Evaluating Apartment Satisfaction in Erbil City: The Impact of Interior Space Quality Indicators Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Human existence and development ever demanded suitable shelter, the dual direc-tion relationship of human-residence have always been a material dealt with to enhance residential living conditions. The emersion of COVID-19 pandemic had introduced ab-rupt and dramatic changes in human life protocols, that exerted clear pressure on differ-ent sectors within the built environment. Housing beard great impact due to needs of so-cial distancing and quarantine obligations to increase chances of human existence. In order to measure human adaptation and residence alterations following new residential requirements, Quality of life investigations to promotse better built environment for oc-cupants had been facilitated using theory of residential dissatisfaction already been adopted in current study. Residents’ responses had been extracted regarding their dissat-isfaction applying Likert scale for measurement and evaluation. The study focused on homogenous housing estates in Erbil City precisely apartments have been selected with different plans and building layouts for their widespread use in the city and have been occupied during the three stages of study to go beyond investigating direct impact of the pandemic towards permanence of alterations and adaptation even after pandemic. Rea-sons causing changed dissatisfaction levels have been investigated for better reliability towards formulating final conclusions and recommendations. Findings showed in-creased dissatisfaction during pandemic in most of spaces, apartment layout and space design significantly affected responses and demands. Levels of dissatisfaction after pan-demic were different from stability to slight decline in dissatisfaction. The effect of limited external spaces in apartments had limited the possibility to manage the pressure, a case that might be less demanding in single family housing due to availability of private gar-dens.

Full text

Article Not peer-reviewed version
Evaluating Apartment Satisfaction in
Erbil City: The Impact of Interior Space
Quality Indicators Before, During, and
After the COVID-19 Pandemic
Nazik Jamal Abdulhamid * and Hasan Abdulrazzaq Hasan Al-Sanjary
Posted Date: 19 July 2024
doi: 10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1
Keywords: COVID-19; Housing Quality; Satisfaction; Pandemic; Apartment Layout; Apartment Spaces;
Privacy
Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that
is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article
Evaluating Apartment Satisfaction in Erbil City: The
Impact of Interior Space Quality Indicators before,
during, and after the COVID-19 Pandemic
Nazik Jamal Abdulhamid 1,* and Hasan Abdulrazzaq Hasan Al-Sanjary 2
1 Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Salahaddin University, Erbil44002, Iraq;
nazik.abdulhamid@su.edu.krd
2 Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, University of Mosul, Iraq;
hasan.sanjary@uomosul.edu.iq
* Correspondence: nazik.abdulhamid@su.edu.krd
Abstract: Human existence and development ever demanded suitable shelter, the dual direction relationship
of human-residence have always been a material dealt with to enhance residential living conditions. The
emersion of COVID-19 pandemic had introduced abrupt and dramatic changes in human life protocols, that
exerted clear pressure on different sectors within the built environment. Housing beard great impact due to
needs of social distancing and quarantine obligations to increase chances of human existence. In order to
measure human adaptation and residence alterations following new residential requirements, Quality of life
investigations to promotse better built environment for occupants had been facilitated using theory of
residential dissatisfaction already been adopted in current study. Residents’ responses had been extracted
regarding their dissatisfaction applying Likert scale for measurement and evaluation. The study focused on
homogenous housing estates in Erbil City precisely apartments have been selected with different plans and
building layouts for their widespread use in the city and have been occupied during the three stages of study
to go beyond investigating direct impact of the pandemic towards permanence of alterations and adaptation
even after pandemic. Reasons causing changed dissatisfaction levels have been investigated for better
reliability towards formulating final conclusions and recommendations. Findings showed increased
dissatisfaction during pandemic in most of spaces, apartment layout and space design significantly affected
responses and demands. Levels of dissatisfaction after pandemic were different from stability to slight decline
in dissatisfaction. The effect of limited external spaces in apartments had limited the possibility to manage the
pressure, a case that might be less demanding in single family housing due to availability of private gardens.
Keywords: COVID-19; housing quality; satisfaction; pandemic; apartment layout; apartment
spaces; privacy
1. Introduction
Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, our lives have undergone significant changes,
introducing terms such as distant learning, quarantine, social distancing, and flexible working into
our daily routines[1]. Such events have historically reshaped our environments, compelling us to
adapt to new ways of living in response to the challenges posed by pandemics[2]. Architects and
designers face formidable challenges during pandemics, as they must balance the need to prevent
physical interactions with the requirements for quarantine [3]. Before the pandemic, homes primarily
served as places for rest and familial interaction. However, with the onset of COVID-19, residences
rapidly transformed into multifunctional spaces accommodating work, education, recreation, and
commercial activities [4–6]. This shift has underscored the importance of adaptable living
environments that can meet diverse needs during such crises, necessitating new adaptive and
spontaneous typologies to accommodate people’s needs [3] (p. 6).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1
© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

2
Research into housing satisfaction intersects with various scientific disciplines, each offering a
unique set of definitions. Fundamentally, this concept is perceived as the discrepancy between what
individuals expect and need from their living situations and what they actually experience[7].
Housing satisfaction is recognized as a multidimensional entity influenced by a mix of ecological and
socio-geographic elements [8]. It necessitates residents’ detailed evaluation of their physical and
social environments. The assessment of resident satisfaction crucially hinges on the quality of the
interior, a broad term that encompasses different aspects of housing and merges objective with
subjective elements [11]. This idea also pertains to the building’s physical condition and additional
amenities and services that enhance a location’s appeal, as well as features particular to the residents
[12]. Liu [9]described the quality of life as the expression of a set of “wants” which, when supplied
together, makes the individual happy or satisfied. This brings forth the question of how these “wants”
transformed when people were forced to remain inside for extended periods due to an
unprecedented event. In his study [1] investigated factors that were affecting the residential
satisfaction and found that factors such as lacking of a view, presence of a garden, number of
bathrooms and living rooms, as well as the size and number of balconies affect the residential
satisfaction of the participants. Moreover, the study stated that the lack of a storage area was not
affecting the satisfaction of the residents rather factors such as ventilation, privacy with noise
isolation, flexible spaces, and need for natural day light were the primary concerns of the residents.
Kim and Kim (2023) found similar results regarding the dissatisfaction of residents with their living
spaces and their study showed that people were dissatisfied with the home due to the inability of
their current space to meet the new and changed functions such as need the need for multiple
bathrooms and the study revealed that living room, bedroom, and kitchen were among the spaces
that residents spent most of their times and these spaces need to be designed in such a way that
supports newly absorbed functions into the indoor space.
Numerous studies have examined apartment and housing satisfaction levels through various
quality indicators such as construction quality, furnishing quality, ventilation, room size and
additional rooms and spaces [9–13]. Hijazi and Attiah [13] revealed that the lack of an extra space in
apartments compelled residents to work from kitchens or reception areas, with multiple individuals
inside the house sharing these spaces. Hajjar [12] found similar results in Lebanon, where people
performed work and study activities in living rooms, dining rooms, and reception areas, lacking
privacy. Itma and Monna [15] performed similar research and assessed the suitability of open and
closed plans for situations like the COVID-19 pandemic and found that open plan designs are less
suited for such situations as compared to traditional closed plan designs since the separated spaces
in the closed plans easily allow residents to convert the available spaces to their new needs such as
offices or quarantine areas, creating private spaces as well as multi-functional spaces. Concerning
isolation and disease prevention during the pandemic, studies have showed the necessity for houses
to include separate bathrooms and bedrooms so as an infected individual will be able to safely isolate
himself from the healthy occupants during the infection period [5,15–17] Moreover, regarding the
size of the isolation rooms, studies claimed that the rooms need to be large enough for the infected
individual to be able to set up a temporary workstation in the room and carry out their tasks while
safely isolating him/herself from other occupants. (Al-ayash, 2020; Spennemann, 2021; Marcel et al.,
2020) One more study [19] concerning the space usage during the pandemic in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
found that residents disposed of some furniture to adapt to new needs and allocate spaces for other
activities and entertainment. Bettaieb and Alsabban [19] claim that inhabitants incorporated a coffee
area in their homes during the pandemic as an alternative to visiting cafes because they were not able
to do so in due to strict rules of the pandemic, such adaptation focuses on reconfiguring existing
spaces to fulfill new living requirements, illustrating that flexibility often depends more on residents’
perceptions and minor adjustments than on major architectural changes.
The confinement induced by the COVID-19 pandemic has elevated the importance of
determining the physical, spatial, social, and urban conditions under which millions of families
worldwide choose to live [20]. Consequently, the demand for higher living standards when
purchasing or leasing properties has surged. This shift underscores the growing necessity for
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

3
rigorously developed assessment methods that can comprehensively evaluate housing by
considering its multifaceted, conflicting, and often incompatible aspects [21]. In Erbil City, like many
other cities around the world, the pandemic compelled residents to repurpose their homes to
accommodate a wide range of activities, transforming living spaces into multifunctional hubs for
work, education, recreation, and self-care. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate apartments
resident’s’ satisfaction in Erbil City during three distinct stages—before, during, and after the
COVID-19 pandemic—using five interior space quality indicators: number, area, proportion, privacy,
and functional relationship.
2. Materials and Methods
As presented before, to satisfy the main objectives of the current study direct interview with
family heads were administered, to ensure write and reliable responses. The sampling method had
been carried out depending on some main criteria that had been listed in Table 1, those criterions
were belonging to three groups of concern.
Table 1. Main criteria used for selection of investment projects for current study.
No Projects Residents’ main requirements Apartments
requirements
Acceptance for
participation
Criteria
Occupied
Family
Ownership
Stages
Size
Higher
Investor
authorizati
Family
authorizati
1 Zan
y
ar
y
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
2 Eskan Towe
r
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
3
Q
uatro
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
4 Park View
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
5 Em
p
ire
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
6 MRF5
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
7 Ro
y
a
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
8 Cihan
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
9 FM Plaza
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
10 Plus Life
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
First of all were related to users or occupants to guarantee that responses are freely addressed
occupants were selected to be owners and had experienced living in their apartments through the
three stages of pandemic, criterion of normally distributed family sizes with their social status that
represent population living in apartment during three stages had been maintained, as will be
described in detail in the following parts of the study.
One more formal issue was the acceptance of both families to participate in such a study in
addition to some housing estates where permission to do interview had been hindered due to
different reasons.
Apartment distribution through Erbil City municipality boundary had been considered.
Covering different layouts of apartments in addition to building typologies were all been respected
to increase generality of results.
2.1. Literature Review to Identify Quality Indicators
The research reviewed previous studies on housing quality indictors and housing designs
adaptable to different situations mainly the COVID-19 pandemic. Google scholar and MDPI were
selected as electronic search databases using key words “Housing quality indicators”, “Apartment
satisfaction”, “Housing design and COVID-19”. A number of newly published articles published
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

4
between 2020 - 2023 were selected and their eligibility was assessed through a full text review and
the process resulted in choosing main indicators respecting clear framework for study.
2.2. Project Selection and Preliminary Assessment
The data collection process started during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. First the researcher
conducted a thorough survey on the 74 projects in Erbil city and found out that 5.4 % of the projects
were in the planning and designing stages, 40.5% were still under construction, and 6.8% were
completed but not occupied, percentage of occupied projects contributed with only 47.3% of total
estates in 2021 details are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Distribution of investment projects according to construction status- 2021.
During the field survey, the research faced projects that were not cooperative and did not allow
their occupants to be interviewed and they were immediately excluded from the study formed 37.1%
of occupied ones. Additionally, the apartments that were below eleven floors were excluded as well
as the projects that lacked 2+1 and 3+1 apartment configurations were also excluded. Among the 11
floors and above apartments those that were small of category (1+1) and large (4+1) configurations
were also excluded, in addition to those cases that didn’t follow obligations and limitations of study
that reached 34.3% of cases. Here the remaining cases that follow study requirements form 28.6% of
occupied projects. Precisely 100 % of projects satisfying research objectives been covered in the
sampling selection, by adding the non-authorized cases the directly covered projects percentage will
approximate 65% of all cases related to study restriction which is far higher than 25% ratio of
statistically normally recommended.
Figure 2. Distribution of selected projects for study within occupied projects - 2021.
2.3. Sample Selection and Size
5.4%
40.5%
6.8%
47.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
vacant site underconstructioncompleteted not occupied occupied
100.0%
37.1% 34.3% 28.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
occupied non authorized of
occupied
indicators missing
within occupied
cases satisfying
research conditions
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

5
The samples were randomly selected but with specific conditions from apartment buildings that
were higher than 10 floors for 2+1 and 3+1 apartment configurations. Among these, twelve plan types
were mainly of category 2+1 out of that number two were of category 2+2, eight were of category 3+1,
including one of category 3+2. The second main condition was satisfying the minimum sample of
every apartment plan of 5 samples to sustain validity. The third condition was the balanced
distribution of samples between the apartments main criteria, including location within building,
building typology. Fourth was concern about location of projects within city that can guarantee better
representation. The demographic realistic representation of occupants and gender equalization of
respondents was the fifth main restriction in selection process.
2.3. Direct Interview and Questionnaire Distribution
The research’s starting point was distribution of the developed questionnaire to a group of
expert professors in the field and based on their feedback, the questionnaire was revised for clarity
and ease of understanding by the respondents. Since Erbil city is cosmopolitan city, the researcher
prepared the questionnaire in Kurdish, Arabic, and English languages and conducted direct
interviews with residents of the selected apartment.
2.4. Data Collection and Analysis
Over a period of more than eight months, 142 interviews were conducted using a fixed
questionnaire format. After completing the interviews, a Google Form was designed to capture
detailed preferences of the residents. The interview had been carried out on 20 types of apartments’
plans related to 10 investment projects that satisfied conditions of current research, obtained results
were organized following the sequence of returned responses, starting with demographic
background of respondents and their family compositions. Followed by main housing characteristics
that reflect their living conditions describing spaces and layouts of their apartments.
The data was regularly entered into an Excel spreadsheet, sometimes daily and other times
weekly. Finally, the data was transferred to SPSS software version 26 for analysis. The data was
thoroughly analyzed to draw meaningful conclusions. Descriptive analysis in addition to factor
analysis are the main processes of statistics that have been facilitated to obtain results in the form of
spread sheets and graphs to achieve research objectives.
3. Results
The results are concerned with describing dissatisfaction levels discussing their reasons about
14 items related to interviewed cases as interaction between human and his residence, finding out
changes in trends during the three stages of pandemic, before, during and after pandemic, exploring
the strength of pandemic impact on residents’ living conditions, as main goals of current study.
3.1. Respondents’ Demographic Characteristicsy
Human needs and responses’ changes had been identified due to COVID-19 pandemic that been
assessed by families through the settled three stages. Tables 2A,B and 3, present major indicators of
respondents’ social status. Interviewed respondents were almost equal referring to the gender to
increase reliability and sharing both gender in outlining results observed in Table 2A.
Table 2A. Respondents Demographic characteristics part A.
Table -2 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics -part A
Criteria Category Frequency %
Gender Male 72 50.7%
Female 70 49.3%
Total 142 100%
Age of Head 20-29 29 20.4%
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

6
30-39 70 49.3%
40-49 24 16.9%
50-59 11 7.7%
60-69 8 5.6%
>69 0 0.0%
Total 142 100%
Table 2B. Respondents Demographic characteristics part B.
Table -2 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics -part B
Criteria Category Frequency %
Education of Head
H.S. 11 7.7%
B.Sc. 105 73.9%
M.Sc. 19 13.4%
Ph.D. 7 4.9%
Others 0 0.0%
Total 142 100%
Job of Head
Engineer 31 21.8%
Doctor 27 19.0%
Architect 12 8.5%
Employee 45 31.7%
Housekeeper 6 4.2%
Retired 2 1.4%
Private sector 19 13.4%
Total 142 100%
Table 3. Respondents families’ Demographic characteristics.
Table -3 Respondents ‘Family Demographic Characteristics
Criteria Category Frequency %
No. of residents
One person 4 2.8%
Two persons 20 14.1%
Three persons 48 33.8%
Four persons 45 31.7%
Five persons 15 10.6%
Six persons 6 4.2%
Seven persons 4 2.8%
Total 142 100%
Marital Status
Single 8 5.6%
Married 21 14.8%
Married with children 108 76.1%
Married with parents 5 3.5%
Total 142 100%
Distribution of head of families indicates dominance of 30-39 years age group, then followed by
20-29 then 40-49 years age groups. The average age of respondents of head of families responded is
37.84 years almost more young than old respondents due to conditions of apartments ownership.
Regarding criteria of education of respondents shown in Table 2B presents highly educated persons
profile with majority formed by university graduates, an average higher than Erbil city. The share of
working heads formed 94.2 %, Housekeepers formed 4.2%, leaving only 1.6% as retired persons,
those results support the profile of age of family heads of middle-aged ones.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

7
Description of respondents’ family structures can be obtained with aid of Table 3, it shows that
majority of family sizes are within 3- and 4-persons families then followed by two persons families,
while finding out average of household size valued 3.57 persons supports that social stratum is below
city average household sizes ranging between 4.90 -5.05 persons for Erbil city urban area. This result
is also supported by the availability of 20.4% of families of childless category, with small percentage
of extended families of 3.5% that cannot balance the small average size of households who are been
interviewed.
3.2. Residences’ Major Characteristics
Apartments’ main characteristics occupied by respondents can be seen in Table 4A. shows the
profile of selected cases for current study, cases were distributed through 20 apartment plans
belonging to the 10 investment projects distributed through Erbil city occupied during the three
stages of pandemic.
Table 4A Housing Main Characteristics-part A.
Table -4 Apartments Main Characteristics part A
Project & Apart. Category Freq. % Project and Apart. Category Freq. %
Empire Wings [2+1] 6 4.23 Empire Royal [ 3+1] 12 8.45
Park view-D [2+1] 7 4.92 Park view-B [3+2] 6 4.23
Park view-C [2+2] 6 4.23 Zanyary-C [3+1] 10 7.04
Zanyary-B [2+1] 6 4.23 Cihan-arr. Kor. Gar. [3+1] 23 16.18
Cihan-Qaradagh [2+1] 6 4.23 MRF 2,4,5 [3+1] 6 4.23
Cihan-Pirmam [2+1] 6 4.23 Roya [A-C] [3+1] 6 4.23
Cihan-Korek [2+2] 7 4.92 Roya [D] [3+1] 4 2.82
Eskan Tower [2+1] 6 4.23 Plus Life A[3+1] 5 3.52
Quattro [2+1] 5 3.52
FM-Plus Life[2+1] 5 3.52
Plus Life C[2+1] 5 3.52
Plus Life D[2+1]
5 3.52
Subtotal of category 2+1 70 49.3 Subtotal for category 3+1 72 50.7
Total Observed 142 100%
This procedure has been followed to satisfy the exact distribution of apartments between the
category of 2-bedrooms and 3-bedrooms as the majority of investment projects had adopted those
sizes as presented in Table 4B.
Regarding apartment size or category, apartment size and category 2-bedrooms formed 45.1%
of cases or samples while 3-bedrooms contributed 54.9% . Apartments with single living rooms
formed 88.0% of samples while 12.0% of surveyed apartments had 2 living areas used as family living
in addition to guest room.
Table 4B Housing Main Characteristics-part B.
Table -4 Apartments Main Characteristics part B
Frequency %
Apartment Category
2+1 51 35.9%
3+1 74 52.1%
2+2 13 9.2%
3+2 4 2.8%
Total 142 100%
Apartment location
according to floors
Ground 2 1.4%
1-5 28 19.7%
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

