ArticlePDF Available

Evaluating Apartment Satisfaction in Erbil City: The Impact of Interior Space Quality Indicators before, during, and after the COVID-19 Pandemic

Authors:

Abstract

Human existence and development have always relied on suitable shelter. The dual-directional relationship of human residence has always been a material dealt with to enhance residential living conditions. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic introduced abrupt and dramatic changes to human life protocols that exerted clear pressure on different sectors within the built environment. Housing experienced a great impact due to the need for social distancing and quarantine obligations to support human life. In this study, in order to measure human adaptation and residence alterations following new residential requirements, the quality of interior space investigations to promote a better built environment for occupants was facilitated using the theory of residential dissatisfaction, already adopted in the current study. Residents’ responses were extracted regarding their dissatisfaction by applying the Likert scale for measurement and evaluation. This study focused on homogenous housing estates in Erbil City. Apartments were precisely selected with different plans and building layouts for widespread use in the city. They were occupied during the three stages of the study to extend beyond investigating the direct impact of the pandemic on the permanence of alterations and adaptation even after the pandemic. The reasons for changed dissatisfaction levels were investigated to improve the reliability of formulating final conclusions and recommendations. The findings showed increased dissatisfaction during the pandemic in most spaces; apartment layout and space design significantly affected responses and demands. The levels of dissatisfaction after the pandemic changed from stable to a slight decline in dissatisfaction. The effect of limited external spaces in apartments limited the possibility of managing pressure. This case might be less demanding in single-family housing due to the availability of private gardens. The results indicate that five distinct spaces were affected by the pandemic: the living room, family dining area, children’s bedroom, laundry room, and storage area. The dissatisfaction with these spaces increased during the pandemic and either remained unchanged or continued to rise afterward.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092619 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
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, Erbil 44002, Iraq
2
Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, University of Mosul, Mosul 41002, Iraq;
hasan.sanjary@uomosul.edu.iq
* Correspondence: nazik.abdulhamid@su.edu.krd
Abstract: Human existence and development have always relied on suitable shelter. The dual-di-
rectional relationship of human residence has always been a material dealt with to enhance residen-
tial living conditions. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic introduced abrupt and dramatic
changes to human life protocols that exerted clear pressure on dierent sectors within the built en-
vironment. Housing experienced a great impact due to the need for social distancing and quarantine
obligations to support human life. In this study, in order to measure human adaptation and resi-
dence alterations following new residential requirements, the quality of interior space investigations
to promote a beer built environment for occupants was facilitated using the theory of residential
dissatisfaction, already adopted in the current study. Residents’ responses were extracted regarding
their dissatisfaction by applying the Likert scale for measurement and evaluation. This study fo-
cused on homogenous housing estates in Erbil City. Apartments were precisely selected with dif-
ferent plans and building layouts for widespread use in the city. They were occupied during the
three stages of the study to extend beyond investigating the direct impact of the pandemic on the
permanence of alterations and adaptation even after the pandemic. The reasons for changed dissat-
isfaction levels were investigated to improve the reliability of formulating nal conclusions and
recommendations. The ndings showed increased dissatisfaction during the pandemic in most
spaces; apartment layout and space design signicantly aected responses and demands. The levels
of dissatisfaction after the pandemic changed from stable to a slight decline in dissatisfaction. The
eect of limited external spaces in apartments limited the possibility of managing pressure. This
case might be less demanding in single-family housing due to the availability of private gardens.
The results indicate that ve distinct spaces were aected by the pandemic: the living room, family
dining area, children’s bedroom, laundry room, and storage area. The dissatisfaction with these
spaces increased during the pandemic and either remained unchanged or continued to rise after-
ward.
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 signi-
cant changes, introducing terms such as distant learning, quarantine, social distancing,
and exible 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 chal-
lenges posed by pandemics [2]. Architects and designers face formidable challenges dur-
ing 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
Citation: Abdulhamid, N.J.;
Hasan Al-Sanjary, H.A. Evaluating
Apartment Satisfaction in Erbil City:
The Impact of Interior Space Quality
Indicators before, during, and after
the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings14092619
Academic Editor: Antonio
Formisano
Received: 11 July 2024
Revised: 17 August 2024
Accepted: 21 August 2024
Published: 24 August 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swierland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Aribution (CC BY) license
(hps://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 73 of 83
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 meet diverse needs during such crises, necessitating new adaptive and
spontaneous typologies to accommodate people’s needs [3] (p. 6).
Research into housing satisfaction intersects with various scientic disciplines, each
oering a unique set of denitions. Fundamentally, this concept is perceived as the dis-
crepancy between what individuals expect and need from their living situations and what
they experience [7]. Housing satisfaction is recognized as a multidimensional entity inu-
enced by ecological and socio-geographic elements [8]. It necessitates residents’ detailed
evaluation of their physical and social environments. The assessment of residents’ satis-
faction crucially hinges on the quality of the interior, a broad term that encompasses dif-
ferent aspects of housing and merges objective with subjective elements [9]. 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 [10]. Lazenby,
1988, cited in Bakar et al. [11] (p. 1), described housing quality as the “level of satisfaction
with the specic house within a chosen residential, physical and social environment, as
well as its specic housing aributes”. In his study, İslamoğlu [1] investigated the factors
aecting residential satisfaction and found that factors such as a lack of a view, the pres-
ence of a garden, the number of bathrooms and living rooms, and the size and number of
balconies aect the residential satisfaction of the participants. Moreover, the author stated
that the lack of a storage area did not aect the residents’ satisfaction. Rather, factors such
as ventilation, privacy with noise isolation, exible spaces, and the need for natural day-
light were the primary concerns of the residents. Kim and Kim [12] found similar results
regarding residents’ dissatisfaction with their living spaces, and their study showed that
people were dissatised with their homes due to the inability of their current space to
meet the new and changed functions, such as the need for multiple bathrooms. The study
revealed that the living room, bedroom, and kitchen were among the spaces where resi-
dents spent most of their time, 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 Aiah [14] revealed that
the lack of extra space in apartments compelled residents to work from kitchens or recep-
tion areas, with multiple individuals sharing these spaces. Hajjar [13] 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 re-
search. They 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
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 oces or
quarantine areas, creating private spaces as well as multifunctional spaces. Concerning
isolation and disease prevention during the pandemic, studies have shown the necessity
for houses to include separate bathrooms and bedrooms so that an infected individual
will be able to safely isolate himself from the healthy occupants during the infection pe-
riod [5,15–17]. Moreover, regarding the size of the isolation rooms, studies have claimed
that the rooms need to be large enough for the infected individuals to be able to set up a
temporary workstation in the room and carry out their tasks while safely isolating them-
selves from other occupants [17–19]. One more study [20] concerning 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. Beaieb
and Alsabban [20] claim that inhabitants incorporated a coee area in their homes during
the pandemic as an alternative to visiting cafes because they were not able to do so due to
strict rules of the pandemic; such adaptation focuses on reconguring existing spaces to
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 74 of 83
fulll new living requirements, illustrating that exibility often depends more on resi-
dents’ perceptions and minor adjustments than on major architectural changes.
