projects. By the survey study con-
ducted in the second stage, performance values of the
spaces were revealed and classified. This classification al-
lowed systematic evaluation and comparison of data ob-
tained in the first stage. It was determined which perfor-
mance criterion is highly effective on identifying user sat-
isfaction and dissatisfaction. Hence, it was established, ac-
cording to which order of priority, proposals which will
minimize user dissatisfaction will be made. In the third
stage, findings of space analysis and survey study were
evaluated collectively. The fact that the difference between
design project and construction project affect user satisfac-
tion ceased to be incidental, and its reliabilities were en-
sured. The most important results revealed by this study are
the following:
The most effective criterion on user satisfaction and
dissatisfaction among functional performance, aesthetic
performance and technical performance criteria was
demonstrated to be functional performance criterion. Func-
tional performance value was found to vary in proportion
to implementation level of spaces. In conclusion, in the
case of spaces for which the design project was imple-
mented to a larger extent, performance level increased and
user satisfaction was ensured.
Spaces with high satisfaction level were seen to be pre-
ferred more. They also lead to more variety of activities
and longer times of use.
In spaces with low level of satisfaction, the negative
aspects which affect user dissatisfaction the most are re-
lated to functional performance criterion. The level of per-
formance of activities in such spaces is significantly lower
than that in spaces where user satisfaction is ensured.
It was discovered that usage level of spaces in which
performance was high and user satisfaction was ensured
was high and such spaces were occupied for longer periods.
In contrast, spaces in which performance was low and user
satisfaction could not be ensured were found to have lower
usage and lead to short-term usage.
All these results determined in the study are extremely
important for the purposes of improving the current spaces
and increasing space performance by creating feedback to
reprogramming process.
In line with these findings, it is possible to design
spaces which can to a larger extent meet users’ expecta-
tions by considering the following criteria while designing
urban open spaces with higher usage level in which user
satisfaction is ensured:
Activity spaces specified in the design project, which
the users wish to see, however, which have not been
constructed, should be constructed.
Spaces which interrupt sustainability of access to avail-
able activity spaces and have been constructed inde-
pendently of design project negatively affected users’
perceptions of the region as a whole as well as their ac-
tive involvement in activities and acts. Therefore, any
spaces constructed independently of design project
should be removed.
With regard to the spaces specified in design project,
those which were constructed formally but were not
made functional should be given functionality. Equip-
ment(seating units, shade elements, water elements,
etc.) specified in the project for these spaces were not
applied so space organization could not be formed and
users could not perform the activities they wish to do at
the spaces they were present. Therefore, spaces which
were not made functional should be optimized for ac-
tivities by placing equipment in those spaces.
While the design project was being prepared, it was
stated that end-of-life structures would be removed for
the sake of integrity of the project, however, they were
not removed. These structures should be removed and
integrity of the project and functionality between the
spaces should be ensured. It was seen that failure to re-
move these structures and apply certain activity spaces
to the site resulted in failure to ensure space organiza-
tion, and the link between the regions was severed. As
a result, each region appeared to be an individual park
and the project moved away from being a coast project
as a whole.
In order to increase user satisfaction with these spaces,
first, spaces which were specified in design project but
were not constructed or whose function was changed
should be made compatible for activity. In addition to
remedying these functional shortcomings, aesthetic and
technical deficiencies of floor coverings, equipment,
and green areas should be corrected.
Considering that users have much more diverse and
complex requirements and expectations in urban open
spaces in comparison to closed spaces, it is unthinkable that
the criteria addressed in this study revealed all criteria for
determination of user satisfaction. With future work, ideal
attributes of urban open spaces and criteria that determine
user satisfaction with such spaces can be analyzed in more
detail.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
[1] Gür, Ş. Ö. (1996) Mekan Örgütlenmesi. (Trabzon: Gür
Yayıncılık).
[2] Madanipour, A. (1999) Why are the design and development
of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Plan-
ning B: Planning and Design, 26(6) ,pp. 879-891.
[3] Mumcu, S. (2009) Behavior setting in open spaces: Analyzing
the variations in sitting behavior (PhD. Thesis: University of
Karadeniz Technical, Turkey).
[4] Huang, S-C. (2010) The impact of public participation on the
effectiveness of, and users’ attachment to, urban neigbourhood
parks, Landscape Research, 35(5), pp. 551-562.
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1671
[5] Canter, D. (1977) The Psychology of Place. (London: The Ar-
chitectural Press).
[6] Whyte, W., H. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces
(Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation).
[7] Gür, Ş. Ö. (2000) Konut Kültürü. (İstanbul: Yem Yayıncılık).
[8] Nasar,J.L. (1988) Environmental aesthetics, Environment and
Behavior, 26(3), pp. 377- 401.
[9] Sanoff, H. (1977) Methods of Architectural Programming.
(Pembine,ND:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc).
[10] Zeisel, J.(2006) Inquiry by Design: Environment/ Behavior/
Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape and
Planning (Portland, OR: Book News Inc).
[11] Özkan, D.G. (2011) Post occupancy evaluation in urban open
spaces: A case study of Trabzon coast line ( Master thesis:
University of Karadeniz Technical, Turkey).
[12] Preiser, W.F.E, Robinowitz, H.Z., White, E.T. (1988) Post Oc-
cupancy Evaluation (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
[13] Preiser, W.F.E, Nasar, J.L.(2008) Assessing building perfor-
mance: Its evolution from post occupancy evaluation, Interna-
tional Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), pp 84-89.
[14] Lawrence ,J.R. (1987) Housing, Dwellings and Homes, De-
sign Theory, Research and Practice. (New York: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd).