8
6-10 43 30.3%
11-15 51 35.9%
16-20 9 6.3%
21-25 9 6.3%
26-30 0 0.0%
Total 142 100%
Apartment location
according to roof
1=Near [1-3] floor 19 13.4%
2=Middle [4-5] floor 19 13.4%
Far [>5] floor 104 73.2%
Total 142 100%
Apartment location
according to ground
1=Near [1-3] floor 12 8.5%
2=Middle [3-5] floor 24 16.9%
Far [>5] floor 106 74.6%
Total 142 100%
Apartment location
according to elevators
≤5m 97 68.8%
> 5m-10m > 38 27.0%
≥10m 6 4.3%
Total 142 100%
For the reason of having responses from families who had experienced living in their current
apartments during the three periods or stages, the available cases within city were mostly located in
high rise apartment buildings as been observed in Table 4B, the samples were distributed to cover
majority of floors according to their availability to maximize the generality of results.
3.3. Apartments residents’ changed assessments of living conditions
As mentioned before, analysis of the 14 selected items pointed out important findings as is listed
below. Results are arranged in a sequence starting from apartment entry door towards service parts
at the depth of plan and according to similarity in requirements.
3.3.1. Entrance Lobby
The lobby forms the first space while entering the apartments, 16 types of apartments contained
entrance lobby, only 4 missed that space.
Obtained results supported by Figure 3 indicates high jump in dissatisfaction between pre and
during pandemic, small decline of residents’ dissatisfaction happened towards after pandemic stage,
but result is still 70 % higher than pre-pandemic stage.
Figure 3. Change in dissatisfaction percentage of entrance lobby during three stages.
34.0%
65.2%
57.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

9
The dissatisfaction rate before the pandemic equals 32.5% in dwellings without entrance lobby
which is lower than those have an entrance, by a difference of 1.9%. however, during the Pandemic,
the amounts were 75.0% for those who don’t have the lobby with 62.7 as shown in Figure 4, the trend
moved down for same results to 54.3% and 72.5% respectively. The result indicates increased effect
of entrance lobby during and after pandemic through increased dissatisfaction.
Figure 4. Change in dissatisfaction percentage due to Entrance lobby availability .
Finding out main reasons for dissatisfaction of apartments containing entrance lobby findings
concluded from Figure 5 named the proportion as the main reason followed by both area needs and
connectivity with entrance toilet.
Figure 5. Reasons for variations in dissatisfaction percentage regarding entrance lobby.
Viewing the differences between apartments of category 2+1 and 3+1 regarding dissatisfaction
levels about entrance lobby with the support of Figure 6, indicators of increased amounts in category
2+1 compared to 3+1, in addition to clear increase in dissatisfaction percentage from pre-pandemic
towards pandemic stage, the numbers became almost the double. Slight lowering happened in after
pandemic stage.
Figure 6. Variations in dissatisfaction percentage for Entrance lobby availability between 2+1 and
3+1 apartment categories.
34.4%
62.7%
54.3%
32.5%
75.0% 72.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Before During After
with entrance Without entrance
27.70% 29.10% 28.81%
32.39%
42.71%
31.81%
30.53% 32.21% 28.89%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Limited space for
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
No direct connection with
Toilet [WC] (relationship)
Before During After
38.0%
74.8% 67.8%
27.9%
50.7% 43.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

10
When combining the effect of availability of entrance lobby to apartment category as shown in
Figure 7, category of being of type 2+1 with absence of entrance lobby dominated other 3 possibilities,
lowest dissatisfaction occurred in category 3+1 with availability of entrance lobby.
Figure 7. Variations in dissatisfaction percentages for Entrance lobby due to combined effect of
availability and apartment categories.
To explain reasons of different dissatisfaction amounts presented in Figure 7. Figure 8 indicates
the reasons for both categories 2+1 and 3+1, here reasons corresponding 2+1 category starts high with
proportion followed by area then connection to toilet , while in category 3+1 starts with area followed
by connection to toilet then proportion of entrance lobby.
Inspecting effect of availability of toilet space within lobby in residents’ dissatisfaction is seen in
Figure 8 clear increase is witnessed in during period then in after pandemic for both cases of having
toilet and for those who don’t have toilets, there is a margin of about 9-11% increase in cases without
toilet.
Figure 8. Reason of variations in dissatisfaction concerned with Entrance lobby for all categories.
39.0%
26.7%
33.4% 31.7%
71.4%
48.2%
91.7%
58.4%
63.0%
39.8%
91.7%
53.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1
With entrance Without entrance
Before During After
19.67%
41.54%
12.95%
27.32%
13.88%
38.33%
34.50%
51.54%
35.29%
28.25%
25.92% 25.00%
30.50%
40.54%
33.95%
28.72%
9.25%
17.50%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Limited space for
wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
No direct
connection with
Toilet [WC]
(relationship)
Limited space for
wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
No direct
connection with
Toilet [WC]
(relationship)
2+1 3+1
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

11
Figure 9. Change in dissatisfaction percentage due to Entrance toilet availability.
Referring to Figure 10 for finding differences between factors participating in dissatisfaction
variations due to availability or absence of toilet nearby entrance lobby, results clearly showed higher
values of residents’ dissatisfactions where no toilet exist in entrance lobby, missing toilet was the
highest cause of dissatisfaction while distance of toilet from entrance had the lowest value in causing
dissatisfaction.
Proportion comes as the second reason shared the cause for both cases then area came in the
third rank. The next interesting finding is that reasons for dissatisfaction had been going down in
post pandemic stage in cases where apartments lobbies contained toilets.
Figure 10. Reasons of variations in dissatisfaction percentages concerned with Entrance lobby
between cases having toilets and those who missed that space .
Finding sequences of different reasons or factors for dissatisfaction built up can be obtained in
factor analysis processing within SPSS software.
Table 5A,B indicates that reasons ranking form strongest to the weakest is starting with
proportion of space and available space for cabinet in stage of during pandemic were the most
effective ones on residents’ dissatisfaction followed by availability of toilet within lobby in after
pandemic stage. Finding out other factors contributed in dissatisfaction can also be obtained with the
use of same table and steps mentioned here.
35.1%
66.0%
56.7%
33.3%
58.4%
51.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Entrance without toilet Entrance with toilet
26.99%
15.47%
21.43% 19.08%
43.38%
23.28%
24.21%
29.36%
7.14%
38.33%
51.71% 50.32%
28.19%
11.50%
3.57%
31.11%
42.27% 46.61%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Limited space for
wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
No direct
connection with
Toilet [WC]
(relationship)
Limited space for
wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
No direct
connection with
Toilet [WC]
(relationship)
With Toilet Without Toilet
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

12
Table 5A,B. Factor analysis for entrance lobbies indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered
in research. .
Rotated Com
p
onent Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3
En.1.1 0.840
En.1.2 0.874
En.1.3 0.749
En.2.1 0.910
En.2.2 0.943
En.2.3 0.890
En.3.1 0.898
En.3.2 0.898
En.3.3 0.924
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation conver
g
ed in 5 iterations.
Factors
En.1.1 Limited s
p
ace for wardrobe & cabinet (area)-Before
p
andemic
En.1.2 Narrow s
p
ace (
p
ro
p
ortion)-Before
p
andemic
En.1.3 No direct connection with Toilet [WC] (relationshi
p
) Before
p
andemic
3.3.2. Living Rooms
The Living room means a room used for family gatherings [it could be used for family gatherings
and receiving guests if there is no reception in the apartment].
Closed spatial organization for this category means that arrangement where separation of each
of living rooms with or absence of dining rooms and reception rooms with or absence of dining rooms
existed. While mixing living areas with kitchens and with or without family dining is considered
within open spatial organization.
Figure 11 illustrates an increase in dissatisfaction in both stages during and after pandemic
regarding the living spaces, the increase is about 19-21%.
Figure 11. Change in dissatisfaction percentage of living rooms during three stages.
For finding out mean reasons for higher levels of dissatisfaction in living rooms Figure 12 the
clear trend of increase timewise as might be expected due to pandemic.
Highest increases are seen to be due to shortage in size reasons 2 regarding limited area, and
proportion causing narrow space threatening safety requirements 3, the different trend is observed
in reason 5 dissatisfaction goes down during pandemic due to less need for gathering with need to
more privacy which goes up again after pandemic.
26.1%
45.5% 47.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

13
Figure 12. Main reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of living rooms for all.
Considering differences in dissatisfaction levels within two typologies with the aid of Figure 13,
the levels were much higher in the 2+1 dwellings before pandemic, moreover the increase in ratios
also were higher for stages of during and after pandemic in comparison with 3+1 cases as regarded
larger sizes dwellings with more bedrooms. Privacy requirements in dwellings of type 3+1 showed
higher dissatisfaction needs in all stages may be due to higher demands by residents.
Figure 13. Differences in dissatisfaction of living rooms for different apartment sizes.
Main reasons for higher levels of dissatisfaction in living rooms for both sizes by Figure 14 shows
mixing of spaces and limited area as main reasons for dissatisfaction for stages before and after
pandemic.
Figure 14. Main Reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of living rooms for both sizes .
The spatial organization of the living areas pointed mild differences on dissatisfaction levels as
seen in Figure 15 , closed organization had 27.9% dissatisfaction in comparison to 23.3% for open
22.7% 29.4%
13.4%
25.2%
61.5%
23.8%
44.7%
21.2% 22.5%
40.2%
33.3%
42.9%
25.3% 29.5%
57.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment
(area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct
connection with the
balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
Before During After
29.0%
54.6% 56.2%
24.6%
37.1% 37.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
25.3% 21.6%
46.0% 42.8%
20.0% 22.8% 31.7% 9.3%
32.0%
51.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment
(area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct
connection with the
balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1
Before Durin
g
After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

14
organization in stage of pre-pandemic, the case reversed during and after pandemic, the difference
became 2-3% in reverse direction.
Figure 15. Change in dissatisfaction percentage in living rooms due to spatial organization.
Comparing reasons for dissatisfaction between closed and open spatial organizing system, for
cases of during the pandemic in closed system presented in Figure 16, the space allocated for
entertainment activities (area) achieved the highest percentage, at 44.4%, higher than privacy by
18.2%.However, after the pandemic, the difference was 0.5% higher for privacy, and this indicates
the ease of achieving privacy in closed system.
Figure 16. Reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of living rooms for the closed
organizing.
While in the open system, the reasons for dissatisfaction during the pandemic were close, and
the first reason was privacy and the space allocated for entertainment activities (area), at a rate of
46.1% and 45.6%, respectively, and this percentage increased after the pandemic, with a difference of
14.9% for privacy, and this is due to the difficulty of achieving privacy in the open system as shown
in following Figure 17.
27.9%
44.3% 46.8%
23.3%
47.3% 48.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Before During After
Closed spatial organization Opened spatial organization
31.8%
25.2%
19.0% 23.8%
40.6%
35.0%
44.4%
23.3% 22.1%
26.2%
39.2% 40.1%
27.5% 23.8%
40.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment (area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct connection
with the balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

15
Figure 17. Reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of living rooms for open organizing.
The differences in residents’ responses reporting dissatisfaction due to balcony availability
before the pandemic was 6.5%, and this difference increased significantly during and after the
pandemic to 21.4% for both stages, as shown in Figure 18. These exhibits residents admire for the
value of having a living rooms’ balcony in their apartment.
Figure 18. Change in dissatisfaction due to availability of living rooms’ balcony .
This indicates that the balcony had served as an extension to the family’s openness to the outside
world enjoying fresh air source with the needed view of the outdoors. To find main reasons of
dissatisfaction for cases of living rooms having access to balconies main reason both Figures 19 and
20 can support the following findings.
Figure 19. Reasons for Changes in dissatisfaction of living rooms without balconies.
18.4%
39.9%
7.1%
30.4%
69.7%
20.9%
45.6%
18.9%
27.1%
46.1%
29.5%
46.3%
21.4%
39.6%
62.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment (area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct connection
with the balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
Before During After
29.3%
56.2% 58.2%
22.8%
34.8% 36.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Closed and opened spatial org. without balcony Closed and opened spatial org. with balcony
37.6%
48.0%
17.7%
40.3% 44.0%
37.6%
58.0%
29.1% 35.7%
24.0%
44.5%
56.0%
31.1%
47.7%
36.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
m
ited space, limited shelves or cabinet (area)Limited space for family activities and entertainment (area)Narrow space, difficult for family activities and entertainment (proportion)No direct connection with the balcony (relationship)The activity [family gathering] is mixed with reception (privac
y
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

16
In cases of absence of living rooms balconies in Figure 19, the main concern is the area of living
space itself, followed by followed by the absence to direct balcony, all percentages are were above
48% for the first and 35% for the second.
While for cases of living had direct balcony observed in Figure 20 the main concern through
reasoning by residents was the privacy due to multiple function combination settled at 61.6% in after
pandemic stage, the values were dramatically higher against those of other reasons as followed by
area concern with 29.2% dissatisfaction percentage.
Figure 20. Reasons for Changes in dissatisfaction of living rooms with balconies.
For a clearer way of understanding the combined effect of spatial organization and availability
of living balcony the Figure 21 respecting closed organization and No 22 concerned with open
organization supports this task.
Figure 21. Change in dissatisfaction due to combined effect of spatial organization and availability of
living rooms’ balcony for closed organization. .
For closed spatial organization cases responses obtained shows higher dissatisfaction ratios
than apartments who had who had who had has balconies linked to living rooms.
Differentiating reasons for either of cases that are without balconies than those who do have
balconies are presented in Figures 22 and 23. It is clear that two main reasons for cases without
balcony were areas for both storage activities and for human activities, followed by absence of
balcony as the third reason.
15.3% 14.3% 10.8% 12.5%
60.5%
21.2%
31.7%
14.0% 12.5%
44.3%
26.2% 29.2%
19.0%
12.5%
61.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment (area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct connection
with the balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
Before During After
34.2%
64.2% 64.2%
24.8%
34.4% 38.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Closed spatial org. without balcony Closed spatial org. with balcony
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

17
Figure 22. Reasons for change in dissatisfaction in absence of balconies and closed organization.
Meanwhile for cases who do have balconies seen in Figure 21, indicated the privacy as main
concern for negative evaluation in cases who do have balconies. Next comes sufficiency of living
areas to carry on human functions there.
Figure 23. Reasons for change in dissatisfaction in existence of balconies and closed organization.
For opened spatial organization apartments Figure 24 The effect of availability of balcony on
decreased dissatisfaction is clear during pandemic and even after but with less magnitude, this
evidence is obvious in Figure 17, while damping the increased effect of dissatisfaction during
pandemic.
Figure 24. Change in dissatisfaction due to combined effect of spatial organization and availability of
living rooms’ balcony for open organization.
60.0%
40.0%
30.0%
40.0%
15.0%
55.0% 56.7%
35.0% 35.0%
15.0%
55.0% 50.0%
35.0%
40.0%
15.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment
(area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct connection
with the balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
Without balcony
Before During After
17.7% 17.8% 13.5% 15.6%
53.4%
25.1%
38.2%
17.4% 15.6%
31.8%
31.3% 35.1%
23.7%
15.6%
53.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment (area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct connection
with the balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
With balcony
Before During After
26.0%
50.8% 54.1%
15.0%
36.7%
31.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Before During After
Opened spatial org. without balcony Opened spatial org. with balcony
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

18
Variations in reasons for both cases of without balconies than those having balconies are seen
using Figures 25 and 26. For cases who don’t have balconies in Figure 22, it is clear that there are two
main reasons for cases of apartments without balcony named areas for human activities, followed by
absence of balcony as the second reason, then forced gathering due to mix with reception.
Figure 25. Reasons for change in dissatisfaction due to absence of balconies and opened
organization.
Cases of apartments with balcony availability for living rooms the mixing of uses of both of
living rooms users and guest users almost is dominant or even single effective reason for residents’
dissatisfaction in open spatial organization with specific balcony for living rooms as shown in Figure
26.
Figure 26. Reasons for change in dissatisfaction due to absence of balconies and opened spatial
organization.
As for the relationship of the factors within the three periods, supported by Table 6A,B ,the
strongest indicator was the relationship with the balcony, after which came proportion, then privacy,
area-cabinet, and finally area-activities, respectively.
22.7%
53.3%
9.5%
40.6%
63.3%
26.0%
59.0%
25.2%
36.1%
30.0%
37.5%
59.9%
28.6%
52.8% 51.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment (area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct connection
with the balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
Without balcony
Before During After
5.6% 5.6%
0.0% 0.0%
94.4%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Limited space,
limited shelves or
cabinet (area)
Limited space for
family activities and
entertainment
(area)
Narrow space,
difficult for family
activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
No direct
connection with the
balcony
(relationship)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed
with reception
(privacy)
With balcony
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