The connement 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 [21]. Consequently, the demand for higher living stand-
ards when purchasing or leasing properties has surged. This shift underscores the grow-
ing necessity for rigorously developed assessment methods to comprehensively evaluate
housing by considering its multifaceted, conicting, and often incompatible aspects [22].
In Erbil City, like many other cities worldwide, the pandemic compelled residents to re-
purpose their homes to accommodate various activities, transforming living spaces into
multifunctional hubs for work, education, recreation, and self-care. Therefore, this study
aims to evaluate the residents’ satisfaction with their living conditions through three
stages, before, during, and after the pandemic, for each space in dierent apartment lay-
outs including 2 + 1, 2 + 2, 3 + 1, and 3 + 2. These layouts refer to congurations with two
bedrooms and a living room, two bedrooms with a living room and reception area, three
bedrooms and a living room, and three bedrooms with a living room and reception area,
respectively, as shown in Figure 1. Additionally, the study aims to identify the factors
contributing to the residents’ dissatisfaction using ve interior space quality indicators—
area, proportion, function relationships, privacy, and number.
Figure 1. The practical framework.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 75 of 83
2. Materials and Methods
To address the main objectives of the current study, direct interviews with family
heads were administered to ensure accurate and reliable responses. The sampling method
was based on various key criteria specic to the study’s three groups of concern. First, the
focus was on ensuring that the respondents, who were also the owners and had resided
in their apartments during the three stages of the pandemic, could provide uninuenced
and genuine responses. This involved selecting participants with various family sizes and
social statuses representing the apartment-dwelling population throughout these stages.
These criteria and their implications will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent sec-
tions of this study.
Furthermore, this study encountered several challenges, notably in obtaining fami-
lies’ consent and navigating access restrictions within certain housing estates, which im-
peded the ability to conduct interviews. The selection of apartments across the municipal
boundaries of Erbil City was strategically planned to include various apartment layouts
and building typologies, ensuring a broad generalizability of the research ndings.
2.1. Literature Review to Identify Interior Space Quality Indicators
This research reviewed previous studies on interior space quality indicators and
housing designs adaptable to dierent situations, mainly the COVID-19 pandemic [9–
15,21,23]. Google Scholar and MDPI were selected as electronic search databases using the
keywords “Housing quality indicators”, “Apartment satisfaction”, and “Housing design
and COVID-19”. Several newly published articles published between 2020 and 2023 were
selected, and their eligibility was assessed through a full-text review. The process resulted
in choosing the main indicators while respecting a clear framework for the 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 of 74 projects in Erbil and found that 5.4% were
in the planning and designing stages, 40.5% were still under construction, and 6.8% were com-
pleted but not occupied. Occupied projects comprised only 47.3% of total estates in 2021.
During the eld survey, the researcher faced projects that were not cooperative and
did not allow their occupants to be interviewed. They were immediately excluded from
the study, and they formed 37.1% of occupied projects. Additionally, apartments that
were below eleven oors were excluded, and projects that lacked 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartment
congurations, i.e., apartments with two bedrooms and a living room and those with three
bedrooms and a living room, were also excluded. Among the 11 oors and above apart-
ments, small 1 + 1 (one bedroom and a living room) and large congurations, namely, 4 +
1 (four bedrooms and a living room), were also excluded, in addition to cases that did not
follow the obligations and limitations of the study, which comprised 34.3% of cases. The
remaining cases that followed the study requirements formed 28.6% of occupied projects.
Precisely 100% of projects satisfying the research objectives were covered in the sampling
selection; by adding the non-authorized cases, the percentage of the directly covered pro-
jects approximates 65% of all cases related to study restriction, which is far higher than
the 25% ratio that is statistically normally recommended.
2.3. Sample Selection and Size
The samples were randomly selected but with specic conditions for apartment
buildings higher than 10 oors for 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartment congurations. Among these,
twelve plan types fell into category 2 + 1. Out of these, two were 2 + 2, and eight were 3 +
1, including one 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 bal-
anced distribution of samples between the apartments’ main criteria, including the loca-
tion within the building and building typology. The fourth condition was concern about
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 76 of 83
the location of projects within the city that can guarantee beer representation. The de-
mographic realistic representation of occupants and gender equalization of respondents
was the fth main restriction in the selection process.
2.4. Direct Interview and Questionnaire Distribution
The research’s starting point was the distribution of the developed questionnaire
(Found in Appendix A) to a group of expert professors in the eld. Based on their feed-
back, the questionnaire was revised for clarity and ease of understanding by the respond-
ents. The questionnaire comprised two groups of questions: one aimed at assessing the
extent of residents’ dissatisfaction with the spaces under study and the other focused on
identifying the underlying reasons for this dissatisfaction. The rationale for selecting these
particular groups of questions was directly linked to the objectives of the study.
Since Erbil is a cosmopolitan city, the researcher prepared the questionnaire in Kurd-
ish, Arabic, and English and conducted direct interviews with residents of the selected
apartments.
2.5. Data Collection and Analysis
For more than eight months, 142 interviews were conducted using a xed question-
naire format. The interview was carried out on 20 types of apartment plans related to 10
investment projects that satised the conditions of the current research, and the obtained
results were organized following the sequence of returned responses, starting with the
demographic background of respondents and their family compositions. This was fol-
lowed by the main housing characteristics that reect their living conditions, describing
the spaces and layouts of their apartments.
The data were regularly entered into an Excel spreadsheet, sometimes daily and
other times weekly. Finally, the data were transferred to SPSS software version 25 for anal-
ysis. The data were thoroughly analyzed to draw meaningful conclusions. Descriptive
analysis and factor analysis were the main statistical processes facilitated to obtain results
in the form of spreadsheets and graphs to achieve the research objectives.
3. Results
The results are concerned with describing dissatisfaction levels; discussing their
causes regarding 14 spaces related to interviews on the interaction between humans and
their residences; examining changes in trends during the three stages of the pandemic—
before, during, and after the pandemic; and exploring the strength of the pandemic’s im-
pact on residents’ living conditions, which are the main goals of the current study.