[15] Preiser, W.F.E. and Schramm, U. (1997) Building perfor-
mance evaluation. In Time Saver Standards (New York:
McGraw-Hill).
[16] Preiser W.F.E. (2001) The evaluation of post-occupancy eval-
uation: Toward building performance and universal design
evaluation, Learning From Our Building: A State of the Prac-
tice Summary of Post Occupancy Evaluation (Washington,
DC: National Academy Press).
[17] Preiser, W.F.E. (1999) Post-occupancy evaluation: Concep-
tual basis,benefits and user. In: Stein, J.M. and Spreckelmeyer,
K.F. (Eds). Classical Readings in Architecture (New York:
McGraw-Hill).
[18] Preiser, W.F.E. (1991) Design intervention and the challenge
of change, in: Preiser W.F.E., Vischer, J.C., and White, E.T.
(Eds) Design Intervention: Toward a More Humane Architec-
ture (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
[19] Duerk, D. P. (1993) Architectural Programming: Information
Management for Design. (New York : Van Nostrand Rein-
hold, 119-150, 210-218).
[20] İnceoğlu N. (1982) Mimarlıkta Bina Programlama Olgusu.
(İstanbul: İstanbul Technical University Department of Archi-
tecture).
[21] Betchel, R.B. (1997) Environment And Behavior; An Intro-
duction (USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.).
[22] Betchel, R.B, Churchman, A. (2002) Handbook of Environ-
mental Psychology (New York: John Wiley Sons, Inc.).
[23] Zimring, C.M. and Reizenstein, J.E. (1980) “Post-occupancy
evaluation: an overview”, Environment and Behavior, 12(4),
pp. 429-50.
[24] Marans, R. ve Cooper, L. (2000) “Measuring the Quality of
Community Life: A Program for Longitudinal and Compara-
tive International Research”, Paper Presented to the Second
International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, Singa-
pore.
[25] Preiser, W.F.E. (1995) “Post-occupancy evaluation: how to
make buildings work better”, Facilities, Vol. 13(11), pp. 19-
28.
[26] Vischer, J. (2001) Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Multifac-
eted Tool for Building Improvement, Learning from our
Buildings: A State-of-the-practice Summary of Post-occu-
pancy Evaluation (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press).
[27] Whyte, J., Gann, D.M. (2001) Closing the loop between design
and use: post-occupancy evaluation, Building Research and
Information, 29(6), pp. 460-2
[28] Zimmerman, A. and Martin, M.( 2001) “Post-occupancy eval-
uation: benefits and barriers”, Building Research and Infor-
mation, 29(2), pp. 168-74.
[29] Aydın , D. and Uysal, M. (2009) Determination of architec-
tural programming data using the space performance assess-
ment: case of education faculty. Journal of the Institute of Sci-
ence and Technology of Erciyes University, 25 (1-2), pp. 1-23.
[30] Amerigo, M. and Aragones, J. L. (1997) A theoretical and
methodological approach to the study of residential satisfac-
tion, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), pp. 47-57.
[31] Canter, D. and Rees, K. (1982) A Multivariate model of hous-
ing satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology,
31(2), pp. 185-207.
[32] Carr,S., Francis,M.., Rivlin,L.G. and Stone, A. (1995) Public
Space. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
[33] Juran, J.M. (1992) Juran on Quality by Design. (New York:
The Free Press, Maxwell Macmillan).
[34] Alexander, C. (1979) The Timeless Way of Building . (New
York: Oxford University Press).
APPENDIX 1.
Questionnaire Survey used in this study
(1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree)
1. Which region do you use the most in Trabzon Coast?
2. How often do you use this area?
3. When you come to this area, how much time do you usually spend?
4. In this area, I have easy access to one activity from another activity.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I have easy access to events throughout the coast from activities in this area.
1 2 3 4 5
© by PSP Volume 24 – No 5. 2015 Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1672
22.Which negative aspects of this area have the greatest impact on your dissatisfaction?
Received: June 16, 2014
Revised: December 03, 2014; February 13, 2015
Accepted: February 13, 2015
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Doruk Görkem Özkan
Department of Landscape Architecture,
Karadeniz Technical University
61080 Trabzon
TURKEY
E-mail: dorukgorkemozkan@hotmail.com
FEB/ Vol 24/ No 5/ 2015 – pages 1659 - 1672
6. The number of activity spaces in this area is sufficient.
1 2 3 4 5
7. While coming to this area, I can easily find the entrance.
1 2 3 4 5
8. The number of equipment in this area (seating elements, shade elements, lighting elements, litter box elements) is
sufficient.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Equipment in this area (seating elements, shade elements, lighting elements, litter box elements) are comfortable and
practical.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Flooring elements in this area are comfortable and convenient for walking.
1 2 3 4 5
11. The presence of other people using this space allows me to be safe.
1 2 3 4 5
12. I comfortably use this area in the evenings.
1 2 3 4 5
13. I like the equipment in this area (seating elements, shade elements, lighting elements, litter box elements) in terms of
form and color.
1 2 3 4 5
14. I like floor coverings in this area in terms of form, texture and color.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I like the appearance of green areas in this area.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Equipment in this area (seating elements, shade elements, lighting elements, litter box elements) show integrity and
continuity in terms of form and color.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Floor coverings in this area show integrity and continuity in terms of form and color.
1 2 3 4 5
18. Floor coverings in this area are clean and well maintained.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Equipment in this area (seating elements, shade elements, lighting elements, litter box elements) are clean and well
maintained.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Green areas in this area are clean and well maintained.
1 2 3 4 5
21. This area is satisfactory in terms of integrity of activity spaces, equipment, floor coverings and green areas.
Yes No