19
As for the relationship of each factor in three periods separately, study notes that the factors
that were most influential during the pandemic were those related to the balcony, proportion, and
area-cabinet.
Table 6A,B. Factor analysis for living rooms indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered in
research.
Rotated Com
p
onent Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3 4 5
Li.1.1 0.870
Li.1.2 0.797
Li.1.3 0.836
Li.1.4 0.914
Li.1.5 0.924
Li.2.1 0.920
Li.2.2 0.822
Li.2.3 0.929
Li.2.4 0.938
Li.2.5 0.872
Li.3.1 0.849
Li.3.2 0.903
Li.3.3 0.915
Li.3.4 0.903
Li.3.5 0.936
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations
Factors
Li.1.1 Limited space, limited shelves or cabinet (area)-Before
Li.1.2 Limited space for family activities and entertainment (area)-Before
Li.1.3 Narrow space, difficult for family activities and entertainment (proportion)-Before
Li.1.4. No direct connection with the balcony (relationship)-Before
Li.1.5 The activity [family gathering] is mixed with reception (privacy)-Before
3.3.3. Reception
According to the research procedure, Reception means the room that is used only for receiving
guests. Separate reception rooms with or without guest dining or separate living rooms with or
without guest dining are considered a closed spatial organization.
There were 17 projects without reception and 3 projects with reception. It has been observed that
the difference in dissatisfaction between the samples with and without reception was 8.3% before the
pandemic, increased to 12.5% during the pandemic because of this. Due to the lack of visitors during
this time, the reception area was utilized for study sessions and recreational activities as well as
isolation; however, following the pandemic, this disparity decreased to 8.2%.
Figure 27 shows the dissatisfaction regarding the reception activity no strong signs observed
before and after pandemic, slight increase during pandemic which is not the product of visitors due
to pandemic social distancing.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

20
Figure 27. Dissatisfaction regarding the reception activities and needs.
For detecting dissatisfaction causes reasoned by family heads Figure 28 shows that mixing
activity of family living with guest reception is named as the dominant factor of dissatisfaction
responses in the three stages meanwhile the second reason was that lack or substandard size of
receiving caused the dissatisfaction during pre and post pandemic stages but highly degraded during
the pandemic.
The other interesting factor is that availability of some cases of large guest rooms that couldn’t
be used during the pandemic is aware of space or might be a chance for meeting that was prohibited
to avoid dispersion of the disease. The small number of dwellings having the activity minimized the
detailed outputs in current study.
Figure 28. Main reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of reception rooms.
3.3.4. Family Dining
This study uses the term family dining as an activity located within the kitchen zone. If the
dining is mixed with the reception or mixed with the living room, it is considered to be guest dining.
The general trend of increasing dissatisfaction is observed in Figure 29. No decline in satisfaction is
evident after the pandemic meaning the agreement on essentiality with modifications.
Figure 29. Change in dissatisfaction percentage of dining activity during the three stages.
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Before During After
Dissatisfied
0.0%
31.0% 26.2%
0.0%
31.0%
16.7% 16.7% 9.5%
66.7%
0.0%
31.0%
16.7% 9.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
A large area
designated to
receive guests, (a
waste of space)
(area)
Limited space to
receive guests
(area)
Narrow space,
difficult to arrange
furniture
(proportion)
Bad relation with
entrance
(relationship)
The
activity[receiving
guest] is mixed with
family zone [living
room] (privacy)
Before During After
33.6%
50.3%
59.4%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

21
Figure 30 ranks first proportion as having a narrow space with the reason of mixing family
dining with guest dining dominates the third reason of availability of cabinets.
Figure 30. Main reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of family dining space.
To investigate the differences of dissatisfaction status between the two main sizes of apartments
with the support of Figure 31, results indicate great discrepancy in the dissatisfaction level in 2+1
apartments in comparison with 3+1 apartments in the stage of pre-pandemic. The 3+1 types of
dissatisfaction of residents boomed during pandemic for the demand for such activity in a more
luxurious condition. figures stayed high in after pandemic period.
Figure 31. Dissatisfaction differences for family dining between 2+1 and 3+1 categories.
Finding out dissatisfaction for main variants of dwelling sizes, it has been observed that half of
the sample projects have a single dining area, while the remaining 50% is distributed between two
types 15% of apartments have a guest dining area, while 35% have a family dining area. Differences
in reasons for dissatisfaction between 2+1 and 3+1 apartments is clearly viewed in Figure 32, privacy
achievement defect in 2+1 dominates while in 3+1 apartments proportion obtaining enough space to
turn around seats seems to be the main obstacle to minimize dissatisfaction.
Figure 32. Reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of family dining space in both categories.
23.8%
39.8% 36.2%
25.0%
44.5%
36.2%
24.8%
43.6% 41.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Limited space, limited wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space, difficult to walk by
when seated (proportion)
Family dining is mixed with guest
dining (privacy)
Before During After
52.7% 50.1%
61.7%
19.7%
54.5% 54.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
15.6%
39.0%
30.0%
66.2%
51.9%
12.5%
15.6%
38.6%
30.0%
64.1% 60.3%
12.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
imited space, limited wardrobe & cabinet (area)Limited space, limited wardrobe & cabinet (area)Narrow space, difficult to walk by when seated (proportion)Narrow space, difficult to walk by when seated (proportion)Family dining is mixed with guest dining (privacy)Family dining is mixed with guest dining (privac
y
2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

22
Figure 33 Demonstrates interesting findings when used with Figure 24 concerning apartment
type or size, higher complaints are noticed in single space of dining activity before the pandemic
pointing out real need for such activity. Both supporting each other, the dissatisfaction remained
higher for single activity and smaller apartment sizes.
Figure 33. Dissatisfaction of conditions of single or double family dining.
With the pandemic stage numbers are almost equal the gap re-increased after pandemic to fix
the status of real need for more than one space. But the number is moderated due to pandemic.
Figure 34 shows the main reasons for both cases of availability of either family dining or guest
dining to be the privacy or mixing problem with other activity the family dining has showed higher
dissatisfaction in the after-pandemic stage.
Figure 34. Main reasons for Changes in residents’ dissatisfaction of family dining space between
family dining and guest dining.
The factor analysis results were found to be in line with the previously indicated findings, with
privacy being the most significant element, followed by proportion, then area. The area factor was
the most significant both during and after the pandemic, whereas the proportion and privacy factors
were the most significant after the pandemic.
This shows that future apartment plans will build a family dining room with consideration for
area, proportion, and privacy as shown in the following Table 7A,B.
59.7% 56.1%
70.0%
23.7%
51.6% 51.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Axis Title
With family or guest dining only With family and guest dining
5.7%
19.0% 12.9% 14.3%
74.8%
66.7%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Limited space,
limited wardrobe
& cabinet (area)
Narrow space,
difficult to walk
by when seated
(proportion)
Narrow space,
difficult to walk
by when seated
(proportion)
Family dining is
mixed with guest
dining (privacy)
Family dining is
mixed with guest
dining (privacy)
Family dining
only
Guest dining only Family dining
only
Guest dining only Family dining
only
Guest dining only
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

23
Table 7. A,B. Factor analysis for family dining indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered
in research.
Factors
Fd.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Fd.1.2 Narrow space, difficult to walk by when seated (proportion)
Fd.1.3 Family dining is mixed with guest dining (privacy)
3.3.5. Master Bedroom
The Master bedroom is the room that is used only for parents sleeping with or without a
bathroom. For finding out dissatisfaction for all master bedrooms of categories 2+1 and 3+1 with the
support of Figure 35, it is clear that dissatisfaction in 2+1 apartments master bedrooms is higher
through all three stages, all numbers show low dissatisfaction ratios in comparison with other
habitable spaces, ratios almost doubled for during pandemic period compared to before pandemic.
Figure 35. Dissatisfaction differences for master bedrooms for 2+1 and 3+1 category.
As 15% of the samples do not contain a bathroom inside the master bedroom in 2+1 category,
however dissatisfaction had decreased as noticed in Figure 36 for considering dissatisfaction for only
master bedrooms containing bathroom despite 3+1.
11.4%
34.8% 34.8%
6.8%
12.0% 9.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Fd.1.1 0.897
Fd.1.2 0.869
Fd.1.3 0.916
Fd.2.1 0.962
Fd.2.2 0.968
Fd.2.3 0.943
Fd.3.1 0.962
Fd.3.2 0.973
Fd.3.3 0.950
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in four iterations.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

24
Figure 36. Dissatisfaction of only master bedrooms containing bathrooms for 2+1 and 3+1 category.
Reasoning for the given dissatisfaction is mainly due to limited space or shortage of area to
accommodate all requirements with about 53%-55% category 3+1 has higher value followed by
proportion with about 23%-34% higher for 2+1 category as a normal trend, privacy came at the last
in rank as been presented in Figure 37.
Figure 37. main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for only master bedrooms containing
bathrooms for 2+1 and 3+1 category.
Considering results of effect of bathroom availability in master bedrooms Figure 38, important
finding appears of abrupt increase in dissatisfaction in apartments whose master bedroom don’t
contain bathrooms leading to single bathroom in total apartment during pandemic evaluated of high
dissatisfaction ratio.
Figure 38. Dissatisfaction differences for master bedrooms containing or missing bathrooms.
15.1%
27.8% 27.8%
6.8%
12.0% 9.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
41.6%
53.1%
31.3% 34.0%
22.9%
0.0%
12.8%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Limited space, limited wardrobe
& cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) The master bedroom does not
have an independent bathroom
(relationship)
The activity[sleeping] is mixed
with family gathering zone
(privacy)
2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1 2+1 3+1
Before During After
0.0%
55.6% 55.5%
11.2%
20.4% 19.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Before During After
Without bathroom With bathroom
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

25
‘ Evaluating effects of availability of balcony on master bedroom dissatisfaction referring to
Figure 39, two findings can be derived first, the sudden jump between before and during pandemic
for both cases, while the second is the logical impression of having balcony in minimizing the results
of residents’ feeling of dissatisfaction.
Figure 39. Dissatisfaction differences of master bedrooms with or without balcony.
When considering both factors of apartment category and having balcony together Figure 40
concerned with 2+1 category and Figure 41 concerned with 3+1 category, the availability of balcony
in category 3+1 had dramatically lowered the dissatisfaction percentage to get zero increase within
the three stages.
Figure 40. Apartment 2+1 category Dissatisfaction differences for master bedrooms containing or
missing bathrooms.
Figure 41. Apartment 3+1 category Dissatisfaction differences for master bedrooms containing or
missing bathrooms.
13.4%
33.0% 30.9%
8.3%
25.0% 25.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Before During After
Without balcony With balcony
18.3%
46.9% 46.9%
10.5%
38.3% 38.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
2+1 Without balcony 2+1 With balcony
8.5%
19.0%
14.9%
5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
Before During After
3+1 Without balcony 3+1 With balcony
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

26
The effect of having more than only bedroom balcony in apartments had caused dissatisfaction
to be not altered due to pandemic occurrence as seen in Figure 42 as indicators of dissatisfaction been
constant during the three stages for both 2+1 and 3+1 category of apartments.
Figure 42. Dissatisfaction stability due to availability of more than one balcony in both categories.
Regarding the proportion of master bedroom effect on degree of dissatisfaction it is clear as seen
in Figure 43 that there has been no difference in dissatisfaction during the three stages while in
rectangle bedroom shapes the level almost tripled.
Figure 43. Dissatisfaction variations due to master bedroom proportion.
Figure 44 shows that for square proportion, area deficit is addressed as the main reason for
dissatisfaction same for rectangle proportion, followed by narrow proportion but higher value is
within rectangle instead of square as was for area reason.
Figure 44. main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for master bedrooms for both proportions.
14.3% 14.3% 14.3%
5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
Before During After
2+1 The apartment has more than a Master bedroom balcony
10.7% 10.7% 10.7%
9.1%
30.7% 29.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Before During After
Axis Title
Square [proportion] Rectangle [proportion]
62.7%
40.7%
30.0%
33.2%
20.0%
11.7% 6.7% 8.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Square-Proportion
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Rectangle-Proportion
Narrow space (proportion)
Square-Proportion
Narrow space (proportion)
Rectangle-Proportion
The master bedroom does
not have an independent
bathroom (relationship)
Square-Proportion
The master bedroom does
not have an independent
bathroom (relationship)
Rectangle-Proportion
The activity[sleeping] is
mixed with family gathering
zone (privacy)
Square-Proportion
The activity[sleeping] is
mixed with family gathering
zone (privacy)
Rectangle-Proportion
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

27
The spatial organization of the apartment plays a clear role on degree of dissatisfaction as
percentages recorded higher values in closed organization also the ratio of increase between before
pandemic stage and during pandemic is also higher than that for open spatial organization as seen
in Figure 45.
Figure 45. Dissatisfaction differences in master bedrooms due to spatial organization .
Investigating differences in between different categories of apartments the dissatisfaction as
percentages recorded higher values in closed organization especially for 2+1 category of closed
spatial organization followed by open organization for same category. The 3+1 category showed
lower dissatisfaction values with some increase for closed organization same trend of 2+1 category
but with less magnitude as seen in Figure 46.
Figure 46. Variations in apartments with two categories and two different organizations .
Through factor analysis, we can observe that the relationship was the strongest factor, with
proportion, area, and privacy, respectively. Before and after the pandemic, the most principal factor
was the relationship with the bathroom seen in Table 7A,B.
Table 7A,B. Factor analysis for master bedroom indicating high factor loadings.
7.5%
17.6% 17.6%
10.9%
31.0% 29.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Before During After
Open spatial org. Closed spatial org.
6.7%
16.0%
10.0% 5.7%
20.2%
49.4%
10.0% 12.7%
20.2%
49.4%
10.0% 9.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
2+1 With open spatial
org.
2+1 With closed spatial
org.
3+1 With open spatial
org.
3+1 With closed spatial
org.
Before During After
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1
2
3
4
Ma.1.1 0.886
Ma.1.2 0.946
Ma.1.3 0.987
Ma.1.4 0.782
Ma.2.1 0.966
Ma.2.2 0.964
Ma.2.3 0.987
Ma.2.4 0.950
Ma.3.1 0.972
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

28
Factors
Ma.1.1 Limited s
p
ace, limited wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Ma.1.2 Narrow s
p
ace (
p
ro
p
ortion)
Ma.1.3 The master bedroom does not have an inde
p
endent bathroom (relationshi
p
)
Ma.1.4 The activit
y
[slee
p
in
g
] is mixed with famil
y
g
atherin
g
zone (
p
rivac
y
)
After the pandemic, the most important factors were proportion and area; and finally, privacy
emerged as the most important factor both during and after the pandemic. We observe that future
apartment master bedroom designs must consider proportion, area, and privacy, among other crucial
considerations. as illustrated in Table 7A,B.
3.3.6. Children Bedroom
The children’s bedroom is mainly used for sleeping, it can also be used as study-bedroom mainly
when the person who lives in this space mostly be a student))
The effect of pandemic on persons using these spaces had increased by about 7.4%. The ratio of
increase is less than 25.0 % as seen in Figure 47.
Figure 47. Dissatisfaction differences for children’s bedrooms for all categories.
For finding out dissatisfaction trend between different categories Figure 48 indicates residents
occupying 3+1 had showed more dissatisfaction than 2+1 cases with rapid increase of about 16.3%
the case is opposite for master bedrooms and other living spaces.
Figure 48. Dissatisfaction differences for children’s bedrooms 2+1 and 3+1 category.
29.1%
36.5% 36.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
Before During After
32.1% 33.5% 35.2%
24.6%
40.9% 38.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
Ma.3.2 0.978
Ma.3.3 0.978
Ma.3.4 0.950
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation conver
g
ed in 5 iterations.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

29
To find out the main reasons for such behavior Figures 42 and 43 indicate that in 2+1 category
and 3+1 category.
Figure 49. main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for children’s bedrooms for 2+1 category.
Both categories shared that limited space meaning area concerned deficit forms the highest
complain with 44% for the 2+1 and 53.9%-58.2% for 3+1 category which is higher than the first, also
the 2+1 didn’t show changes of dissatisfaction during the three stages while 3+1 the change was about
4.3% form pre-pandemic to post- pandemic stage.
The second reason comes the proportion of spaces when extreme narrow spaces participate in
increasing dissatisfaction also the same trend of area reasoning trend happened here with
fluctuations in 3+1 category against stability in 2+1 apartments category.
Figure 50. main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for children’s bedrooms for 3+1 category.
The effect of space proportion in forming responses of dissatisfaction shown in Figure 51
indicates that rectangular spaces have been evaluated more negatively by respondents through three
stages of pandemic about 2-7-3.0 times higher than square proportions.
44.0% 40.7%
14.6%
1.7%
11.1%
44.0%
40.7%
14.6% 14.6% 11.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Limited space,
limited wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
bathroom
(relationship)
Few bedroom
(number)
The activity[sleeping]
is mixed with family
gathering zone
(privacy)
2+1
Before During After
53.9%
32.2%
4.2% 5.7% 0.0%
62.4%
44.8%
4.2% 7.8%
0.0%
58.2%
43.1%
4.2% 4.2% 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
limited wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
bathroom
(relationship)
Few bedroom
(number)
The activity[sleeping]
is mixed with family
gathering zone
(privacy)
3+1
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

30
Figure 51. Dissatisfaction differences for children’s bedrooms due to space proportion variations.
The increase form before to during pandemic stages had been increased by 45% for square and
24% of base value for rectangle still rectangle shapes scored higher dissatisfaction levels in after
pandemic stage keeping the ratio of about three times. Taking into consideration the balcony
availability for such spaces aided by Figure 52, there is clear superiority in bedrooms with balcony
during and after pandemic than those without balcony.
Figure 52. Dissatisfaction differences for children’s bedrooms due to balcony availability.
Spatial organization differences between open and closed types also participated in forming the
dissatisfaction percentages through three stages same as before shown in Figure 53, apartments with
open spatial organization layouts had less amounts of dissatisfaction than closed ones, the variations
in between increased during and after pandemic.
Figure 53. Dissatisfaction variations for children’s bedrooms due to spatial organization.
11.6%
16.9% 14.8%
33.5%
41.4% 42.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
Square [proportion] Rectangle [proportion]
28.5%
34.2% 34.4%
30.6%
41.7% 41.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
Without balcony With balcony
24.8% 28.2% 29.4%
31.9%
42.0% 41.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
Open spatial org. Closed spatial org.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