3.1. Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics
Human needs and changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed by
families in three stages. The interviewed respondents were almost equal in gender divi-
sion, increasing reliability by including both genders in the results.
The distribution of the heads of families indicates the dominance of the 30–39 age
group, followed by the 20–29 and 40–49 age groups. The average age of the respondents
of the heads of families was 37.84 years, and there were almost more young than old re-
spondents due to the conditions of apartment ownership. Regarding respondents’ educa-
tion, highly educated persons were the majority (mostly formed by university graduates).
The share of working heads formed 94.2%. Housekeepers formed 4.2%, leaving only 1.6%
as retired persons. These results support the prole of the age of family heads of middle-
aged families.
Most family sizes were within three to four people, followed by two-person families.
The average household size was 3.57 persons, indicating that the social stratum is below
the city’s average household sizes ranging between 4.90 and 5.05 persons for the Erbil City
urban area. This result is also supported by 20.4% of families being in the childless
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 77 of 83
category, with a small 3.5% of extended families that cannot balance the small average
size of the interviewed households.
3.2. Residences’ Major Characteristics
The main characteristics of the apartments occupied by respondents can be seen in
Table 1 A, which shows the prole of the selected cases for the current study. Cases were
distributed through 20 apartment plans belonging to the 10 investment projects distrib-
uted through Erbil occupied during the three stages of the pandemic.
Table 1. Apartment categories and frequencies—part A. Apartment categories and frequencies—
part B.
(A)
Project and 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%
(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%
This procedure was followed to satisfy the exact distribution of apartments between
the category of two bedrooms and three bedrooms, as the majority of investment projects
had adopted those sizes, as presented in Table 1 B.
Regarding apartment size and category, two bedrooms formed 45.1% of cases or sam-
ples, while three bedrooms formed 54.9%. Apartments with single living rooms formed
88.0% of samples, while 12.0% of surveyed apartments had two living areas used as family
living rooms in addition to guest rooms.
To obtain responses from families who had lived in their current apartments during
the three periods or stages, the available cases within the city were mostly located in 3 + 1
categories, as observed in Table 1 B. The samples were distributed to cover the majority of
oors according to their availability to maximize the generality of the results.
3.3. Apartment Residents’ Changed Assessments of Living Conditions
As mentioned before, the analysis of the 14 selected spaces indicated important nd-
ings, as listed below. The results are arranged in a sequence starting from the apartment
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 78 of 83
entry door toward service parts according to the depth of the plan and similarity in re-
quirements.
3.3.1. Entrance Lobby
The lobby forms the rst space when entering apartments. A total of 16 types of apart-
ments contained an entrance lobby; only 4 lacked this space.
The results supported by Figure 2 indicate a high jump in dissatisfaction from before
the pandemic to during the pandemic. A small decline in residents’ dissatisfaction oc-
curred after the pandemic, but the result is still 27.9% higher than that for the pre-pan-
demic stage.
Figure 2. The change in the dissatisfaction percentage regarding entrance lobbies during the three
stages.
The dissatisfaction rate before the pandemic was 32.5% in dwellings without an en-
trance lobby, which is lower than that for those with an entrance by a dierence of 1.9%.
However, during the pandemic, the amounts were 75.0% for those who did not have a
lobby and 62.7% for those who did, as shown in Figure 3. This trend decreased for the
same indicators to 54.3% and 72.5%, respectively. This result indicates an increased eect
of the entrance lobby during and after the pandemic through increased dissatisfaction.
Figure 3. The change in the dissatisfaction percentage due to entrance lobby availability.
Figure 4 shows the main reasons for dissatisfaction with apartments containing en-
trance lobbies, whereby a narrow space is the main reason, followed by both area needs
and connectivity with the entrance toilet.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 79 of 83
Figure 4. The reasons for variations in the dissatisfaction percentage regarding entrance lobbies.
Regarding the dierences between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartment categories in terms of
dissatisfaction with entrance lobbies, as seen in Figure 5, indicators increased in 2 + 1 com-
pared to 3 + 1 apartments, in addition to a clear increase in the dissatisfaction percentage
from the pre-pandemic to the pandemic stage, where the numbers almost doubled. A
slight lowering happened after the pandemic.
Figure 5. The variations in the dissatisfaction percentage for entrance lobby availability between 2 +
1 and 3 + 1 apartment categories.
When the eect of the availability of an entrance lobby on the apartment category
was considered, as shown in Figure 6, type 2 + 1 with the absence of an entrance lobby
dominated the other three possibilities, and the lowest dissatisfaction occurred in category
3 + 1 with the availability of an entrance lobby.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 80 of 83
Figure 6. The variations in the dissatisfaction percentages for entrance lobbies due to the combined
eect of availability and apartment categories.
The reasons for diering dissatisfaction are presented in Figure 6. Figure 7 indicates
the reasons for both categories 2 + 1 and 3 + 1. Here, the reasons corresponding to the 2 +
1 category start high with proportion, followed by relationship, and then area. At the same
time, category 3 + 1 starts with the area, followed by the proportion of the entrance lobby,
and then the connection to the toilet.
The eect of the availability of toilet space within the lobby on residents’ dissatisfac-
tion is seen in Figure 7; a clear increase is witnessed during the pandemic period. Then,
after the pandemic, both for cases of having a toilet and for those who do not have toilets,
there is a margin of about a 9–11% increase in cases without a toilet.
Figure 8 shows the dierences between factors participating in variations in dissatis-
faction due to the availability or absence of a toilet near the entrance lobby. The results
clearly show higher values of resident dissatisfaction when no toilet exists in the entrance
lobby. A missing toilet was the most signicant cause of dissatisfaction, while the distance
of the toilet from the entrance caused the least dissatisfaction.
Figure 7. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding entrance lobbies for all categories.
Figure 8. The change in the dissatisfaction percentage due to entrance toilet availability.
Proportion (narrow space) was the second reason for dissatisfaction in both cases as
shown in Figure 9, and area was ranked third. The next interesting finding is that the reasons
for dissatisfaction decreased in the post-pandemic stage in cases where apartment lobbies con-
tained toilets.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 81 of 83
Figure 9. The reasons for variations in the dissatisfaction percentage regarding entrance lobbies be-
tween cases with toilets and those lacking this space.
The nding sequences of dierent reasons or factors for dissatisfaction can be ob-
tained using factor analysis processing within SPSS software.
Table 2 A,B indicate that the reasons (ranking from strongest to weakest) start with
the proportion of space and available space for cabinets during the pandemic, which had
the greatest eect on residents’ dissatisfaction, followed by the availability of toilets within
the lobby after the pandemic. Other factors contributing to dissatisfaction can be seen us-
ing the same table and steps mentioned here.
Table 2. Factor analysis for entrance lobbies indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered
in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the
pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
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: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
(B)
Factors
En.1.1 Limited space for wardrobes and cabinets (area)—before the pandemic
En.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)—before the pandemic
En.1.3 No direct connection with toilet [WC] (relationship)—before the
pandemic
3.3.2. Living Rooms
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 82 of 83
The living room is used for family gatherings [it can be used for family gatherings
and receiving guests if there is no reception in the apartment].
In this context, a closed spatial organization refers to a layout where living rooms are
separated from dining and reception rooms, which may or may not include dining spaces.
In contrast, an open spatial organization combines living areas with kitchens and may or
may not include family dining areas.
Figure 10 illustrates an increase in dissatisfaction both during and after the pandemic
regarding living spaces. The increase is about 19–21%.
Figure 10. The change in the dissatisfaction percentage regarding living rooms during the three
stages.
Figure 11 illustrates a clear trend of a higher level of dissatisfaction in living rooms
with an increase in time, as might be expected due to the pandemic.
The highest increases are due to a shortage in size; a limited area; and proportion,
causing a narrow space and threatening safety requirements. A dierent trend is observed
for reason 5 (privacy), as dissatisfaction decreases during the pandemic due to a reduced
need for gathering with an increased need for privacy, which increases again after the
pandemic.
Figure 11. The main reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with living rooms.
Considering the dierences in dissatisfaction levels within the two typologies shown
in Figure 12, the levels were much higher in 2 + 1 dwellings before the pandemic. Moreo-
ver, the ratio increase was greater during and after the pandemic in midsized dwellings
(2 + 1) compared to 3 + 1 cases as regarded larger sizes dwellings with more bedrooms.
Privacy requirements in 3 + 1 dwellings showed higher dissatisfaction in all stages, possi-
bly due to increased demands by residents.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 83 of 83
Figure 12. The dierences in dissatisfaction with living rooms for dierent apartment sizes.
Figure 13 shows the mixing of spaces and a limited area as the main reasons for dis-
satisfaction with living rooms before and after the pandemic.
The spatial organization of the living areas pointed to mild dierences in dissatisfac-
tion levels, as seen in Figure 14. A closed spatial organization produced 27.9% dissatisfac-
tion compared to 23.3% for an open spatial organization in the pre-pandemic period; the
case reversed during and after the pandemic, when the dierence became 2–3% in the
reverse direction.
Figure 13. The main reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with living rooms for both
sizes.
Figure 14.
The change in the dissatisfaction percentage regarding living rooms due to spatial or-
ganization.
When comparing reasons for dissatisfaction between closed and open spatial organ-
izing systems during the pandemic in closed systems, as presented in Figure 15, the space
allocated for entertainment activities (area) was the greatest, at 44.4%, higher than privacy
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 84 of 83
by 18.2%. However, after the pandemic, the dierence was 0.5% higher for privacy, indi-
cating the ease of achieving privacy in a closed system.
Figure 15. The reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with living rooms for the closed or-
ganization.
In the open system, the reasons for dissatisfaction during the pandemic were close.
The rst reason was privacy and the space allocated for entertainment activities (area), at
rates of 46.1% and 45.6%, respectively. These percentages increased after the pandemic,
with a dierence of 16.1% for privacy, and this is due to the diculty of achieving privacy
in the open system, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16. The reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with living rooms for an open organ-
ization.
The dierence in residents’ responses reporting dissatisfaction due to balcony avail-
ability before the pandemic was 6.5%, and this dierence increased signicantly during
and after the pandemic to 21.4% for both stages, as shown in Figure 17. This shows that
residents appreciate having a living room balcony in their apartment.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 85 of 83
Figure 17. The change in dissatisfaction due to the availability of a living room balcony.
This indicates that the balcony served as an extension of the family’s openness to the
outside world, enjoying a fresh air source with the needed view of the outdoors. To de-
termine the main reasons for dissatisfaction in cases of living rooms with access to balco-
nies, the main reasons in both Figures 18 and 19 support the following ndings.
Figure 18. The reasons for changes in dissatisfaction with living rooms without balconies.
In cases of the absence of living room balconies, as shown in Figure 18, the main
concern is the area of the living space itself, followed by the absence of a direct balcony.
All percentages were above 48% for the rst and 35% for the second.
For cases of living rooms with a direct balcony observed in Figure 19, the main con-
cern expressed by residents was privacy due to multiple function combinations, which
seled at 61.6%. After the pandemic, the values were dramatically higher than those of
other reasons, as shown by area concern, with a 29.2% dissatisfaction percentage.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 86 of 83
Figure 19. The reasons for changes in dissatisfaction with living rooms with balconies.
To beer understand the combined eect of spatial organization and the availability
of living balconies, Figure 20, regarding closed organization, and Figure 21, concerned
with open organization, support this task.
Figure 20. The change in dissatisfaction due to the combined eect of spatial organization and the
availability of living room balconies with closed organization.
For closed-spatial-organization cases, the responses obtained show higher dissatis-
faction ratios than those for apartments that had balconies linked to living rooms.
A comparison of the reasons for cases without balconies to those with balconies is
presented in Figures 21 and 22. The two main reasons for cases without balconies were
areas for both storage and human activities, followed by the absence of a balcony as the
third reason.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 87 of 83
Figure 21. The reasons for the change in dissatisfaction in the absence of balconies and closed or-
ganization.
Meanwhile, cases with balconies, as seen in Figure 22, indicate privacy as the main
concern for negative evaluation. Next is the suciency of living areas to support human
functions.
Figure 22. The reasons for changes in dissatisfaction with balconies and closed organization.
For opened-spatial-organization apartments, as shown in Figure 23, the eect of the
availability of a balcony on decreased dissatisfaction is clear during the pandemic and
even after, but with lesser magnitude. This is clearly indicated in Figure 16, while damp-
ing the increased eect of dissatisfaction during the pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 88 of 83
Figure 23. The change in dissatisfaction due to the combined eect of spatial organization and the
availability of living room balconies with open organization.
The variations in reasons for dissatisfaction for both cases without balconies and
those with balconies are seen in Figures 24 and 25. For cases that do not have balconies,
as seen in Figure 24, there are two main reasons for dissatisfaction with apartments with-
out balconies: named areas for human activities, followed by the absence of a balcony.
Forced gathering due to a mix with reception is ranked third.
Figure 24. The reasons for the change in dissatisfaction due to the absence of balconies and open
organization.