31
When comparing apartments categories differences with support of Figure 54 both showed
higher increases in closed spatial organizations for 2+1 and 3+1 categories, form the other side of point
of view and supporting findings shown in Figure 41 before pandemic dissatisfaction was higher in
2+1 category while in the two stages of during and after pandemic the 3+1 category had a little higher
amount of dissatisfaction.
Figure 54. Dissatisfaction variations for children’s bedrooms due to spatial organization and
apartment category.
Based on factor analysis, the two Table 8A,B show that privacy was the most influential factor,
with the relationship to the bathroom coming in second. Area and proportion came in third and
fourth, respectively, and the number of rooms was the least influential factor. The effects of privacy
and the proximity to the bathroom were consistent across the three periods, although area and
proportion became more significant after the pandemic, and the number of bedrooms remained the
most significant both before and after the pandemic. The fact that the five factors had a significant
impact after the pandemic suggests that future children’s bedroom designs should take all of these
factors into account.
Table 8A,B. Factor analysis for children bedrooms indicating high factor loadings for reasons
considered in research.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3 4 5
Ch.1.1 0.978
Ch.1.2 0.968
Ch.1.3 0.992
Ch.1.4 0.947
Ch.1.5 0.998
Ch.2.1 0.986
Ch.2.2 0.979
Ch.2.3 0.992
Ch.2.4 0.986
Ch.2.5 0.998
Ch.3.1 0.990
Ch.3.2 0.985
Ch.3.3 0.992
Ch.3.4 0.986
Ch.3.5 0.998
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
24.8%
39.5%
25.0% 24.4%
27.6%
39.5%
30.0%
44.6%
30.9%
39.5%
25.0%
43.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
2+1 Open spatial org. 2+1 Closed spatial org. 3+1 Open spatial org. 3+1 Closed spatial org.
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

32
Factors
Ch.1.1 Limited s
p
ace, limited wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Ch.1.2 Narrow s
p
ace (
p
ro
p
ortion)
Ch.1.3 Far from the bathroom (relationshi
p
)
Ch.1.4 Few bedrooms (number)
Ch.1.5 The activit
y
[slee
p
in
g
] is mixed with famil
y
g
atherin
g
zone (
p
rivac
y
)
3.3.7. Kitchen
Kitchen means the room where food preparation takes place, which may or may not have a
family dining area. It could be an open system integrated with the living room or a closed system,
meaning it’s apart from the living area. In all samples, the percentage of people who were dissatisfied
with the kitchen during the pandemic was about 20.7% higher than it was before, stayed almost stable
with minor decrease by about 0.6% after the pandemic as seen in Figure 55.
Figure 55. Dissatisfaction variations for kitchen through three stages of study.
Detecting reasons of that behavior can be concluded with focusing on Figure 56, as it is obvious
the main reasons for dissatisfaction is the limited space and the narrow proportion of the space, third
reason addressed by residents is the sharing kitchen space by cooking and family gatherings like
dining. The other finding is that the change in reasoning within the three stages is not as the same
percentage change in dissatisfaction, the fourth and fifth factors were not assessed by users to be so
effective in their evaluations despite complain of about 9.2% of respondents about having one door
for kitchen.
Figure 56. main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for kitchen in all apartments .
To check for differences in between two categories of apartments 2+1 and 3+1 results presented
in Figure 57 shows higher dissatisfaction in apartments with less bedrooms as was the trend for most
of previous discussed spaces, the net increase in dissatisfaction due to pandemic is also higher than
48.4%
69.1% 68.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Before During After
55.9% 59.7%
2.5% 3.5%
31.8%
59.6% 63.1%
3.3% 9.2%
25.8%
59.9% 65.4%
3.3% 3.5%
30.8%
-5.0%
15.0%
35.0%
55.0%
75.0%
Limited space,
limited workspace
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Having only one
door (number)
The activity[cooking]
is mixed with family
gathering
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

33
3+1 category, but the ratio of increase in 2+1 apartments is less than 3+1 as numbers scored higher in
2+1 apartments.
Figure 57. Dissatisfaction differences for kitchens in 2+1 and 3+1 category.
Common reasons for both categories are seen in Figures 58 and 59 for 2+1 and 3+1 category are
the same three mentioned for combined results despite the mixing obstacle of activities in kitchen is
much higher in 2+1 cases than 3+1 ones.
Figure 58. Main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for kitchens for 2+1 category.
The marginal difference in ascending trend in dissatisfaction from before stage towards after
pandemic is that limited spaces showed that trend in 2+1 apartment category but in 3-1 category
proportion had that trend. Also 2+1 apartments’ residents’ responses in reasoning due to mixing
activities in kitchen space is more than double of 3+1 category.
Figure 59. Main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for kitchens for 3+1 category.
56.8%
75.3% 75.3%
35.7%
59.8% 58.4%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
51.4%
63.1%
1.7%
42.5%
55.6% 58.1%
0.0%
10.0%
32.5%
56.9% 63.1%
1.7%
40.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
limited workspace
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Having only one
door (number)
The
activity[cooking] is
mixed with family
gathering
2+1
2+1
2+1
2+1
2+1
Before Durin
g
After
62.7%
54.7%
6.3% 6.3%
15.6%
65.6% 70.6%
8.3% 8.0%
15.6%
64.3% 69.0%
8.3% 6.3%
15.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space,
limited workspace
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Having only one
door (number)
The activity[cooking]
is mixed with family
gathering
3+1 3+1 3+1 3+1 3+1
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

34
Variations in dissatisfaction results due to spatial organization is somehow marginal here in
kitchens as found in Figure 60, as both indicated increased dissatisfaction in second stage with slight
change in stage of after pandemic .
Figure 60. Dissatisfaction variations for kitchens due to spatial organization.
The only difference is that variations in closed organization was 23% while in open organization
was about 17% as overall variations is following the general trend observed in Figure 55.
The reasoning of variations in these apartments of different spatial organization is due to five
reasons shown in Figures 61 and 62 , in the first one belonging to closed spatial organization
dominant reason was the space proportion with percentages around 72%-82 % as higher scoring in
dissatisfaction followed by area with numbers around 54%.
While in open spatial organization category cases the main cause was the mixing of cooking and
gathering problem with about 64% - 79%. Then comes the area of kitchen limiting space for working
with dissatisfaction range between 57.4% and 68.3^%.
Figure 61. Reasons of Dissatisfaction for kitchens for closed spatial organization .
Figure 62. Reasons of Dissatisfaction for kitchens for opened spatial organization .
46.7%
69.0% 69.7%
50.4%
69.3% 67.1%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Closed spatial organization Opened spatial organization
54.9%
72.1%
4.2% 5.8%
53.8%
81.6%
5.6% 7.0%
0.0%
54.9%
81.6%
5.6% 5.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Limited space,
limited workspace
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Having only one
door (number)
The
activity[cooking] is
mixed with family
gathering
Before During After
57.4%
41.1%
0.0%
79.4%
68.3%
35.2%
0.0%
12.5%
64.4%
67.3%
41.1%
0.0%
76.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Limited space,
limited workspace
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Having only one
door (number)
The
activity[cooking] is
mixed with family
gathering
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

35
The effect of availability against absence of family dining with kitchen main activities on
residents’ satisfaction is tested Figure 63 had showed that slight differences had been observed
between two cases for stages of during pandemic and post pandemic.
With about 6.6% difference in pre pandemic stage where absence of family dining had
participated in that increase, the general trend of dissatisfaction increase is still clear as change is
about 15% -21% through the three stages.
Figure 63. Dissatisfaction variations for kitchens due to availability of family dining .
Kitchen linked to balconies had less dissatisfaction by respondents living in those apartments
especially for pre pandemic period with a significant ratio, the gap been amended in during and after
pandemic stages especially in during pandemic where cases of having balconies had showed slightly
higher dissatisfactions.
While finding out reasons for those dissatisfaction responses in Figures 64 and 65 cases of
without balcony referenced that for area then mixing use of space by ratios approached 70.4% and
65.6% in sequence, while cases of having balcony showed ratios of 77.5% and 51.3% for proportion
and area sequentially.
Figure 64. Main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for kitchens without balcony.
Figure 65. Main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for kitchens with balcony.
54.0%
69.0% 69.0%
47.4%
69.1% 68.4%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Without family dining With family dining
63.0%
50.7%
2.2%
67.8%
68.5%
44.1%
0.0%
13.3%
54.4%
70.4%
50.7%
2.2%
65.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space,
limited workspace
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Having only one door
(number)
The activity[cooking]
is mixed with family
gathering
Before During After
50.2%
67.1%
4.5% 4.5% 2.3%
52.3%
78.6%
6.1% 5.8%
2.…
51.3%
77.5%
6.1% 4.5% 2.3%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Limited space, limited workspace (area)Narrow space (proportion)Far from the entrance (relationship)Having only one door (number)The activity[cooking] is mixed with family gatherin
g
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

36
Higher fluctuations been observed analyzing cases of dissatisfaction when combining the effect
of spatial organization with availability of balcony, supported by Figure 66.
Figure 66. Dissatisfaction variations for kitchens due to availability and absence of balcony with
closed spatial organization .
Before pandemic cases of closed organizations but without balconies had higher dissatisfaction
amounts with 14.7% difference. The ratio had been reversed during pandemic with average of 9.9%
when cases of with balcony had passed the closed organization without balcony.
While cases of open organization found in Figure 67 shown same trend but with different
amounts for stages of pre and during pandemic as closed spatial organization cases, but after
pandemic changed in favor of higher dissatisfaction of without balcony apartments after the
pandemic the same case of pre-pandemic.
Figure 67. Dissatisfaction variations for kitchens due to availability and absence of balcony with
closed spatial organization .
The factor analysis revealed that privacy, space, proportion, relationships, and number had the
greatest effects on the three periods. When results compared with separate periods, study
discovered that before the pandemic, privacy was the most crucial element, followed by area and
proportion, and the link between the kitchen and entrance had the least impact. As can be seen from
the Table 9A,B , Except for the factor of relationship with the entrance, which remained the most
significant both during and after the pandemic, these five factors were the most influential after the
pandemic.
Table 9A,B. Factor analysis for kitchens indicating high factor loadings for reasons.
Rotated Com
p
onent Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3 4 5
Ki.1.1 0.935
Ki.1.2 0.940
Ki.1.3 0.905
60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
45.3%
69.9% 70.7%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Closed spatial organization -Without a balcony Closed spatial organization -With a balcony
53.0%
69.2% 69.2%
30.0%
70.0%
50.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Opened spatial organization- Without a balcony
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

37
Ki.1.4 0.929
Ki.1.5 0.971
Ki.2.1 0.959
Ki.2.2 0.929
Ki.2.3 0.981
Ki.2.4 0.734
Ki.2.5 0.947
Ki.3.1 0.970
Ki.3.2 0.964
Ki.3.3 0.981
Ki.3.4 0.957
Ki.3.5 0.977
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
a. Rotation conver
g
ed in 5 iterations.
Factors
Ki.1.1 Limited s
p
ace, limited works
p
ace
(
area
)
Ki.1.2 Narrow s
p
ace
(p
ro
p
ortion
)
Ki.1.3 Far from the entrance
(
relationshi
p)
Ki.1.4 Havin
g
onl
y
one door
(
number
)
Ki.1.5 The activit
y[
cookin
g]
is mixed with famil
y
g
atherin
g
s
(p
rivac
y)
3.3.8. Bathrooms
The family bathroom means the separate bathroom, which is not included with bedrooms and
is for common use by family members. To investigate the dissatisfaction behavior or trend through
three stages of pandemic Figure 68 shows normal trend of increase between pre and during pandemic
stages change magnitude is 8.5% then slightly lowered to 39.9% a reduction of only 0.4%.
Figure 68. Dissatisfaction variations for family bathroom through stages of study.
Adopting Figure 69 for finding out reasons for all stages of dissatisfied residents shows that
proportion was the main concern followed by area sufficiency then distance from entrance ratios
were ascending in general for all three reasons, proportion showed some higher value during
pandemic.
The first two results were above 28% while the third and remaining reasons of shortage of
bathrooms and lack of separate toilet fluctuate between 12.5% and 22.5% showing smoothly
distributed percentages.
31.8%
40.3% 39.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

38
Figure 69. Main reasons for dissatisfaction differences for family bathrooms .
Investigating changes of existence of master bathroom in addition to basic family bathroom with
support of Figure 70 it is very clear that dramatic drop in dissatisfaction had been obtained with
lowered values of approximately 35% - 44%, this finding can be a bright indicator for the need of two
bathrooms.
It is important to note that all apartments of category type 3+1 contain both types of bathrooms,
while 2+1 category had cases with family bathroom only and others having the two bathrooms.
Figure 70. Variations in dissatisfaction by the existence of master bathroom in addition to basic family
bathroom.
In order to differentiate results of reasons for of dissatisfaction in cases of presence of only family
bathrooms from those apartments who have master’s bedroom bathroom Figures 71 and 72 can help
in that.
28.4%
34.3%
16.5% 17.0%
13.3%
34.1%
37.7%
17.5%
15.7% 15.0%
34.1% 36.0%
22.5%
13.2% 12.5%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Limited space (area) Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
The family doesn’t
have enough
bathrooms (number)
There is no separate
bathroom from the
toilet [WC] (privacy)
Before During After
61.1%
77.8% 77.8%
25.7%
33.6% 33.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Before During After
Family bathroom Family bathroom and master bedroom bath
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

39
Figure 71. Reasons of dissatisfaction for cases only having basic family bathroom.
The first finding is that 4 reasons of five in family bathroom cases seen in Figure71 had passed
the percentage of 55% in dissatisfaction except proportion who showed numbers above 22%.
While for the cases of availability of master bedrooms bathroom added to family bathrooms
presented in Figure 72, only two reasons were above 20% and none of them reached 40% while the
remaining reasons were almost below 10%, the variation here is clear in number of effective reasons
and the strength of effect in terms of percentages.
Figure 72. Reasons of dissatisfaction by the existence of master bathroom added to family bathroom.
When comparing dissatisfaction levels for the two main categories of apartments 2+1 and 3+1
with the support of Figure 73 for cases having two bathrooms it is obvious that dissatisfaction had
clearly increased in 3+1 cases during pandemic the increase was much less for 2+1 category the
dissatisfaction didn’t increase may be to luxurious conditions comparable to other spaces in 2+1
category. No need to differentiate the dissatisfaction for apartment residents of categories 2+1 and
3+1 related to who had only single bathroom as all cases of category 3+1 were of two-bathroom type.
Figure 73. Variations in dissatisfaction by the existence of master bathroom in addition to basic family
bathroom in between categories of 2+1 and 3+1.
77.8%
33.3%
55.6%
66.7%
55.6%
77.8%
33.3%
55.6%
77.8%
66.7%
77.8%
22.2%
55.6% 61.1%
50.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Limited space
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
The family doesn’t
have enough
bathrooms
(number)
There is no
separate bathroom
from the toilet
[WC] (privacy)
Family bathroom
Before During After
19.7%
34.5%
9.7% 8.3% 5.9%
26.4% 38.4%
10.8% 4.8%
5.9%
26.4%
38.4%
16.7%
4.8% 5.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Limited space
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
The family doesn’t
have enough
bathrooms
(number)
There is no
separate bathroom
from the toilet
[WC] (privacy)
Family bathroom and master bedroom bath
Before Durin
g
After
23.7% 25.6% 25.6%
27.9%
42.7% 41.7%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

40
To find detailed differences in reasons between apartments of category 2+1and those of category
3+1 following Figures 74 and 75 support the normal trend of previous findings.
Figure 74. Reasons of changes in dissatisfaction by the existence of master bathroom in addition to
basic family bathroom for category of 2+1.
Main reason for dissatisfaction in 2+1 category is proportion with highest value of 50.0 % , while
in category 3+1 reasons were distributed within four factors starting from area with 32.1% then
proportion, relationship and number of activities at the last by 10.1%
Figure 75. Reasons of changes in dissatisfaction by the existence of master bathroom in addition to
basic family bathroom for category of 3+1.
The factor analysis revealed in Table 10A,B that the factors were highly ranked are as follows:
privacy, proportion, area, number, and relationship with the entrance were the weakest factors.
According to the above tables, before the pandemic, privacy was the most important factor, but
during the pandemic, other factors became more important. Nothing had the biggest impact after the
pandemic.
Table 10A,B Factor analysis for master bathroom indicating high factor loadings for reasons
considered in research.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1
2
3
4
5
Ba.1.1 0.894
Ba.1.2 0.955
Ba.1.3 0.857
13.9%
42.6%
2.8% 0.0%
11.1%
21.3%
50.0%
2.8% 0.0%
11.1%
21.3%
50.0%
2.8% 0.0%
11.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Limited space (area) Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
The family doesn’t
have enough
bathrooms (number)
There is no separate
bathroom from the
toilet [WC] (privacy)
2+1 Having a family bathroom and master bedroom bath
Before During After
26.2% 25.4%
17.4% 17.6%
32.1%
25.4%
19.8%
10.1%
0.0%
32.1%
25.4%
32.3%
10.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Limited space (area) Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
The family doesn’t
have enough
bathrooms (number)
There is no separate
bathroom from the
toilet [WC] (privacy)
3+1 Having a family bathroom and master bedroom bath
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

41
Ba.1.4 0.874
Ba.1.5 0.971
Ba.2.1 0.957
Ba.2.2 0.974
Ba.2.3 0.896
Ba.2.4 0.902
Ba.2.5 0.941
Ba.3.1 0.908
Ba.3.2 0.964
Ba.3.3 0.884
Ba.3.4 0.884
Ba.3.5 0.957
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Facters
Ba.1.1 Limited space (area)
Ba.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ba.1.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ba.1.4 The family doesn’t have enough bathrooms (number)
Ba.1.5 There is no separate bathroom from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
3.3.9. Toilets
The toilet means the separate toilet that is not included with the bathroom. Family toilets on the
other hand means the separate toilet which is located in the apartment corridor. While Guest
toilets mean toilet which is located at the entrance.
One main finding in Figure 76 is the high level of dissatisfaction passing 54% in the stage of pre-
pandemic, due to pandemic the percentage increased by 13.3 %.
Figure 76. Dissatisfaction variations for toilets through three stages of pandemic.
When making breakdown of cases into two categories adopted in this research with values
obtained from Figure 77. It is found that dissatisfaction in apartments of category 2+1 showed more
dissatisfaction by their residents in all three stages, the basic score for both categories is high even in
stage of before pandemic. Observing the next two stages values are higher by approximately about
13% for both cases following normal trend of current study findings for most spaces.
54.7%
68.0% 66.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

42
Figure 77. Differences in dissatisfaction percentages for 2+1 and 3+1 categories.
Relating dissatisfaction about toilet activity focusing on differences of apartments without
separate toilet space and those with separate toilet space an important conclusion about very high
dissatisfaction in without toilets as values increased from 70.3% before pandemic to 83.9%. a very
high scores in comparison with 32.5% to 44,1% for pre and post pandemic stages for apartments
having separate toilet Figure 78 clarifies that.
Figure 78. Differences in dissatisfaction percentages for apartments without separate toilets and those
who had separate units. .
The broad absence of separate toilet in most of apartments of category 2+1 had caused high
percentage of dissatisfaction regarding this activity as 75% of residents agreed upon the absence of
separate space be superior cause for their negative evaluation. However, in category 3+1 only 12.5%
responses were causing absence as the main dissatisfaction reason mainly due to availability of two
bathrooms . Figure 79 makes these evidences clear.
Figure 79. Absence of separate toilet in formation of apartments indicating high dissatisfaction
percentages of category 2+1 compared to 3+1 category. .
Reasoning the dissatisfaction about toilets in apartments who do have separate ones using
Figure 80 points out three main reasons all of low to middle score topped by limited space followed
by effect of limited number of activities then proportion all ratios are within ranges 11.7% - 23.8%
except the fourth reason of relationship to entrance with 5.3%.
59.9%
72.7% 72.7%
47.0%
60.9% 57.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
70.3%
83.9% 83.9%
32.5%
46.8% 44.1%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Before During After
Without toilet With toilet
50.0%
75.0%
12.5%
50.0%
75.0%
12.5%
50.0%
75.0%
12.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
No separate toilet No separate toilet No separate toilet
All apartments 2+1 3+1
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

43
Figure 80. Reasons for different dissatisfaction percentages for apartments with separate toilets.
Extending details of dissatisfaction regarding toilets for two types, the guest room toilet against
the family room toilet aided by Figure 81 the cases of apartments with family toilets had higher
percentages of dissatisfaction than those who had guest toilets. Differentiation of reasons of those
two cases of family toilet room and guest toilet room is presented in Figure 82 as apartments
residents’ evaluation of dissatisfaction who use family toilet had fixed three reasons with amounts
within range 22.2% to 37.3%.
Figure 81. Differences of dissatisfaction percentages in apartments with family toilet space and those
with guest toilet spaces.
While those apartments had guest toilets showed lower percentages and only two significant
reasons including single guest toilet used by family members then limited space both reasons scored
between 5% up to 25.0% at maximum for shared use.
Figure 82. Differences in percentages for reasons for dissatisfaction in apartments with family toilet
space and those with guest toilet spaces.
Factor analysis showed that in Table 11A,B the components were rated differently: the weakest
factors were proportion, area, number, and relationship.
21.2%
11.7%
5.3%
13.8%
26.2%
15.0%
5.3%
23.8%
21.2%
15.0%
5.3%
23.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
Limited space (area) Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
The whole family shares
one toilet space [WC]
(number)
Before During After
41.7%
53.3% 51.7%
21.0%
38.5% 34.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Before During After
With family toilet With guest toilet
37.3%
15.0%
30.0%
0.0%
10.7%
0.0%
22.7% 25.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Limited space
(area)
Limited space
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
Far from the
entrance
(relationship)
The whole
family shares
one toilet
space [WC]
(number)
The whole
family shares
one toilet
space [WC]
(number)
Family toilet Guest toilet Family toilet Guest toilet Family toilet Guest toilet Family toilet Guest toilet
Before Durin
g
After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

44
Table 11A,B. Factor analysis for toilets indicating high factor loadings for reasons.
Rotated Com
p
onent Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3 4
To.1.1
0.972
To.1.2
0.958
To.1.3
0.993
To.1.4
0.959
To.2.1
0.942
To.2.2
0.968
To.2.3
0.993
To.2.4
0.986
To.3.1
0.972
To.3.2
0.968
To.3.3
0.993
To.3.4
0.986
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
a. Rotation conver
g
ed in 5 iterations.
Factors
To.3.1 Limited s
p
ace
(
area
)
To.1.2 Narrow s
p
ace
(p
ro
p
ortion
)
To.1.3 Far from the entrance
(
relationshi
p)
To.1.4 The whole famil
y
shares one toilet s
p
ace
[
WC
]
(
number
)
The strongest factor during each of the three periods was the relationship with the entrance; the
strongest factors during and after the pandemic were the number of toilets and proportion; the
strongest factor before and after the pandemic was the area. We see that all after the pandemic factors
were significant, and it is best to take them into account when building toilets in new apartments, as
indicated by the tables below.
3.3.10. Laundry
The laundry means separate laundry not located in the bathroom and used only for washing
clothes. Analyzing residents’ satisfaction starts with overall evaluation of their dissatisfaction as
presented in Figure 83. Dissatisfaction levels are so high the pandemic had escalated the percentage
to 77.8% despite high dissatisfaction even before pandemic with 67.1%.
Figure 83. Dissatisfaction variations for laundry through three stages of pandemic.
Considering availability or absence of specific space within current apartments and their role in
dissatisfaction of residents about the activity, Figure 84, clearly shows lowering down the satisfaction
67.1%
77.8% 77.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

45
level by 31.4% in pre-pandemic stage and 22.5% in post pandemic stage, the base numbers of absence
of specific space is extremely high.
Figure 84. Dissatisfaction variations due to availability or absence of laundry space.
To find out differences of residents’ responses who had separate laundry space in their
apartments with others who don’t have separate space for activity. Figure 85 indicates that apartment
without laundry showed higher dissatisfaction ratios by 11.45 for pre pandemic stage and 8.8% for
stages of during and after pandemic supporting previous findings in Figure 82.
Figure 85. Reasons for variations due to availability or absence of laundry space.
Main reason for dissatisfaction of apartments is the complaint from non-existence of separate
laundry as 86.7% reported that, while for apartments containing specific laundry are area and
proportion with ratios scoring 80.0% for area, then 58.0% for proportion. Further findings about
effect of apartment category on residents’ responses is shown in Figure 86 indicating responses for
both apartment dwellers who live in 2+1 and 3+1 categories for cases of without specific laundry
space it is found that complains in 2+1 category is higher than 3+1 in pre pandemic stage and about
9.1% in post pandemic stage.
75.0%
83.4% 83.4%
43.6%
60.9% 60.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Before During After
Without laundry with laundry
86.7%
7.4% 6.8% 2.1% 0.0%
80.0%
58.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
There is no
separate
laundry space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
bathroom
(relationship)
There is no
separate
laundry space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
bathroom
(relationship)
Without laundry With Laundry
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

46
Figure 86. Apartments without specific laundry space dissatisfaction percentages of both categories.
Finding differences between 2+1 and 3+1 categories that don’t have specific laundry room
presented in Figure 87, main reason for dissatisfaction for 2+1 category is the absence of separate
space, while for category 3+1 also the same reason been addressed in addition to area, proportion the
last two ones had lower reasoning percentages.
Figure 87. Reasons for dissatisfactions variations of both categories with absence of specific laundry.
However, apartments containing specific laundry spaces observed in Figure 88, showed lower
percentages of dissatisfaction also variations between the two categories within same stage of
pandemic are very small, starting with higher dissatisfaction for 2+1 ends with higher dissatisfaction
for 3+1 category.
Figure 88. Apartments containing specific laundry space’s dissatisfaction percentages of both
categories 2+1 and 3+1.
Figure 89 points out reasons for dissatisfaction for apartments having specific laundry room,
both categories shared that reasons of area deficiency then space proportion are the highest causes
75.1% 83.7% 83.7%
62.1%
74.6% 74.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Before During After
2+1 Without laundry 3+1 Without laundry
90.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
80.0%
22.3% 20.4%
6.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
There is no
separate
laundry space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
bathroom
(relationship)
There is no
separate
laundry space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
bathroom
(relationship)
2+1 Without laundry 3+1 Without Laundry
Before During After
61.0%
70.5% 70.5%
58.8%
73.3% 73.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Axis Title
2+1 With laundry 3+1 With laundry
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

47
that determine residents’ dissatisfaction. Proportion comes before area in 2+1 category while in 3+1
category area comes before proportion in rank.
Figure 89. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding both apartments’ categories 2+1 and 3+1
with the availability of specific laundry space.
Table 12A,B of the factor analysis indicate that the greatest factor was the existence (absence of
separate laundry space), which was followed by area, relationships, and proportion, respectively.
According to the tables below, the factors had an identical impact on dissatisfaction over the three
periods, area was the strongest factor during pandemic.
The relationship with the bath was the strongest during the three periods, the lack of laundry
was the strongest factor before and during the pandemic, and the proportion was the strongest before
and after the pandemic.
Here, it is evident that the relationship between laundry and bath and laundry proportion is one
of the greatest aspects after the pandemic, and it is best to take this into account when designing
laundry rooms in new apartments.
This highlights the value of laundry proportion and its proximity to the bathroom which
influences locating the soiled area and simplifying its sterilization.
Table 12A,B Factor analysis for laundry indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered in
research.
Factors
0.0%
50.0%
70.0%
0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
There is no
separate
laundry space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
bathroom
(relationship)
There is no
separate
laundry space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow space
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
bathroom
(relationship)
2+1 With laundry 3+1 With Laundry
Before During After
Rotated Component Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3
La.1.1
-
0.883
La.1.2
0.847
La.1.3
0.954
La.1.4
0.983
La.2.1
-
0.883
La.2.2
0.862
La.2.3
0.943
La.2.4
0.983
La.3.1
-
0.873
La.3.2 0.853
La.3.3
0.954
La.3.4
0.983
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
a. Rotation conver
g
ed in 5 iterations.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

48
La.1.1 There is no se
p
arate laundr
y
s
p
ace
La.1.2 Limited s
p
ace for wardrobe & cabinet
(
area
)
La.1.3 Narrow s
p
ace
(p
ro
p
ortion
)
La.1.4 Indirect connection to the bathroom
(
relationshi
p)
3.3.11. Storage
Storage means a separate storage room (not only a cabinet). The storage is not widely spread
room in nowadays housing projects despite its being mentioned in standards. To better understand
residents’ responses regarding this activity and precisely separately defined space.
Figure 90 shows how high is the residents’ dissatisfaction when all values are above 78.2 % for
pre pandemic period increased to extreme value of 92.8% as highest score in spaces in current study
in periods of during and after pandemic.
Figure 90. Dissatisfaction variations for storage through three stages of pandemic.
Finding out main reasons for dissatisfaction due to absence of specific space within current
apartments affecting dissatisfaction of residents about storage activity, observing Figure 91, clearly
shows that majority of dissatisfaction responses had focused on absence of activity as a constant issue
fixed by 75% of residents, following that is proportion and area for apartment cases that contain
storage.
Figure 91. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding storage activity .
When analyzing dissatisfaction regarding storage by separation of responses of residents who
had storage in their apartments than those who don’t have as indicated in Figure 92. It is clear that
95.6% had claimed dissatisfaction especially during and after pandemic stages. On the other side
those who don’t have reported very high dissatisfaction of activity despite having that during the
last two stages of pandemic in this study reaching 84.5%.
78.2%
92.8% 92.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Before During After
Before During After
75.0%
11.2% 10.7%
2.2%
75.0%
17.5% 16.2%
2.2%
75.0%
15.0% 16.2%
2.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
There is no separate
storage space
Limited space for
wardrobe & cabinet
(area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect connection to
entrance (relationship)
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

49
Figure 92. Dissatisfaction variations due to availability or absence of storage space.
To investigate results when combining the effect of apartments’ categories to availability of
storage space Figures 91 and 92 can clarify the situation. Percentages are very high for cases who
don’t contain specific storage space as in Figure 93.
Figure 93. Dissatisfaction percentages of both categories 2+1 and 3+1 of apartments without specific
storage space.
Comparing before percentages of dissatisfaction to cases who already contain a kind of storage
space, results in Figure 94 indicates lower numbers however the decline in stages of during and post
pandemic is not that much meaning defects in both categories even when space is available.
The difference was significant during pre-pandemic leading to a conclusion of increased
importance of this space to be accommodated in apartments.
Figure 94. Dissatisfaction percentages of both categories of apartments having specific storage
space.
87.3% 95.6% 95.6%
51.0%
84.5% 84.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Before During After
Without storage With storage
89.3%
100.0% 100.0%
83.3% 86.7% 86.7%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Before During After
2+1 Without storage 3+1 Without storage
38.1%
92.9% 92.9%
59.5%
79.0% 79.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Before During After
Axis Title
2+1 With storage 3+1 With storage
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

50
Figure 95. Reasons for dissatisfactions variations regarding both apartments’ categories 2+1 and 3+1
with the absence of specific storage space.
The whole residents of apartments who don’t have specific storage space have complained about
absence of space as seen in Figure 95, meaning no concern about availability of storage activity in
form of cabinets or any other type except specific room for activity.
Figure 96. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding both apartments’ categories 2+1 and 3+1
with the availability of specific storage space.
Cases where the space was available in other apartments, both categories 2+1 and 3+1 had
nominated area and proportion as main reasons for their residents’ dissatisfaction, still variations
between the two categories are very high the differences reached 50% between both categories with
highest scores observed within residents of category 2+1 as seen in Figure 96.
The factors that came first in the factor analysis were proportion, the existence of separate
storage, and the area; the link between the storage and the entry was the least key component.
The strongest factors during the three periods presented in Table 13A,B were those related to
the lack of separate storage space and the storage relationship to the entrance; the area was the
strongest during the pandemic, and the proportion factor was the strongest factor both during and
after the pandemic.
Those findings demonstrate that the existence of a storage space and how it relates to the
entrance and proportion are factors that are best taken into account. When designing the storage
spaces for upcoming apartment buildings.
As displayed in the following tables The reason might be that the storage needs to be near the
entrance so that materials from outside the apartment can enter and stay inside while keeping the
apartment clean, saving them from having to go through the apartment to get to the storage.
100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
There is no
separate
storage space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
entrance
(relationship)
There is no
separate
storage space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
entrance
(relationship)
2+1 Without storage 3+1 Without storage
Before During After
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
83.3%
0.0% 0.0%
50.0% 52.2%
14.4%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
There is no
separate
storage space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
entrance
(relationship)
There is no
separate
storage space
Limited space
for wardrobe
& cabinet
(area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect
connection to
entrance
(relationship)
2+1 With storage 3+1 With storage
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

51
Table 13A,B. Factor analysis for storage space indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered
in research.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2
St.1.1 -0.905
St.1.2 0.661
St.1.3 0.703
St.1.4 0.983
St.2.1 -0.905
St.2.2 0.863
St.2.3 0.909
St.2.4 0.983
St.3.1 -0.905
St.3.2 0.786
St.3.3 0.909
St.3.4 0.983
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Factors
St.1.1 There is no separate storage space
St.1.2 Limited space for wardrobe & cabinet (area)
St.1.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
St.1.4 Indirect connection to entrance (relationship)
3.3.12. Balcony
The balcony is the area that immediately connects the interior space to the outside environment.
one of important balconies in apartments is the living balcony that links the living room with the
outside world. So is the kitchen balcony and the bedroom balcony that serves as internal space
connection and extension to outside world.
Studying the effect of pandemic on those spaces can be found in Figure 97 the clear shock of
sudden increase from 31.8% in pre-pandemic stage to during pandemic with 64.7% is almost more
than doubled.
Figure 97. Dissatisfaction variations for balconies through three stages of pandemic.
To differentiate responses of residents who are living in apartments having a balcony or more
than those who don’t have , Figure 98 shows differences in dissatisfaction. The stage of before
31.8%
64.7% 61.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

52
pandemic dissatisfaction of residents who didn’t have balconies is about three times those who had
balconies, clear increase is registered due to pandemic in both types during and after pandemic.
Figure 98. Dissatisfaction percentages of both types of apartments for availability or absence of
balconies through three stages of study concern.
Finding reasons for residents whose apartments have balconies as presented in Figure 99, had
fixed the proportion of balcony to be the first ranked reason for dissatisfaction with increased trend
from 41.4% before pandemic to 57.7 % after pandemic, followed by area concern with same trend
between 32.3% and 41.2% for post pandemic stage.
A new reason appeared here is the number of separated balconies 27.9 % were dissatisfied due
to small number of balconies before pandemic also increased to reach 35.8 % after pandemic. All
before indicators points to necessity of availability of more than just one balcony in apartment
designs.
Figure 99. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations for all apartments with the availability of balconies.
Indicators of dissatisfaction differences in between two categories of apartments 2+1 and 3+1
which both have balconies is seen in Figure 100 supports previous findings that 2+1 category
residents showed higher dissatisfaction levels than 3+1 category residents during and after pandemic.
The thing that differs is that 2+1 didn’t show higher dissatisfaction in pre-pandemic stage as was the
case for internal spaces.
80.0%
100.0% 100.0%
26.5%
60.7% 56.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Before During After
Axis Title
Without balcony With balcony
32.3%
41.4%
6.1% 8.0%
27.9%
41.2%
53.4%
10.7% 9.8%
34.7%
41.2%
57.7%
8.1% 10.9%
35.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Limited space,
difficult to walk or
sit (area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect connection
to living room
(relationship)
Indirect connection
to kitchen
(relationship)
Few balconies
(number)
With balcony
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

53
Figure 100. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding both apartments’ categories 2+1 and 3+1
with the availability of balconies.
For finding reasons for their dissatisfaction despite availability of balconies in categories 2+1 and
3+1 Figures 101 and 102 can explain that. Concerned with category 2+1 apartments ‘residents named
the proportion then number of balconies followed by effect of limited space as main reasons for their
response most of indicators were moderate with numbers moving between about 28% up to 43%.
Figure 101. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding all apartments with the availability of
balconies of category 2+1.
For residents of apartments of category 3+1 same three reasons were claimed for dissatisfaction
except replacing the second with the third, but numbers were significantly higher than those in 2+1
category moving from about 27% up to more than 75% showing higher sensitivity by those occupants
as shown in the following Figure 102.
Figure 102. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding all apartments with the availability of
balconies of category 3+1.
22.0%
65.3% 60.1%
32.1%
55.1% 52.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
2+1 With balcony 3+1 With balcony
15.2%
28.5%
9.0% 13.3%
28.9%
29.5%
36.8%
17.3% 16.7%
32.2%
29.5%
43.5%
10.7%
16.7%
32.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Limited space,
difficult to walk or sit
(area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect connection
to living room
(relationship)
Indirect connection
to kitchen
(relationship)
Few balconies
(number)
2+1 With balcony
Before During After
53.8% 57.5%
2.5% 1.3%
26.7%
55.8%
74.2%
1.3% 1.3%
37.7%
55.8%
75.4%
5.0% 3.8%
40.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space,
difficult to walk or
sit (area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Indirect connection
to living room
(relationship)
Indirect connection
to kitchen
(relationship)
Few balconies
(number)
3+1 With balcony
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