In apartments with balcony availability for living rooms, the mixing of uses of both
living room users and guest users is almost dominant or even a single eective reason for
residents’ dissatisfaction with an open spatial organization with a specic balcony for liv-
ing rooms, as shown in Figure 25.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 89 of 83
Figure 25. The reasons for a change in dissatisfaction due to the absence of balconies and an open
spatial organization.
Regarding the relationship of the factors within the three periods, supported by Table
3 A,B, the strongest indicator was the relationship with the balcony, after which came pro-
portion, then privacy, area—cabinet, and, nally, area—activities.
Regarding the relationship of each factor in three periods separately, the study notes
that the factors most inuential during the pandemic were those related to the balcony,
proportion, and area—cabinet.
Tab l e 3. Factor analysis for living rooms indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered in
the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the
pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
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
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 90 of 83
(B)
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 a room 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 was ob-
served that the dierence in dissatisfaction between the samples with and without recep-
tion was 8.3% before the pandemic and 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 pan-
demic, this disparity decreased to 8.2%.
Figure 26 shows the dissatisfaction regarding the reception activity. No strong signs
were observed before and after the pandemic, and there was a slight increase during the
pandemic, which was not the product of visitors due to pandemic social distancing.
Figure 26. Dissatisfaction regarding the reception activities and needs.
To detect the causes of dissatisfaction reasoned by family heads, Figure 27 shows that
the mixing activity of family living with guest reception is the dominant factor of dissat-
isfaction in the three stages. Meanwhile, the second reason is that a lack or substandard
size of the receiving area caused dissatisfaction during pre- and post-pandemic stages but
highly degraded during the pandemic.
The other interesting factor is the availability of some cases of large guest rooms that
could not be used during the pandemic because of the need to avoid disease dispersion.
The small number of dwellings with mixing activity reduced the detailed outputs in the
current study.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 91 of 83
Figure 27. The main reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with 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 living room, it is considered guest dining. A
general trend of increasing dissatisfaction is shown in Figure 28. No decline in satisfaction
is evident after the pandemic, indicating agreement on essentiality with modications.
Figure 28. The change in the dissatisfaction percentage regarding dining activity during the three
stages.
Figure 29 ranks the rst reason for dissatisfaction being the proportion (having a nar-
row space), mixing family dining with guest dining as second, and the availability of cab-
inets as third.
Figure 29. The main reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with family dining space.
Regarding the dierences in dissatisfaction status between the two main sizes of
apartments with the support of Figure 30, the results indicate a great discrepancy in the
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 92 of 83
dissatisfaction level in 2 + 1 apartments compared to 3 + 1 apartments in the pre-pandemic
stage. The 3 + 1 dissatisfaction among residents boomed during the pandemic regarding
the demand for such activity in a more luxurious condition. The gures stayed high after
the pandemic period.
Figure 30. The dissatisfaction dierences for family dining between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
Regarding dissatisfaction with the main dwelling size variants, half of the sample
projects have a single dining area. The remaining 50% is distributed between two types.
A total of 15% of apartments have a guest dining area, while 35% have a family dining
area. Dierences in the reasons for dissatisfaction between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments are
clearly shown in Figure 31; a lack of privacy dominates in 2 + 1, while in 3 + 1 apartments,
enough space to turn seats around seems to be the main obstacle to minimizing dissatis-
faction.
Figure 31. The reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with family dining spaces in both
categories.
Figure 32 demonstrates interesting ndings compared with Figure 23 concerning the
apartment type and size. Greater complaints are shown for a single space for dining before
the pandemic, indicating a real need for such activity. Both support each other, and dis-
satisfaction remained higher for a single activity and smaller apartment sizes.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 93 of 83
Figure 32. The dissatisfaction with conditions of single- or double-family dining.
In the pandemic stage, the numbers were almost equal. The gap increased again after
the pandemic to indicate the real need for more than one space. However, the number was
moderated due to the pandemic.
Figure 33 shows the main reasons for dissatisfaction with the availability of either
family dining or guest dining to be privacy or mixing problems with other activities. Fam-
ily dining showed higher dissatisfaction in the post-pandemic stage.
Figure 33. The main reasons for changes in residents’ dissatisfaction with family dining spaces be-
tween family and guest dining.
The factor analysis results aligned with the previously indicated ndings, with pri-
vacy being the most signicant element, followed by proportion, then area. The area factor
was the most signicant both during and after the pandemic, whereas proportion and
privacy factors were the most signicant after the pandemic.
This shows that future apartment plans will build a family dining room with consid-
eration for area, proportion, and privacy, as shown in Table 4 A,B.
Table 4. Factor analysis for family dining indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered in
the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the
pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 94 of 83
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.
(B)
Factors
Fd.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and 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 only used for parents sleeping with or with-
out a bathroom. Figure 34 indicates dissatisfaction with all master bedrooms included in
categories 2 + 1 and 3 + 1; it is clear that dissatisfaction with 2 + 1 apartments’ master
bedrooms is higher in all three stages. All numbers show low dissatisfaction ratios in com-
parison with other habitable spaces; ratios almost doubled during the pandemic period
compared to before the pandemic.
Figure 34. The dissatisfaction dierences for master bedrooms in 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
A total of 15% of the samples did not contain a bathroom inside the master bedroom
in the 2 + 1 category; however, dissatisfaction decreased, as shown in Figure 35, when
considering dissatisfaction for only master bedrooms containing a bathroom despite be-
ing 3 + 1.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 95 of 83
Figure 35. The dissatisfaction with master bedrooms containing bathrooms in the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1
categories.
The dissatisfaction is mainly due to limited space or a shortage of area to accommo-
date all requirements, comprising 53–55%. The 3 + 1 category has a higher value, about
23–34% higher than the 2 + 1 category as a normal trend. Privacy came last in rank, as
presented in Figure 36.
Figure 36. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences for master bedrooms containing bath-
rooms in the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
Considering the eect of bathroom availability in master bedrooms (Figure 37), the
important nding appears to be an abrupt increase in dissatisfaction in apartments whose
master bedrooms do not contain bathrooms. Thus, a single bathroom in the entire apart-
ment during the pandemic caused a high dissatisfaction ratio.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 96 of 83
Figure 37. The dissatisfaction dierences for master bedrooms containing or missing bathrooms.
The spatial organization of the apartment plays a clear role in the degree of dissatis-
faction, as percentages were higher in the closed spatial organization. The ratio of increase
between before and during the pandemic is also higher than that for open spatial organi-
zation, as seen in Figure 38.
Figure 38. The dissatisfaction dierences in master bedrooms due to the spatial organization.
Investigating the dierences between dierent categories of apartments, the dissatis-
faction as a percentage was higher in the closed organization, especially for the 2 + 1 cate-
gory, followed by the open organization for the same category. The 3 + 1 category showed
lower dissatisfaction values with some increase for closed organizations, the same trend
as the 2 + 1 category but with lesser magnitude, as seen in Figure 39.
Figure 39. The variations in apartments with two categories and two dierent organizations.
Factor analysis shows that the relationship with the bathroom was the strongest fac-
tor, followed by proportion, area, and privacy, respectively. Before and after the pan-
demic, the principal factor was the relationship with the bathroom, as seen in Table 5 A,B.
Table 5. Factor analysis for master bedroom indicating high factor loadings for reasons considered
in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during
the pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 97 of 83
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
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
Ma.3.2 0.978
Ma.3.3 0.978
Ma.3.4 0.950
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
(B)
Factors
Ma.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Ma.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ma.1.3 The master bedroom does not have an independent bathroom
(relationship)
Ma.1.4 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
After the pandemic, the most important factors were the proportion and area; nally,
privacy emerged as the most important factor both during and after the pandemic. Future
apartment master bedroom designs must consider proportion, area, and privacy, among
other crucial considerations, as illustrated in Table 5 A,B.
3.3.6. Children Bedroom
The children’s bedroom is mainly used for sleeping. It can also be used as a study–
bedroom, mainly when the person who lives in this space is a student.
The eect of the pandemic on persons using these spaces increased by about 7.4%.
The ratio of increase is less than 25.0%, as seen in Figure 40.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 98 of 83
Figure 40. The dissatisfaction dierences for children’s bedrooms in all categories.
To determine the dissatisfaction trend between dierent categories, Figure 41 indi-
cates that residents occupying 3 + 1 apartments showed more dissatisfaction than 2 + 1
cases, with a rapid increase of about 16.3%. The case is the opposite for master bedrooms
and other living spaces.
Figure 41. The dissatisfaction dierences for children’s bedrooms in the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
Figures 42 and 43 indicate the main reasons for such behavior in the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1
categories.
Figure 42. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences regarding children’s bedrooms in the 2 +
1 category.
Both categories shared limited space, meaning an area decit was the greatest com-
plaint, 44% for 2 + 1 and 53.9–58.2% for the 3 + 1 category, higher than the rst. Further-
more, the 2 + 1 category did not show dissatisfaction changes during the three stages,
while for 3 + 1, the change was about 4.3% from the pre-pandemic to post-pandemic
stages.
The second reason comes from the proportion of spaces when extremely narrow
spaces participate in increasing dissatisfaction. The same area-reasoning trend happened
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 99 of 83
here, with uctuations in the 3 + 1 category compared to stability in the 2 + 1 apartment
category.
Figure 43. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences regarding children’s bedrooms in the 3 +
1 category.
Spatial organization dierences between open and closed types also participated in
forming the dissatisfaction percentages through three stages, the same as shown before in
Figure 44. Apartments with open-spatial-organization layouts had lesser dissatisfaction
than closed ones. The variations increased during and after the pandemic.
Figure 44. The variations in dissatisfaction for children’s bedrooms due to the spatial organization.
When comparing apartment category dierences with the support of Figure 45, both
showed higher increases in closed spatial organizations for the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
From the other point of view and supporting the ndings, as shown in Figure 41, before
the pandemic, dissatisfaction was higher in the 2 + 1 category. In contrast, in the two stages
during and after the pandemic, the 3 + 1 category had a slightly higher amount of dissat-
isfaction.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 100 of 83
Figure 45. The variations in dissatisfaction for children’s bedrooms due to spatial organization and
in the apartment category.
Based on factor analysis, Table 6 A,B show that privacy was the most inuential fac-
tor, 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 inuential factor.
The eects of privacy and the proximity to the bathroom were consistent across the three
periods. However, area and proportion became more signicant after the pandemic, and
the number of bedrooms remained the most signicant both before and after the pan-
demic. The fact that the ve factors had a signicant impact after the pandemic suggests
that future bedroom designs for children should consider all of these factors.
Table 6. Factor analysis for children’s bedrooms indicating high factor loadings for reasons consid-
ered in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during
the pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
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: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 101 of 83
(B)
Factors
Ch.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Ch.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ch.
1
.3 Far from the bathroom (relationship)
Ch.1.4 Few bedrooms (number)
Ch.1.5 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
3.3.7. Kitchen
The kitchen is where food preparation occurs; it may or may not have a family dining
area. It can be an open system integrated with the living room or a closed system, meaning
it is separate from the living area. In all samples, the percentage of people dissatised with
the kitchen during the pandemic was about 20.7% higher than before and stayed almost
stable, with a minor decrease of about 0.6% after the pandemic, as seen in Figure 46.
Figure 46. The variations in dissatisfaction for kitchens throughout the three stages of the study.
Figure 47 indicates reasons for this behavior; the main reasons for dissatisfaction are
limited space and the narrow proportion of the space. The third reason addressed by res-
idents is the kitchen space being shared for cooking activities and family gatherings like
dining. The other nding is that the change in reasoning within the three stages is not the
same percentage change in dissatisfaction. The fourth and fth factors were not assessed
by users as impactful in their evaluations despite complaints by about 9.2% of respondents
about having one door for the kitchen.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 102 of 83
Figure 47. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences regarding kitchens in all apartments.
Figure 48 indicates dierences between the two categories of apartments, 2 + 1 and 3
+ 1; the results presented show greater dissatisfaction in apartments with fewer bedrooms,
as was the trend for most of the previously discussed spaces. The net increase in dissatis-
faction due to the pandemic is also higher than the 3 + 1 category, but the ratio of increase
in 2 + 1 apartments is less than that in 3 + 1, as numbers were higher for 2 + 1 apartments.
Figure 48. The dissatisfaction dierences for kitchens in the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
The common reasons for dissatisfaction are seen in Figures 49 and 50 for the 2 + 1 and
3 + 1 categories, which are the same three mentioned for combined results despite the
mixing obstacle of activities in the kitchen being much higher in 2 + 1 cases than 3 + 1 ones.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 103 of 83
Figure 49. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences for kitchens in the 2 + 1 category.
There was a marginal dierence in the ascending trend in dissatisfaction from the
pre-pandemic stage to after the pandemic. Limited spaces showed that trend in the 2 + 1
apartment category, as well as the 3 + 1 category proportion. Moreover, 2 + 1 apartment
residents’ responses in dissatisfaction due to mixed activities in the kitchen space were
more than double those of the 3 + 1 category.
Figure 50. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences in kitchens in the 3 + 1 category.
Variations in dissatisfaction results due to spatial organization were somehow mar-
ginal in kitchens, as shown in Figure 51, as both indicated increased dissatisfaction in the
second stage, with a slight change after the pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 104 of 83
Figure 51. The variations in dissatisfaction for kitchens due to spatial organization.