54
One of most interesting criteria for residents’ evaluation for their dissatisfaction regarding
balconies beyond the case of availability of balcony space is the number of balconies available
according to apartments ’designs, Figure 103 indicates decreased dissatisfaction level with the
increase of balconies on normal continuous trend form single to double to continuous.
Another interesting indicator for residents needs numbers lowered for same stages by almost
half, the stage of pre-pandemic didn’t imply any dissatisfaction sign within apartments having
continuous balconies. Another finding is the ratio of increase between pre and during pandemic the
ratio is also higher in single balcony apartments.
Figure 103. Dissatisfaction variations regarding all apartments with different numbers of balconies
zero cases were excluded .
Considering typology of balconies regarding interior space annex to them Figure 104 presents
maximum complaints were through the three stages for kitchen balcony followed by bedroom then
living rooms. Almost net score of the increase of dissatisfaction from pre to during pandemic was
about 32%.
Figure 104. Dissatisfaction variations regarding different balconies types related to internal spaces.
Reasons of residents’ dissatisfaction for various types of balconies related to spaces confirm the
sequence of reasons as noticed in Figure 105, 106 and 107 for living rooms’ balconies, for bedrooms’
and for kitchens’ balconies sequentially.
37.4%
23.4%
0.0%
83.4%
42.9%
28.6%
76.0%
40.0% 33.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
With one balcony With two balcony With continuous balcony
Axis Title
Before During After
11.7%
30.0%
42.6%
43.5%
64.2%
73.9%
37.4%
64.0%
71.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Livingroom balcony Bedroom balcony Kitchen balcony
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

55
Figure 105. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding living room balconies.
During the pandemic, the highest rank dissatisfaction was due to shortage in numbers for all
cases who had balconies followed by proportion then area of balcony. For type of balcony bedrooms’
balconies got highest dissatisfaction grade followed by kitchens then living rooms in all stages
regarding pandemic. The reason for less dissatisfaction with the living rooms’ balconies might be the
extra care given in designing those spaces.
Figure 106. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding bedroom room balconies.
Figure 107. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations regarding bedroom room balconies.
The factors are arranged in strength order, as revealed by the factor analysis in Table 14A,B : the
lack of a balcony, the few balconies, the area, the relationship to the kitchen, proportion, and finally
the relationship to living as the weakest factor.
17.7%
30.7%
19.4%
32.0%
45.7%
19.4%
32.0%
52.3%
19.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Limited space, difficult to walk
or sit (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Few balconies (number)
Before During After
40.3%
54.5%
31.5%
44.8%
66.4%
38.9%
44.8%
71.5%
38.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space, difficult to
walk or sit (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Few balconies (number)
Before During After
36.0%
44.0%
22.3%
42.3%
69.0%
26.3%
42.3%
70.2%
30.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space, difficult to walk
or sit (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Few balconies (number)
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

56
Table 14A,B. Factor analysis for balconies for high factor loadings for reasons in research.
Rotated Com
p
onent Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3 4 5 6
Bal.1.1 0.988
Bal.1.2 0.899
Bal.1.3 0.910
Bal.1.4 0.820
Bal.1.5 0.930
Bal.1.6 0.925
Bal.2.1 0.988
Bal.2.2 0.978
Bal.2.3 0.962
Bal.2.4 0.883
Bal.2.5 0.954
Bal.2.6 0.960
Bal.3.1 0.988
Bal.3.2 0.978
Bal.3.3 0.927
Bal.3.4 0.841
Bal.3.5 0.934
Bal.3.6 0.952
Extraction Method: Princi
p
al Com
p
onent Anal
y
sis.
a. Rotation conver
g
ed in 5 iterations.
Factors
Bal.1.1 There is no balcon
y
Bal.1.2 Limited s
p
ace, difficult to walk or sit
(
area
)
Bal.1.3 Narrow sha
p
e
(p
ro
p
ortion
)
Bal.1.4 Indirect connection to the livin
g
room
(
relationshi
p)
Bal.1.5 Indirect connection to kitchen
(
relationshi
p)
Bal.1.6 Few balconies
(
number
)
It is seen that the absence of a balcony is the greatest influence throughout the three periods,
while other factors were most powerful during the pandemic, except for space, which was the most
powerful during and after the pandemic.
This shows that the presence of the balcony and the area of the balcony are important factors
that must be taken into consideration when designing balconies in future apartments. The balcony’s
presence is crucial for apartments as it provides the only means of connecting the interior and
exterior. Additionally, residents value the balcony area because small spaces do not allow for the
furniture of a table and chairs, as displayed in the following tables.
3.3.13. Apartment Corridor
The apartment corridor means the corridor inside the apartment to be differentiated from in
between apartment floor corridor. With support of Figure ,108 The pandemic effect had raised the
respondent’s dissatisfaction to more than the double during pandemic, then a slight decrease
happened in post pandemic stage.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

57
Figure 108. Dissatisfaction variations for apartments’ corridors due to pandemic.
Main reason for the dissatisfaction is the narrow space of apartments’ corridors even before the
pandemic as more than 50% of residents reported that as shown in Figure 109. The second and third
factors are the limited space for needed requirements other than just movement in the corridor
precisely are the no capacity for storage and the excessive number of doors that causes confusion in
use.
Figure 109. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations for apartments’ corridors through the three stages
of pandemic.
Classifying apartments by the study to the two mentioned categories can generate better
understanding and exact conclusions as shown in Figure 110 where apartments residents of category
2+1 had showed higher levels of dissatisfaction, that might be due to limited spaces sizes and lower
living conditions. After pandemic results showed an over moderate rate of dissatisfaction
questioning the layout and design of apartment corridors.
Figure 110. Dissatisfaction variations for corridors between categories 2+1 and 3+1 .
27.8%
58.2%
51.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Before During After
37.3%
56.7%
26.5%
41.4%
73.8%
36.0%
41.4%
67.0%
28.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Too many doors on the corridor
(number)
Before During After
35.0%
65.6%
55.1%
16.9%
47.2% 47.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Before During After
2+1 3+1
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

58
Checking reasons of dissatisfaction for each of two categories aided by Figure 111, indicates that
the proportion of the apartment corridor is the highest effective reason followed by the area for extra
needs then disposition of door openings on corridor. Reasons’ percentage of category 2+1 were
slightly higher than 3+1 category in pre pandemic stage, altered in post pandemic stage. But even
more residents of category 2+1 apartments were dissatisfied but while reasoning residents of 3+1
equalized them.
Figure 111. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations for apartments’ corridors through the three stages
of pandemic for categories 2+1 and 3+1.
When analyzing dissatisfaction generation due to type of spatial organization of spaces it seems
through observing Figure 112 that in closed organization apartments design, residents had higher
levels in pre and post pandemic stages with about 9%.
On contrary of during p andemic when opened organization resident s’ dissatisfaction values ha d
exceeded those of closed organization mainly be due pandemic safety requirements and obligations
of minimizing contacts.
Figure 112. Dissatisfaction variations for corridors between closed and opened spatial organizations.
Causes of different results of dissatisfaction due to different spatial organization is presented in
Figure 113, results support findings of Figure 112 as during pandemic opened spatial organization
apartment residents showed higher dissatisfaction levels during pandemic while closed ones showed
higher levels after pandemic.
The proportion in both organizations dominated other two results especially in closed
organization same case of 3+1 category reasons shown in Figure 111 mentioned before. The other
interesting finding is the lower value of doors effects on corridor dissatisfaction level in closed
39.1%
54.5%
30.1% 34.5%
60.0%
21.0%
41.1%
71.2%
37.7%
41.8%
77.7%
33.5%
41.1%
62.0%
25.7%
41.8%
74.6%
33.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Limited space
for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Too many doors
on the corridor
(number)
Limited space
for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Too many doors
on the corridor
(number)
2+1 3+1
Before During After
31.6%
52.8% 55.6%
22.1%
66.3%
46.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Before During After
Axis Title
Closed spatial organization Opened spatial organization
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

59
organization plan than opened ones might be adaptation other than logic when doors had less impact
on movement in corridors with open plan.
Figure 113. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations about apartments’ corridors through the three stages
of pandemic for closed and opened spatial organizations .
Applying factor analysis process to evaluate results observing Tables 15A,B. The area had been
appointed to be the greatest component in the factor analysis, followed by the effect of the number
of doors in the corridor in second place and proportion in third place.
Comparing the factors throughout the three periods reveals that except for the area, which was
the strongest both during and after the pandemic, the three factors were at their highest during the
period of the pandemic. This demonstrates how crucial it is to account for the corridor area when
designing future apartments. This is because the area is important since vast spaces can be used for
storage cabinets.
Table 15A,B Factor analysis for apartments corridors indicating high factor loadings for reasons
considered in research.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Com
p
onent
1 2 3
A
p
.Co.1.1 0.910
A
p
.Co.1.2 0.815
A
p
.Co.1.3 0.914
A
p
.Co.2.1 0.979
A
p
.Co.2.2 0.955
A
p
.Co.2.3 0.948
A
p
.Co.3.1 0.979
A
p
.Co.3.2 0.928
A
p
.Co.3.3 0.910
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Factors
A
p
.Co.1.1 Limited s
p
ace for wardrobe & cabinet (area)
A
p
.Co.1.2 Narrow sha
p
e (
p
ro
p
ortion)
A
p
.Co.1.3 Too man
y
doors on the corridor (number)
36.3%
63.9%
15.7%
38.7%
45.8% 42.7%
43.2%
76.5%
20.4%
38.7%
69.6%
59.4%
43.2%
74.4%
20.4%
38.7%
55.9%
41.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Limited space for
wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Too many doors
on the corridor
(number)
Limited space for
wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape
(proportion)
Too many doors
on the corridor
(number)
Closed spatial organization Opened spatial organization
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

60
3.3.14. Apartment Layout
The apartment layout had been categorized according to literature into the following four types
widely available in Erbil City projects;
A) corridor system that arranges rooms in the apartment sequentially on one or both sides of
an axis.
B) The circular path, here the floor plan is a circular path that establishes experiential and
practical spatial and functional linkages between various rooms, ensuring multiple ways to access
every area and room in the residence.
C) The continuous floor design minimizes room boundaries to a small number of carefully
placed walls that create distinct zones and make the space dynamic.
D) type is the zoning type which categorizes the common living area (dining, kitchen, living
room) and bedroom area (individual rooms, bathroom) differently, ensuring a clear division of
functional zones within an apartment.
Finding general satisfaction trend through the three stages of the pandemic is presented in
Figure 114 where a sudden increase in residents’ dissatisfaction is observed between pre pandemic
and during pandemic stages the value had ben tripled, after pandemic showed slight decrease almost
not significant means increased awareness about this important item.
When comparing both categories of apartments 2+1 and 3+1 adding sub-categories of 2+2 and
3+2 with support of Figure 115, again category 2+1 had more dissatisfaction reported by residents
than category 3+1.
The new interesting result is concerned with subcategories both of them had extra living space
in comparison with original reference that increase had clearly lowered dissatisfaction levels for 2+2
and 3+2 respectively.
Figure 114. Dissatisfaction variations for apartments’ layout due to pandemic.
Figure 115. Dissatisfaction variations for apartments’ layouts s through the three stages of pandemic
for categories 2+1 and 3+1 and subcategories 2+2 and 3+2.
16.7%
57.0% 56.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Before During After
Before During After
20.7% 21.5%
12.0%
0.0%
66.0%
28.6%
58.0%
16.7%
67.7%
42.9%
53.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
2+1 2+2 3+1 3+2
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

61
To find out spatial organization of spaces effects on form residents’ dissatisfaction Figure 116
shows the great superiority of opened spatial organization in dissatisfaction ratios in stages of during
and post pandemic this mainly due to non-welcomed social contact during the pandemic continued
fear after the pandemic keeping values very high.
Figure 116. Dissatisfaction variations for corridors between closed and opened spatial organizations.
To differentiate spatial organization reasoning the reasons addressed by closed spatial
organization apartments are illustrated in Figure 117 the area inflexible to exploit rooms for different
activities topped the reasons with 63.4% followed proportion and lack of balconies linking inside
with outside spaces all reasons had suffered clear increase during the pandemic, keeping records for
post pandemic stage with slight differences.
Figure 117. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations about apartments’ layout of closed organization.
Reasons of opened spatial organization are more concentrated than those of closed organization
the main reason is for number of balconies followed by inability to exploit rooms as shown in Figure
118, the reasons here had the opposite rank compared to reasons of closed organization despite
higher magnitude.
8.1%
47.7% 44.3%
29.5%
70.9% 75.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Before During After
Closed spatial organization Opened spatial organization
7.9%
46.5%
10.0%
21.8%
35.3%
13.1%
16.3%
63.4%
24.2%
37.1% 38.6%
13.1%
19.7%
63.2%
26.7%
31.5% 33.1%
13.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Difficulties in
sterilization
process shortage
in space in
entrance.
(Relationship)
Inability to
exploit rooms for
multiple activities
. (Area-flexible)
Inability to shrink
spaces and
create new ones.
(Flexible)
Narrow rooms
non expandable
into functional-
use areas.
(Proportion)
Lack of balconies
link interior with
exterior.
(Number)
Limited private
spaces (Area-
type)
Closed spatial org.
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

62
Figure 118. Reasons for dissatisfaction variations about apartments’ layout of opened spatial
organization .
Through factor analysis referring to figures 16A and 16B results shows that the existence of a
balcony had formed the most important element, area-flexibility was the second-best, area-type,
entrance space, and proportion were the third- and fourth-best factors, respectively, while the
weakest factor was flexibility.
Comparing the analytical factors for the three periods, the strongest factor before the pandemic
was the entrance space while the number and proportion of balconies were the strongest factors
during the pandemic; after the pandemic, the biggest factors were the area-flexible, flexible, and area-
type.
These findings demonstrate the importance of having rooms for multiple uses, spaces that can
be resized to create new ones, and private areas. As a result, these three factors must be considered
when designing the layout of the apartment in the future. as demonstrated by the tables below.
Table 16A,B. Factor analysis for balconies indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered in
research.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
p
.La.1.1 0.874
A
p
.La.1.2 0.835
A
p
.La.1.3 0.515 0.586
A
p
.La.1.4 0.544
A
p
.La.1.5 0.872
A
p
.La.1.6 0.890
A
p
.La.2.1 0.829
A
p
.La.2.2 0.918
A
p
.La.2.3 0.893
A
p
.La.2.4 0.929
A
p
.La.2.5 0.920
A
p
.La.2.6 0.850
A
p
.La.3.1 0.719
A
p
.La.3.2 0.939
5.4%
40.1%
16.8%
5.4%
59.2%
31.9%
13.2%
45.7%
22.1%
29.0%
60.2%
0.0%
10.7%
51.1%
18.1%
28.8%
74.8%
21.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Difficulties in
sterilization
process shortage
in space in
entrance.
(Relationship)
Inability to
exploit rooms for
multiple activities
. (Area-flexible)
Inability to shrink
spaces and create
new ones.
(Flexible)
Narrow rooms
non expandable
into functional-
use areas.
(Proportion)
Lack of balconies
link interior with
exterior.
(Number)
Limited private
spaces (Area-
type)
Opened spatial org.
Before During After
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

63
A
p
.La.3.3 0.929
A
p
.La.3.4 0.919
A
p
.La.3.5 0.834
A
p
.La.3.6 0.919
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
4. Discussion
Considering the results, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on apartment satisfaction levels
in Erbil City revealed significant insights into the importance of interior space quality. The presence
of an entrance lobby significantly influenced resident satisfaction during and after the pandemic.
Dissatisfaction was markedly higher among those without an entrance lobby, increasing from 32.5%
before the pandemic to 75.0% during it, and slightly reducing to 72.5% afterward. In contrast,
apartments with entrance lobbies experienced increased a little lesser dissatisfaction rate, from 34.4%
before the pandemic to 62.7% during the pandemic. Key reasons for dissatisfaction included the
proportion of the lobby, the area, and the connectivity with an entrance toilet. The analysis also
highlighted differences between apartment types with smaller units (2+1) showing greater
dissatisfaction compared to larger units (3+1), particularly during the pandemic, with dissatisfaction
nearly doubling from pre-pandemic levels and then slightly decreasing post-pandemic. Additionally,
the availability of a toilet within the lobby significantly impacted dissatisfaction levels, showing a
clear increase during the pandemic for apartments without this feature, and a significant impact
related to the distance of the toilet from the entrance. The results go in line with those found by
Fakhimi [18] and Gür [22] who found out adequate design of entrances and availability of hand
washing basins, toilets and dressing rooms close to entrances affects resident satisfaction. These
findings underline the critical role of entrance lobbies in enhancing residential satisfaction, especially
during health crises, and suggest that both the functionality and design of these spaces are crucial in
meeting residents’ expectations and needs.
Living room satisfaction was significantly affected by spatial organization and privacy needs
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dissatisfaction increased notably in living rooms due to limited area
and narrow space, especially in closed spatial organizations. This was intensified by the pandemic’s
restrictions, which heightened the need for privacy and adequate space. These findings go in line
with the findings from Yang et al. [23] who explored satisfaction and residential demand during
COVID-19 pandemic and found out that space and area of living rooms are crucial during situations
like the pandemic and claims that since activities would more likely be transformed into such as
spaces, they have to be designed optimally in relation to space and functions per the residential
demands in the long run. Interestingly, dissatisfaction decreased during the pandemic due to a
reduced need for gathering but increased again post-pandemic as normal activities resumed. Smaller
dwellings (2+1 configurations) experienced higher dissatisfaction levels compared to larger ones (3+1
Factors
Ap.La.1.1 Difficulties in the sterilization process due to insufficient space in the entrance.
Ap.La.1.2 Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work, study, …) due to limited
space and multiple divisions. (Area-flexible)
Ap.La.1.3 Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones. (Flexible)
Ap.La.1.4 Narrow rooms unable to be expanded into functional- use areas. (Proportion)
Ap.La.1.5 Lack of balconies as spaces to link the interior with the exterior. (Exist)
Ap.La.1.6 Limited private spaces (Area-type)
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