There was one dierence: variations in a closed organization were 23%, while in an
open organization, they were about 17%, as overall variations follow the general trend
observed in Figure 46.
There are ve reasons for variations in these apartments with dierent spatial organ-
izations, as shown in Figures 52 and 53. The rst, a closed-spatial-organization-dominant
reason, was the space proportion, with percentages around 72–82%, scoring higher in dis-
satisfaction, followed by area, with numbers around 54%.
In the open-spatial-organization-category cases, the main cause was the mixing of
cooking and gathering problems, about 64–79%. Next was the kitchen area limiting the
space for working, with a dissatisfaction range between 57.4% and 68.3%.
Figure 52. The reasons for dissatisfaction with kitchens with a closed spatial organization.
Figure 53. The reasons for dissatisfaction with kitchens with an open spatial organization.
The eect of availability compared to the absence of family dining with main kitchen
activities on residents’ satisfaction was tested. Figure 54 shows that slight dierences were
observed between the pandemic and post-pandemic stages.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 105 of 83
With about a 6.6% dierence in the pre-pandemic stage, where the absence of family
dining participated in that increase, an increase in general dissatisfaction is still clear, as
the change is about 15–21% through the three stages.
Figure 54. The variations in dissatisfaction for kitchens due to the availability of family dining.
The factor analysis revealed that privacy, space, proportion, relationships, and num-
ber had the greatest eects on the three periods. When the results were compared with
separate periods, this 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. Table 7 A,B show that except for the relationship with the
entrance, which remained the most signicant both during and after the pandemic, these
ve factors were the most inuential after the pandemic.
Table 7. Factor analysis for kitchens indicating high factor loadings for dierent reasons consid-
ered in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: dur-
ing the pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3 4 5
Ki.1.1 0.935
Ki.1.2 0.940
Ki.1.3 0.905
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: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
(B)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 106 of 83
Factors
Ki.1.1 Limited space, limited workspace (area)
Ki.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ki.1.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ki.1.4 Has only one door (number)
Ki.1.5 The activity [cooking] is mixed with family gatherings (privacy)
3.3.8. Bathrooms
The family bathroom is a separate bathroom that is not included with bedrooms and
is for common use by family members. Figure 55, investigating the dissatisfaction behav-
ior or trend through the three stages of the pandemic, shows a normal trend of increase
from before to during the pandemic. The change magnitude was 8.5%, then slightly low-
ered to 39.9%, a reduction of only 0.4%.
Figure 55. The variations in dissatisfaction for the family bathroom throughout the stages of the
study.
Figure 56 shows the reasons for dissatised residents in all pandemic stages. The
proportion was the main concern, followed by area suciency, then the distance from the
entrance. The ratios ascended in general for all three reasons, and proportion showed a
higher value during the pandemic.
The rst two results were above 28%, while the third and remaining reasons were a
shortage of bathrooms and a lack of separate toilets, uctuating between 12.5% and 22.5%,
showing smoothly distributed percentages.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 107 of 83
Figure 56. The main reasons for dissatisfaction dierences regarding family bathrooms.
Investigating the changes in the existence of master bathrooms and basic family bath-
rooms with the support of Figure 57, a dramatic drop in dissatisfaction was obtained with
lowered values of approximately 35–44%. This nding is a strong indicator of the need for
two bathrooms.
It is important to note that all apartments of category type 3 + 1 contain both types of
bathrooms. In contrast, the 2 + 1 category had cases with a family bathroom only and
others with two bathrooms.
Figure 57. The variations in dissatisfaction according to the existence of a master bathroom in addi-
tion to a basic family bathroom.
Figures 58 and 59 dierentiate the reasons for dissatisfaction in cases of only family
bathrooms from apartments with a master bedroom bathroom.
Figure 58. The reasons for dissatisfaction in cases with only a basic family bathroom.
Four of the ve reasons for dissatisfaction in the family bathroom cases seen in Figure
58 passed the percentage of 55% dissatisfaction, except for those who showed numbers
above 22%.
Regarding cases with the availability of a master bedroom bathroom in addition to
family bathrooms presented in Figure 59, 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 the number of eective reasons and the strength of the eect in terms of
percentages.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 108 of 83
Figure 59. The reasons for dissatisfaction with the existence of a master bathroom in addition to
family bathrooms.
When comparing the dissatisfaction levels for the two main categories of apartments,
2 + 1 and 3 + 1, with the support of Figure 60 for cases with two bathrooms, it is obvious
that dissatisfaction clearly increased in 3 + 1 cases during the pandemic. The increase was
much lower for the 2 + 1 category; the dissatisfaction did not increase, possibly due to
luxurious conditions comparable to other spaces in the 2 + 1 category. There was no need
to dierentiate the dissatisfaction for apartment residents of categories 2 + 1 and 3 + 1
related to those who had only a single bathroom, as all cases in the 3 + 1 category were of
the two-bathroom type.
Figure 60. The variations in dissatisfaction with the existence of a master bathroom in addition to a
basic family bathroom while comparing 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
Figures 61 and 62 support the normal trend of the previous ndings about detailed
dierences in reasons for dissatisfaction between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 109 of 83
Figure 61. The reasons for changes in dissatisfaction with the existence of a master bathroom in
addition to a basic family bathroom for the 2 + 1 category.
The main reason for dissatisfaction in the 2 + 1 category is proportion, with the high-
est value of 50.0%, while in category 3 + 1, reasons were distributed within four factors,
starting with area, comprising 32.1%, then proportion, relationship, and number of activ-
ities, with the laer comprising 10.1%.
Figure 62. The reasons for changes in dissatisfaction with the existence of a master bathroom in
addition to a basic family bathroom for the 3 + 1 category.
The factor analysis shown in Table 8 A,B reveals that the factors that were highly
ranked are as follows: privacy, proportion, area, number, and relationship with the en-
trance. According to the above tables, before the pandemic, privacy was the most im-
portant factor, but during the pandemic, other factors became more important. Nothing
had the biggest impact after the pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 110 of 83
Table 8. Factor analysis for the master bathroom indicating high factor loadings for the reasons
considered in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red:
during the pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix a
Component
1 2 3 4 5
Ba.1.1 0.894
Ba.1.2 0.955
Ba.1.3 0.857
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.
(B)
Factors
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 does not have enough bathrooms (number)
Ba.1.5 There is no bathroom separate from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
3.3.9. Toilets
The toilet refers to a separate toilet not included within the bathroom. Family toilets,
on the other hand, mean a separate toilet that is located in the apartment corridor. Guest
toilets are toilets located at the entrance.