64
configurations), suggesting that space limits played a critical role. Furthermore, the availability of a
balcony significantly impacted dissatisfaction levels, with an increase from 6.5% pre-pandemic to
21.4% during and after the pandemic. This suggests that balconies became more valued as extensions
of living space, providing necessary relief and a connection to the outdoors during lockdowns. The
findings are supported by Duarte et al.’s [24] research on home balconies during COVID-19 who
found out balconies to be resident’s primary means of connecting with outdoor spaces during
COVID-19 restrictions and enable the residents to perform various activities there and it significantly
enhance mental and physical well-being. Both closed and open spatial organizations saw different
dissatisfaction impacts related to the availability of balconies, with closed systems benefiting more
post-pandemic. These findings highlight the need for future living room designs to consider factors
such as space proportion, privacy, and the integration of elements like balconies to enhance resident
satisfaction, especially in light of potential future lockdowns and restrictions similar to those of
COVID-19.
The presence of a dedicated reception room impacted resident satisfaction both during and after
the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, dissatisfaction between dwellings with and without reception
rooms increased from 8.3% pre-pandemic to 12.5% during the pandemic. This increase is attributed
to the adaptation of reception areas for study, recreational activities, and isolation due to the lack of
visitors and social distancing measures. Post-pandemic, this dissatisfaction gap narrowed back to
8.2% as traditional uses of reception rooms resumed. The multifunctional use of the space, rather than
visitor frequency, primarily drove dissatisfaction during the pandemic. Residences raised privacy
concerns across all the three stages with dissatisfaction rates reach 66.7% which stemmed primarily
due the mixing of the family living room and guest reception area. The findings call for better
arrangements in designing receptions considering the residential privacy needs.
Family dining spaces which were the main gathering areas for family members before the
pandemic experienced a significant dissatisfaction during and after the pandemic 50.3% and 59.4%
respectively compared the time before the pandemic which was only 33.6%. findings indicate that
residents were primarily dissatisfied with the narrow space of the dining areas and felt difficulty in
passing through them when seated and maxing it with guest dining increased dissatisfaction of the
residents due to privacy concerns. Dissatisfaction was observed with close values in both 2+1 and 3+1
apartment configurations 50.1% and 54.5% respectively during the pandemic while increasing to
61.7% after the pandemic in small apartments suggesting residents changed needs and
reconsideration for more adequate designs considering better spacing and having separate dining
spaces for family members and guests. The results go parallels with the findings from other studies
[25,26] calling for thoughtful design consideration in designing dining spaces considering residential
privacy concerns especially in smaller apartments.
Master bedrooms being the primary resting place of the apartment heads observed significant
dissatisfaction with larger apartment categories observing lesser dissatisfaction compared to the
smaller ones across all stages. The lack of a private bathrooms in the master bedroom served to be
the primary factor behind the high dissatisfaction levels during the pandemic it can be particularly
attributed to the fact that the pandemic increased the need for private spaces. Primary factors leading
the reduced dissatisfaction levels in the master bedroom was found to be the presence of balconies
through which residents were able to get a view of outside and practice several different activities
there. Duarte et al. [24] and Yang et al. [23] both support the fact that the presence of balconies and
bathrooms within master bedrooms are essential criterions affecting the satisfaction of residents.
These findings suggest the critical need for well-designed master bedrooms with adequate space,
privacy, and essential amenities like bathrooms and balconies to enhance resident satisfaction,
particularly in compact living conditions.
Children bedroom due to their multipurpose uses along being resting place also serving as a
study room observed dissatisfaction rates increasing from 29.1% to 36.5%. As the small increase in
the dissatisfaction rate shows smaller increase compared to other spaces in which dissatisfaction rates
were increased more than 25% and increasing more in smaller apartment configuration compared to
larger ones.The main reasons for dissatisfaction were limited space and inadequate room
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

65
proportions, particularly in 3+1 apartments, where space deficits were cited by 53.9%-58.2% of
respondents. Additionally, rectangular room shapes received more negative feedback than square
rooms throughout the pandemic, with dissatisfaction rates for rectangular rooms being substantially
higher post-pandemic. The presence of a balcony in children’s bedrooms significantly improved
satisfaction during and after the pandemic. Open spatial organization resulted in less dissatisfaction
compared to closed layouts, and this trend intensified during and after the pandemic, showing a clear
preference for more open living arrangements in children’s bedrooms. The findings from other
studies [27–29] also highlight the critical role of children bedroom and their effects on residential
satisfaction as these spaces were not only used for sleeping and resting alone during the pandemic,
rather they were used as study and work spaces as well, hence adequate design considering such
unexpected conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic shall be come necessary considerations when
designing such spaces in the future.
Dissatisfaction with kitchen spaces significantly increased during the pandemic, with a 20.7%
rise in dissatisfaction levels, and remained relatively stable afterward with only a minor decrease of
0.6%. This dissatisfaction was primarily due to limited space and narrow proportions of the kitchen,
which worsened during the pandemic due to the increased usage of the kitchen for multiple
purposes, including family gatherings. The lack of a family dining area within the kitchen also
contributed to this dissatisfaction. The study found that smaller apartments (2+1 category) reported
higher dissatisfaction compared to larger ones (3+1 category), likely due to more acute space
constraints in smaller kitchens. Additionally, the presence of balconies in kitchen areas slightly
mitigated dissatisfaction, particularly before the pandemic, but this benefit was less pronounced
during and after the pandemic. Other studies highlight that kitchens during the pandemic were
merely used for cooking purposes only, rather they were used more of like an office and study rooms
[1,29] The findings suggest that improving spatial proportions and providing dedicated areas for
dining within the kitchen could enhance resident satisfaction, particularly in smaller apartments.
Dissatisfaction with family bathrooms, used commonly by all family members, showed a typical
increase during the pandemic, rising by 8.5% from the pre-pandemic stage, then slightly decreasing
post-pandemic. Proportion, area sufficiency, and distance from the entrance were identified as the
main reasons for dissatisfaction, with proportion showing the highest increase during the pandemic.
The presence of an additional master bathroom significantly reduced dissatisfaction, highlighting the
benefits of having more than one bathroom in reducing congestion and enhancing privacy.
Apartments with both a family and a master bathroom reported markedly lower dissatisfaction
levels, emphasizing the importance of multiple bathrooms in larger dwellings (3+1 categories)
compared to those with only one bathroom (2+1 categories). The findings are in parallel with findings
from Elrayies [30] and İslamoğlu [1] who found that bathrooms significantly influenced the
satisfaction of residents as they were used more than often for the hygiene purposes and apartments
having more than one bathroom showed lesser dissatisfaction compared to smaller ones having a
single bathroom. This suggests that adequate bathroom designs are crucial for meeting the needs of
residents, particularly in larger households or during periods requiring increased isolation, such as
a pandemic.
Significant dissatisfaction with toilets was observed, particularly in the pre-pandemic stage,
where dissatisfaction exceeded 54%. This dissatisfaction intensified during the pandemic by an
additional 13.3%. A deeper analysis revealed that 2+1 apartment categories consistently registered
higher dissatisfaction across all stages compared to 3+1 categories, with the disparity growing during
the pandemic. The absence of a separate toilet space markedly increased dissatisfaction levels,
surging from 70.3% pre-pandemic to 83.9% during the pandemic for apartments lacking separate
toilets. In contrast, apartments with separate toilets showed much lower dissatisfaction levels,
increasing from 32.5% to 44.1% from pre- to post-pandemic stages. Apartments in the 2+1 category
were particularly affected, with 75% of residents citing the lack of a separate toilet space as a primary
cause of dissatisfaction, compared to only 12.5% in the 3+1 category, likely due to the latter’s generally
higher availability of two bathrooms. Analysis of toilet dissatisfaction reasons for apartments with
separate facilities showed that limited space, restricted activity options, and proximity to the entrance
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

66
were the main concerns, with dissatisfaction percentages ranging modestly from 11.7% to 23.8%,
except for the relationship to the entrance which noted only 5.3% dissatisfaction. Similar to the studies
concerning bathroom designs Walisinghe [31] reported that main dissatisfaction concern from the
residents during COVID-19 was due to the design and size of toilets, similarly İslamoğlu [1] reported
that the number of toilets affected the satisfaction of the residents and future apartment designs
should consider incorporating more than 1 toilet in the designs. These findings highlight the critical
importance of thoughtful toilet placement and adequate space allocation in residential design to
enhance residential satisfaction.
Dissatisfaction with laundry spaces significantly escalated during the pandemic, rising from
67.1% pre-pandemic to 77.8% during the pandemic. This high level of dissatisfaction persisted post-
pandemic with a slight decrease. The findings from the results indicated that lack of laundry space
in apartments significantly affected the satisfaction rate of the residents and those without a separate
laundry space observed higher dissatisfaction compared to those with laundry space in their
apartments especially smaller apartments which due limited space lacked laundry space in their
apartments. While the satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates are close and main reasons behind
dissatisfaction stemmed from limited laundry space and improper proportion of the space, future
designs should consider dedicating a specific separate space for laundry activities that is both
function and accessible to the residents.
Storage spaced which served many needs of the apartments having it observed a significant
dissatisfaction from the residents of the apartments. Before the pandemic dissatisfaction rates were
lower compared to the time during and after the pandemic. The rates dissatisfaction rate increased
to 92.8% during and after the pandemic from 78.2% before the pandemic. Both residents having
storage space and those not having the space report high dissatisfaction rates with those lacking it
reporting higher dissatisfaction 95.6% compared to those with storage space reporting 84.5%.
Reasons that led to the dissatisfaction of residents having storage space in their apartments can be
attributed to limited space and proportion of the space primarily. The analysis indicated that
dissatisfaction was notably higher in apartments lacking specific storage spaces. Even in apartments
with some form of storage, dissatisfaction persisted due to inadequate space and poor proportions
and it was observed more in smaller apartments (2+1 category), where space constraints were more
acute. The findings of the study are in parallel with findings from other studies [18,19,21–23] which
highlight the significant role of these space in well-being and comfort of the residents in apartment
and residential complexes as the lack sufficient storage area affected the satisfaction level and
prevented residents from storing sanitary equipment, exercise equipment, and other appliances. The
importance of storage space was underscored, especially during the pandemic, highlighting the need
for well-designed storage solutions in future apartment constructions to address these significant
dissatisfaction levels effectively.
The presence of balconies in apartments significantly influenced resident satisfaction,
particularly during the pandemic. Dissatisfaction escalated sharply from 31.8% pre-pandemic to
64.7% during the pandemic, reflecting the heightened importance of balconies as essential extensions
of living space. Residents without balconies experienced dissatisfaction rates three times higher than
those with balconies pre-pandemic, which intensified during and after the pandemic. Proportion,
area, and the number of balconies were identified as primary dissatisfaction factors. Notably,
dissatisfaction concerning balcony proportion and area increased post-pandemic. The findings also
highlighted a particular demand for multiple balconies, with dissatisfaction decreasing substantially
in apartments with more than one balcony. Balcony-related dissatisfaction varied by apartment type,
with 2+1 apartments generally showing higher dissatisfaction levels than 3+1 apartments during the
pandemic, though this trend did not extend to the pre-pandemic stage. Other researches while not
investing in such detail as the presented study does, Aydin et al. [34] highlights the significant role
of balconies during the pandemic and claims that it was recognized as a place for gathering, dancing,
playground for children, and eating activities. Peters and Masoudinejad [35] found that apartments
with balconies were more proffered by residents and larger balconies especially those facing green
areas and natural views were more preferred compared to small and those facing other apartments
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

67
rather than facing beautiful greeneries and natural views. The analysis highlights the critical need for
satisfactory balcony space in apartment design, emphasizing that multiple and well-proportioned
balconies can significantly enhance resident satisfaction by offering vital outdoor access and
additional living space.
Dissatisfaction with apartment corridors more than doubled during the pandemic, with a slight
reduction in the post-pandemic stage. The primary dissatisfaction factors were the narrow space of
corridors and inadequate space for other needs beyond movement, such as storage, as well as the
confusing layout due to an excessive number of doors. The smaller apartment categories (2+1) due to
the small and restricted spaces during the pandemic stage reported higher dissatisfaction compared
to larger apartments which significantly affects the proportion of corridor doors and additional space
needs. Residents from open and closed designs organizations also reported dissatisfactions with
closed designs reporting higher dissatisfactions before the and after the pandemic, and reported
lesser dissatisfaction during the pandemic compared to open spatial design due to safety concerns
that emerged at that time. The findings highlight the need for future designs to reconsider the design
of corridors that serve the functionality and area allocation in unexpected events like the COVID-19
pandemic.
From the results, it was observed that dissatisfaction with the apartment layouts indicated a
sharp increase from the pre-pandemic to during-pandemic stages, and it almost rose three time
higher compared to the time before the pandemic while it slightly decreased in the post-pandemic
stage. Smaller apartments (2+1) showed more dissatisfaction than larger ones (3+1), but additional
living space in subcategories (2+2 and 3+2) reduced dissatisfaction levels. Open spatial organizations
had higher dissatisfaction during and after the pandemic due to non-welcomed social contact,
whereas closed spatial organizations faced inflexibility issues. The presence of balconies was the most
significant factor in reducing dissatisfaction, followed by area flexibility, entrance space, and room
proportion. Previous studies [5,36] have suggested for the presence of partitions or sliding panel
partitions that allow for better individual privacy, wider doorways and corridors to be main the
concerns for residential satisfaction during COVID-19. The present researches findings and those
from the previous studies call for flexible spaces and adequate apartment layout designs in the future
that consider the privacy of individuals.
5. Conclusions
Pandemic had a significant effect on residents housing requirements, most of those effects had
permanent affect others had been moderated after pandemic.
The main logical finding is the clear increased contact between residents and their dwellings due
to quarantine and social distancing obligations that participated in strengthening the resident-house
relationship, leading increased focus despite trends and changes of degree of satisfaction.
Main dissatisfaction trends through the three stages according had showed three paths can be
derived in assistance with Table 17 for average percentages pointed out the following conclusions.
• There are five spaces, the percentage of dissatisfaction increased during the pandemic, and the
percentage were preserved or increased after the pandemic, and this confirms that the
pandemic had a clear and stable impact on these spaces [ Living room, Family dining,
Children’s bedroom, Laundry, and Storage].
• Study found that there are eight spaces [Entrance, Master bedroom, Kitchen, Family bath,
Toilet, Apartment corridor, Balcony, and Apartment layout] in which the percentage of
dissatisfaction decreased during the pandemic compared to the rate after the pandemic, while
maintaining a clear difference in percentage between before and after the pandemic, and this
confirms that the effect of the pandemic is still present.
• On the other hand, the single space [Reception] where the rate of dissatisfaction before the
pandemic was higher than the rate during and after the pandemic, decrease of satisfaction is
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

68
due to less need for that activity due to quarantine not to alterations in space to minimize
dissatisfaction. It is a kind of a shift in residents’ opinions added to non-need for guest
reception room.
• Out of the 14 spaces and activities tested by this study 9 of them showed dissatisfaction value
exceeded 50% of respondents, meaning clear disparity between designs and family needs,
results strongly signaled the problem of missing storage and laundry spaces, followed by
shortages in requirements belonging to kitchen, separate toilet, balcony, family dining,
entrance lobby and apartment corridor with apartment layout configuration.
• Less critical cases were agreement in residents’ dissatisfaction been within the range of less
than 50% down to 30% are living rooms, bathrooms, children’s bedrooms, reception, followed
by master bedrooms.
Table 17. average dissatisfaction percentages for all apartments’ spaces and items considered in
current research.
No. Dissatisfaction
Stages Trend B< [D ≤A] [B < A] & [D
> A]
[B > D,A] &
[D < A]
[B=A] Or
[ B<A]
Change Definition Firm change Real change Slight change Stable or
Negative
Change Typology Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
1
En.Q1.Beforepandemic 34.0%
En.Q1.Duringpandemic 65.2%
En.Q1.Afterpandemic 57.9%
2
Re.Q1.Beforepandemic 52.7%
Re.Q1.Duringpandemic 32.7%
Re.Q1.Afterpandemic 37.3%
3
Li.Q1.Beforepandemic 21.1%
Li.Q1.Duringpandemic 45.5%
Li.Q1.Afterpandemic 47.5%
4
Fd.Q1.Beforepandemic 33.6%
Fd.Q1.Duringpandemic 50.3%
Fd.Q1.Afterpandemic 59.4%
5
Ma.Q1.Beforepandemic 9.5%
Ma.Q1.Duringpandemic 25.7%
Ma.Q1.Afterpandemic 24.8%
6
Ch.Q1.Beforepandemic 29.1%
Ch.Q1.Duringpandemic 36.5%
Ch.Q1.Afterpandemic 36.6%
7
Ki.Q1.Beforepandemic 48.4%
Ki.Q1.Duringpandemic 69.1%
Ki.Q1.Afterpandemic 68.5%
8
Ba.Q1.Beforepandemic 31.8%
Ba.Q1.Duringpandemic 40.3%
Ba.Q1.Afterpandemic 39.9%
9
To.Q1.Beforepandemic 54.7%
To.Q1.Duringpandemic 68.0%
To.Q1.Afterpandemic 66.8%
10
La.Q1.Beforepandemic 67.1%
La.Q1.Duringpandemic 77.8%
La.Q1.Afterpandemic 77.8%
11 St.Q1.Beforepandemic 78.2%
St.Q1.Duringpandemic 92.8%
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

69
St.Q1.Afterpandemic 92.8%
12
Ap.Co.Q1.Beforepandemic 27.8%
Ap.Co.Q1.Duringpandemic 58.2%
Ap.Co.Q1.Afterpandemic 51.9%
13
Bal.Q1.Beforepandemic 31.8%
Bal.Q1.Duringpandemic 64.7%
Bal.Q1.Afterpandemic 61.2%
14
Ap.La.Q1.Beforepandemic 16.7%
Ap.La.Q1.Duringpandemic 57.0%
Ap.La.Q1.Afterpandemic 56.7%
6. Recommendations
Current study strongly recommends amendments on the way plan layouts are designed and
planned, considering importance of specific space requirements ignored during nowadays architects’
engagement in design of apartments and houses. Flexibility issues to be maintained and different
layouts that can serve different family structures with a variety of lifestyles to be considered.
Governmental housing institutes need to consider new requirements to guarantee better
housing living conditions and be more adaptable to changing requirements due to sudden changes
like Pandemics.
Also, it is recommended to expand this study to cover fourth time stage of effect by taking a new
reference point of 5-6 years after pandemic to register dissatisfaction levels changes, the issue that
was out of reach now by limited time available for current study.
The other important issue is to carry parallel researches on single family housing projects with
homogenous typology to comprehend achievements of both typologies, added to current study of
multifamily housing projects, to achieve better housing.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: We, the researchers (Nazik Abdulhamid and Hasan Al-Sanjary), declare that
there is no conflict of interest with any official governmental or non-governmental agencies
regarding the research submitted to this journal.
Appendix A
Survey questionnaire.
General information about the residents
G1/
Age
G2/Gender G3/
Education
G4/
Job
G5/
No. of
Residents
G6/
Marital Status
Male Female H.S. B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D. Others Single Married Married
with
children
and parents
Entrance
En-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your entrance space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

70
En-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your entrance space? [ you can choose
more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space for wardrobe & cabinet
(area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
No direct connection with Toilet [WC]
(relationship)
No direct connection with Toilet
[WC] (relationship)
No direct connection with
Toilet [WC] (relationship)
Reception
Re-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your reception space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your reception space? [ you can choose
more than one if you want ]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
A large area designated to receive guests,
(a waste of space) (area)
A large area designated to
receive guests, (a waste of
space) (area)
A large area designated to
receive guests, (a waste of
space) (area)
Limited space to receive guests (area) Limited space to receive
guests (area)
Limited space to receive
guests (area)
Narrow space, difficult to arrange
furniture (proportion)
Narrow space, difficult to
arrange furniture
(proportion)
Narrow space, difficult to
arrange furniture
(proportion)
Bad relation with entrance (relationship) Bad relation with entrance
(relationship)
Bad relation with entrance
(relationship)
The activity [receiving guests] is mixed
with the family zone [living room]
(privacy)
The activity [receiving
guests] is mixed with the
family zone [living room]
(privacy)
The activity [receiving
guests] is mixed with the
family zone [living room]
(privacy)
Living room
Li-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your living room space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Li-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your living room space? [you can choose
more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

71
Limited space, limited shelves or cabinet
(area)
Limited space, limited
shelves or cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
shelves or cabinet (area)
Limited space for family activities and
entertainment (area)
Limited space for family
activities and
entertainment (area)
Limited space for family
activities and entertainment
(area)
Narrow space, difficult for family
activities and entertainment (proportion)
Narrow space, difficult
for family activities and
entertainment
(proportion)
Narrow space, difficult for
family activities and
entertainment (proportion)
No direct connection with the balcony
(relationship)
No direct connection with
the balcony (relationship)
No direct connection with
the balcony (relationship)
The activity [family gathering] is mixed
with reception (privacy)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed with
reception (privacy)
The activity [family
gathering] is mixed with
reception (privacy)
Family dining room
Fd-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your family dining space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Fd-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your family dining room space? [ you
can choose more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space, limited wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Narrow space, difficult to walk by when
seated (proportion)
Narrow space, difficult to walk
by when seated (proportion)
Narrow space, difficult to walk
by when seated (proportion)
Family dining is mixed with guest dining
(privacy)
Family dining is mixed with
guest dining (privacy)
Family dining is mixed with
guest dining (privacy)
Master bedroom
Ma-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your master bedroom space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ma-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your master bedroom space? [ you can
choose more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space, limited wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

72
The master bedroom does not have an
independent bathroom (relationship)
The master bedroom does
not have an independent
bathroom (relationship)
The master bedroom does
not have an independent
bathroom (relationship)
The activity[sleeping] is mixed with
family gathering zone (privacy)
The activity[sleeping] is
mixed with family
gathering zone (privacy)
The activity[sleeping] is
mixed with family gathering
zone (privacy)
Children
Ch-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your children’s bedroom space? [Very
dissatisfied=1, Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ch-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your children’s bedroom space? [ you
can choose more than one if you want ]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space, limited wardrobe
& cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Limited space, limited
wardrobe & cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
Far from the bathroom
(relationship)
Far from the bathroom
(relationship)
Far from the bathroom
(relationship)
Few bedrooms (number) Few bedrooms (number) Few bedrooms (number)
The activity[sleeping] is mixed
with family gathering zone
(privacy)
The activity[sleeping] is mixed
with family gathering zone
(privacy)
The activity[sleeping] is mixed
with family gathering zone
(privacy)
Kitchen
Ki-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your kitchen space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ki-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your kitchen space? [you can choose
more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space, limited workspace
(area)
Limited space, limited
workspace (area)
Limited space, limited
workspace (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Having only one door (number) Having only one door
(number)
Having only one door (number)
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

73
The activity[cooking] is mixed
with family gatherings
The activity[cooking] is mixed
with family gatherings
The activity[cooking] is mixed
with family gatherings
Bathroom
Ba-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your bathroom space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ba-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your bathroom space? [ you can choose
more than one if you want ]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space (area) Limited space (area) Limited space (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
The family doesn’t have enough
bathrooms (number)
The family doesn’t have
enough bathrooms (number)
The family doesn’t have
enough bathrooms (number)
There is no separate bathroom
from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
There is no separate bathroom
from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
There is no separate bathroom
from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
Toilet [WC]
To-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your toilet space [WC]? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
To-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your toilet space [WC]? [ you can
choose more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space (area) Limited space (area) Limited space (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
Far from the entrance
(relationship)
The whole family shares one
toilet space [WC] (number)
The whole family shares one
toilet space [WC] (number)
The whole family shares one
toilet space [WC] (number)
Laundry
La-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your laundry space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
La-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your laundry space? [ you can choose
more than one if you want]
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

74
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
There is no separate laundry
space
There is no separate laundry
space
There is no separate laundry
space
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
Indirect connection to the
bathroom (relationship)
Indirect connection to the
bathroom (relationship)
Indirect connection to the
bathroom (relationship)
Storage
St-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your storage space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
St-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your storage space? [ you can choose
more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
There is no separate storage space There is no separate storage
space
There is no separate storage
space
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion)
Indirect connection to entrance
(relationship)
Indirect connection to entrance
(relationship)
Indirect connection to entrance
(relationship)
Apartment corridor
Ap-Co-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your apartment corridor space? [Very
dissatisfied=1, Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ap-Co-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your apartment corridor space? [
you can choose more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Limited space for wardrobe &
cabinet (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion)
Too many doors on the corridor
(number)
Too many doors on the corridor
(number)
Too many doors on the corridor
(number)
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

75
Balcony
Bal-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your balcony space? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Bal-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your balcony space? [ you can choose
more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
There is no balcony There is no balcony There is no balcony
Limited space, difficult to walk or
sit (area)
Limited space, difficult to walk
or sit (area)
Limited space, difficult to walk
or sit (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion)
Indirect connection to the living
room (relationship)
Indirect connection to the living
room (relationship)
Indirect connection to the living
room (relationship)
Indirect connection to kitchen
(relationship)
Indirect connection to kitchen
(relationship)
Indirect connection to kitchen
(relationship)
Few balconies (number) Few balconies (number) Few balconies (number)
Apartment
layout
Ap-La-Q1/ To what extent are you dissatisfied with the functional performance of your apartment layout? [Very dissatisfied=1,
Dissatisfied=2, Neutral=3, Satisfied=4, Very satisfied=5]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Ap-La-Q2/ What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the functional performance of your apartment layout? [ you can
choose more than one if you want]
Before pandemic During pandemic After pandemic
Difficulties in the sterilization
process due to insufficient space in
the entrance. (Relationship)
Difficulties in the sterilization
process due to insufficient space
in the entrance. (Relationship)
Difficulties in the sterilization
process due to insufficient
space in the entrance.
(Relationship)
Inability to exploit rooms for
multiple activities (sleep, work,
study, drawing, and play…) due
to limited space and multiple
divisions. (Area-flexible)
Inability to exploit rooms for
multiple activities (sleep, work,
study, drawing, and play…)
due to limited space and
multiple divisions. (Area-
flexible)
Inability to exploit rooms for
multiple activities (sleep, work,
study, drawing, and play…)
due to limited space and
multiple divisions. (Area-
flexible)
Inability to shrink spaces and
create new ones. (Flexible)
Inability to shrink spaces and
create new ones. (Flexible)
Inability to shrink spaces and
create new ones. (Flexible)
Narrow rooms unable to be
expanded into functional- use
areas. (Proportion)
Narrow rooms unable to be
expanded into functional- use
areas. (Proportion)
Narrow rooms unable to be
expanded into functional- use
areas. (Proportion)
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

76
Lack of balconies as spaces to link
the interior with the exterior.
(Number)
Lack of balconies as spaces to
link the interior with the
exterior. (Number)
Lack of balconies as spaces to
link the interior with the
exterior. (Number)
Limited private spaces (Area-
type)
Limited private spaces (Area-
type)
Limited private spaces (Area-
type)
Appendix B
Apartment plans and layouts.
Table
Empire Wings [2+1] Zanyary-B [2+1] Cihan-Qaradagh [2+1]
Cihan-Pirmam [2+1] Eskan Tower [2+1] Quattro [2+1]
FM-Plus Life [2+1] Plus Life C [2+1] Plus Life- D [2+1]
Parkview-D [2+1] Parkview-C [2+2] Cihan-korak [2+2]
Ma.Cl.
Ki.
Li.
G.di.
En.
G.To.
Ma.
Ma.Ba.
Ch.
Ba.
Bal.
Bal.
Ch.
En.
Li.
F.di.
Ki.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
Bal.
F.ba.
En.
Li.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
Bal.
F.ba.
Ki.
F.di.
En.
St.
F.To.
F.ba.
M.B.R. M.ba.
Ch.B.R.1
Ki.
F.di.
Li. G.di.
En.
Li. Ki.
F.ba.
M.B.R.
Ch.B.R.1
Bal.
Bal.
Ki.
F.di.
Li.
En.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
M.ba.
F.ba.
En.
Ki.
F.di.
Ch.B.R.1
Li.
G.di.
M.B.R.
Bal. F.ba.
M.ba.
Co.
En.
Co.
Ki.
F.di.
Li.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R. M.ba.
F.ba.
Bal.
shaft
Ki.
Li.
F.di.
En.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
M.ba.
F.ba.
La.
Co.
G.di.
Li.
En.
Ki.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
M.ba. F.ba.
Co.
Bal.
Re.
G.di. Ki.
F.di.
Li. Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
M.ba.
M.Cl.
En.
Co.
G.To.
F.ba.
Bal.
Bal.
Ki.
G.di.
Li.
Re.
Bal.
Ch.B.R.1
M.B.R.
M.ba.
Cl.
La.
F.ba.
St.
En.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

77
Parkview-B [3+2] Empire Royal [ 3+1] Zanyary-C [3+1]
Cihan-Arr. Kor. Gar.
[3+1]
MRF2-4-5[3+1] Roya-D [3+1]
Roya-A-C [3+1] Plus Life- A [3+1]
References
1. Ö. İslamoğlu, “Determining Female Housing Users Housing Needs and Satisfaction Levels During the
Pandemic,” Iconarp International J. of Architecture and Planning, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.15320/iconarp.2022.210.
2. G. Ateek, “Future of Sustainable Architecture: Rethinking COVID-19 a Pandemic or turning point?”, doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.33693.74722.
3. A. S. Abd Elrahman, “The fifth-place metamorphosis: the impact of the outbreak of COVID-19 on
typologies of places in post-pandemic Cairo,” Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 113–130, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1108/ARCH-05-2020-0095.
4. M. Cramer and M. Zaveri, “Working from Home Has Benefits Some Don’t Want to Lose,” The New York
Times. Retrieved from www. nytimes. com/2020/05/05/business/pandemic-work-from-home-coronavirus.
html, 2020.
5. F. Hizra, C. Dewi, and Izziah, “Houses amid COVID-19: Environmental challenges and design adaptation,”
in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing Ltd, Nov. 2021. doi: 10.1088/1755-
1315/881/1/012033.
6. “The Effect of Housing Conditions on Social Distancing During A Pandemic in Selected Urban Slums in
North Central Nigeria,” Civil and Environmental Research, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.7176/cer/12-7-04.
7. S. Šiljeg, I. Marić, and B. Cavrić, “Theories of housing quality satisfaction: an overview,” Geoadria, vol. 23,
no. 1, pp. 51–84, 2018.
8. M. A. Mohit, M. Ibrahim, and Y. R. Rashid, “Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public
low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,” Habitat Int, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 18–27, 2010.
Re.
G.di.
Ki.
F.di.
Li.
Ch.B.R.1
Ch.B.R.2
M.B.R.
M.ba.
F.ba.
Maid.B.R. Maid.Ba.
En.
Co.
F.To.
Bal.
Bal.
En.
Ki.
Fa.di.
Gu.di.
Li.
M.B.R.
Ch.B.R.1
M.ba.
Fa.ba.
Bal.
Ch.B.R.2
La.
Fa.To.
Bal.
Co.
Li.
G.di.
Ki.
F.di.
M.B.R.
M.ba.
Bal.
Ch.B.R.2
Ch.B.R.1
F.ba.
En.
Bal.
Co.
G.To.
En.
Ki.
F.di.
G.di.
Li.
Co.
F.ba.
St.
Ch.B.R.1
Ch.B.R.2
M.B.R.
M.Cl. M.ba. G.To.
Bal.
Bal. Li.
Gu.di.
Ki.
Fa.di
Ch.B.R.1
Ch.B.R.2
M.B.R.
M.Cl.
M.ba. Fa.ba.
En.
La.
St
Gu.To.
M.B.R.
M.ba.
Ch.B.R.1
Ch.B.R.2
Ki.
F.di.
Li.
G.di.
En.
F.To.
F.ba.
Co.
Bal.
F.ba
G.di.
Li.
En.
Ki.
F.di.
Ch.B.R.1
Ch.B.R.2
M.B.R.
M.Cl. M.ba. F.To.
Bal.
Ki.
F.di.
En.
Li.
Ch.B.R.1
Ch.B.R.2
M.B.R.
M.ba.
F.ba. La.
Bal.
Co.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

78
9. B.-C. Liu, “Quality of life: Concept, measure and results,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1975.
10. I. Brkanić, “HOUSING QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA,” Elektronički časopis građevinskog fakulteta
Osijek, pp. 37–47, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.13167/2017.14.5.
11. N. N. Wimalasena, A. Chang-Richards, K. I. K. Wang, and K. Dirks, “HOUSING QUALITY INDICATORS:
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW,” in World Construction Symposium, Ceylon Institute of Builders, 2022, pp. 531–
544. doi: 10.31705/WCS.2022.43.
12. R. M. Hajjar, “EXPLORING A NEW HOUSING DESIGN PARADIGM FOR POST PANDEMIC MULTI-
STORY BUILDINGS IN LEBANON,” Architecture and Planning Journal (APJ), vol. 27, no. 1, Mar. 2021, doi:
10.54729/2789-8547.1145.
13. J. Hijazi and D. Attiah, “Saudi residences’ adaptability: How employees worked from home during covid-
19 lockdowns,” Civil Engineering and Architecture, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 915–931, May 2021, doi:
10.13189/CEA.2021.090334.
14. A. Moreira and H. Farias, “The Post-COVID Home. How Confinement Altered Domestic Space Use and
Living Modes, in Lisbon,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 5, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/buildings13051195.
15. M. Itma and S. Monna, “Responsiveness and Adaptability of Housing Spatial Design to New Emerging
Functions: The Case of COVID-19 Pandemic,” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning,
vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 2173–2181, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.170717.
16. D. H. R. Spennemann, “Designing for COVID-2x: reflecting on future-proofing human habitation for the
inevitable next pandemic,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 976, 2022.
17. T. Peters and A. Halleran, “How our homes impact our health: using a COVID-19 informed approach to
examine urban apartment housing,” Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 15, no.
1, pp. 10–27, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1108/ARCH-08-2020-0159.
18. M. M. Fakhimi, “Review of living space design principles and standards during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and the Necessity of redefining them in the Post-Covid world.”
19. D. M. Bettaieb and R. Alsabban, “Emerging living styles post-COVID-19: housing flexibility as a
fundamental requirement for apartments in Jeddah,” Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural
Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 28–50, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1108/ARCH-07-2020-0144.
20. P. Mercader-Moyano, O. Morat-Pérez, and C. Muñoz-González, “Housing evaluation methodology in a
situation of social poverty to guarantee sustainable cities: The satisfaction dimension for the case of
mexico,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 20, p. 11199, 2021.
21. E. Natividade-Jesus, J. Coutinho-Rodrigues, and C. H. Antunes, “A multicriteria decision support system
for housing evaluation,” Decis Support Syst, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 779–790, 2007.
22. M. Gür, “Post-pandemic lifestyle changes and their interaction with resident behavior in housing and
neighborhoods: Bursa, Turkey,” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 823–862,
2022.
23. J. Yang, J. Xu, T. Hu, and J. Cao, “Satisfaction and Demands of Indoor Space in the High-Density Residential
Areas in the COVID-19 Era,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 5, May 2022, doi: 10.3390/buildings12050660.
24. C. C. Duarte, N. D. Cortiços, A. Stefańska, and A. Stefańska, “Home Balconies during the COVID-19
Pandemic: Future Architect’s Preferences in Lisbon and Warsaw,” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 13, no.
1, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/app13010298.
25. M. Mridha, “Looking through the Models: A Critical Review of Residential Satisfaction,” Buildings, vol. 13,
no. 5, p. 1183, 2023.
26. J. Baker and H. Oppewal, “The effects of floor plan representations on preferences for apartments,” Journal
of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 727–752, 2023.
27. J. Honey-Rosés and O. Zapata, “The impact of residential densification on perceptions of public space: A
field experiment,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 282–295, 2021.
28. M. Jaimes Torres, M. Aguilera Portillo, T. Cuerdo-Vilches, I. Oteiza, and M. Á. Navas-Mart\’\in,
“Habitability, resilience, and satisfaction in Mexican homes to COVID-19 pandemic,” Int J Environ Res
Public Health, vol. 18, no. 13, p. 6993, 2021.
29. S. Kim and H.-S. Kim, “A Study on the Effect of Medical Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction during
COVID-19 for Foreigners in Korea,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 5953, 2023.
30. G. M. Elrayies, “Prophylactic architecture: formulating the concept of pandemic-resilient homes,”
Buildings, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 927, 2022.
31. K. W. A. R. Walisinghe and N. C. Wickramaarachchi, “2021 June Sri Lankan Journal of Real Estate
Department of Estate Management and Valuation University of.”
32. X. Gao et al., “Neighbourhood satisfaction in rural resettlement residential communities: The case of
Suqian, China,” Hous Stud, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1497–1518, 2022.
33. A. Hooper, J. Lee, and C. Schweiker, “Family Child Care Program Closure in Alabama During the COVID-
19 Pandemic,” AERA Open, vol. 9, p. 23328584231213084, 2023.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1

79
34. D. Aydin and G. Sayar, “Questioning the use of the balcony in apartments during the COVID-19 pandemic
process,” Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 51–63, 2021.
35. T. Peters and S. Masoudinejad, “Balconies as adaptable spaces in apartment housing,” Buildings & Cities,
vol. 3, no. 1, 2022.
36. A. Kleeman and S. Foster, “‘It feels smaller now’: The impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on apartment
residents and their living environment–A longitudinal study,” J Environ Psychol, vol. 89, p. 102056, 2023.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 19 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1546.v1