One main nding in Figure 63 is the high level of dissatisfaction, passing 54% in the
pre-pandemic stage; due to the pandemic, the percentage increased by 13.3%.
Figure 63. The variations in dissatisfaction for toilets in the three stages of the pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 111 of 83
When categorizing cases into the two categories adopted in this research with the
values obtained in Figure 64, dissatisfaction in 2 + 1 apartments was rated higher by resi-
dents in all three stages. The basic score for both categories was high even before the pan-
demic. In the next two stages, values were higher by approximately 13% for both cases,
following the normal trend of the current study’s ndings for most spaces.
Figure 64. The dierences in dissatisfaction percentages for the 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories.
Relating dissatisfaction to toilet activity while focusing on dierences in apartments
without a separate toilet space and those with a separate toilet space, there was very high
dissatisfaction in those without toilets, as values increased from 70.3% before the pan-
demic to 83.9%. Furthermore, Figure 65 indicates very high scores, 32.5% to 44,1%, in pre-
and post-pandemic stages for apartments with separate toilets.
Figure 65. Dierences in dissatisfaction percentages for apartments without separate toilets and
those with separate units.
The broad absence of separate toilets in most 2 + 1 apartments caused a high percent-
age of dissatisfaction regarding this activity, as 75% of residents agreed that the absence
of a separate space is the main cause of their negative evaluation. However, in category 3
+ 1, only 12.5% of responses indicated absence as the main dissatisfaction reason, mainly
due to the availability of two bathrooms. Figure 66 supports this.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 112 of 83
Figure 66. The absence of a separate toilet in apartments is correlated with high dissatisfaction per-
centages in 2 + 1 compared to 3 + 1 categories.
Figure 67 shows the reasons for the dissatisfaction with toilets in apartments with
separate toilets. It indicates three main reasons, all of low to middle scores, led by limited
space, followed by the eect of a limited number of activities, and then proportion. All
ratios are within 11.7–23.8%, except for the fourth reason, the relationship to the entrance
(5.3%).
Figure 67. The reasons for dierent dissatisfaction percentages for apartments with separate toilets.
Factor analysis showed, as indicated in Table 9 A,B, that the components were rated
dierently: the weakest factors were proportion, area, number, and relationship.
Table 9. Factor analysis for toilets indicating high factor loadings for reasons for dissatisfaction
considered in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic,
Red: during the pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
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
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 113 of 83
To.3.4 0.986
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
(B)
Factors
To.3.1 Limited space (area)
To.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
To.1.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
To.1.4 The whole family shares one toilet space [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 the proportion; the strongest factor before and after the pandemic was the area. All of
the post-pandemic factors were signicant, and it is best to consider them when building
toilets in new apartments, as indicated by the tables below.
3.3.10. Laundry
The laundry space indicates a separate laundry space that is not located in the bath-
room and used only for washing clothes. Analyzing residents’ satisfaction starts with the
overall evaluation of their dissatisfaction, as presented in Figure 68. Dissatisfaction levels
were so high that the pandemic escalated the percentage to 77.8% despite high dissatis-
faction even before the pandemic (67.1%).
Figure 68. The variations in dissatisfaction regarding laundry throughout the three stages of the
pandemic.
Considering the availability or absence of specic space within current apartments
and their role in the dissatisfaction of residents regarding the activity, Figure 69 clearly
shows a decrease in the satisfaction level by 31.4% in the pre-pandemic stage and 22.5%
in the post-pandemic stage. The base numbers of the absence of specic space are ex-
tremely high.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 114 of 83
Figure 69. The variations in dissatisfaction due to the availability or absence of laundry space.
We then sought to determine dierences in the responses of residents who had sep-
arate laundry space in their apartments compared to others who did not have a separate
space for activity. Figure 70 indicates that apartments without a laundry space showed
higher dissatisfaction ratios by 11.45 for the pre-pandemic stage and 8.8% during and after
the pandemic, supporting the previous ndings indicated in Figure 67.
Figure 70. The reasons for variations due to the availability or absence of laundry space.
The main reason for dissatisfaction with apartments is the complaint of the non-ex-
istence of a separate laundry space (86.7%), while the main reasons for dissatisfaction in
apartments containing a specic laundry space are the area and proportion, with ratios
scoring 80.0% for area and 58.0% for proportion. Further ndings about the eect of the
apartment category on residents’ responses are shown in Figure 71, indicating responses
for apartment dwellers who live in 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments for cases without a specic
laundry space. Complaints in the 2 + 1 category were greater than those in the 3 + 1 cate-
gory in the pre-pandemic stage and about 9.1% in the post-pandemic stage.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 115 of 83
Figure 71. Apartments without a specic laundry space—dissatisfaction percentages for both cate-
gories.
Dierences between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories that do not have specic laundry rooms
are presented in Figure 72. The main reason for dissatisfaction in the 2 + 1 category is the
absence of a separate space, while the main reason for dissatisfaction in the 3 + 1 category is
the same in addition to area and proportion, with the latter two having lower percentages.
Figure 72. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction in both categories with the absence of a spe-
cic laundry space.
However, apartments containing specic laundry spaces, as shown in Figure 73,
showed lower percentages of dissatisfaction. Furthermore, variations between the two cat-
egories within the same stage of the pandemic are very small, starting with higher dissat-
isfaction for the 2 + 1 category and ending with higher dissatisfaction for the 3 + 1 category.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 116 of 83
Figure 73. Apartments containing specic laundry spaces—dissatisfaction percentages of both 2 + 1
and 3 + 1 categories.
Figure 74 indicates reasons for dissatisfaction in apartments with a specic laundry
room. Both categories show that area deciency and space proportion are the greatest
causes determining residents’ dissatisfaction. The proportion comes before area in the 2 +
1 category and vice versa in the 3 + 1 category.
Figure 74. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding both 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartment
categories with a specic laundry space.
Table 10 A,B, illustrating the factor analysis, indicate that the greatest factor was ex-
istence (the absence of a separate laundry space), followed by the area, relationships, and
proportion, respectively. According to the tables below, the factors had an identical im-
pact on dissatisfaction over the three periods; the area was the strongest factor during the
pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 117 of 83
The relationship with the bath was the strongest during the three periods; the lack of
a laundry space was the strongest factor before and during the pandemic, and the propor-
tion was the strongest before and after the pandemic.
Here, it is evident that the relationship between the laundry room and bathroom and
the laundry room’s proportion are some of the greatest aspects after the pandemic, and it
is best to consider this when designing laundry rooms in new apartments.
This highlights the value of the laundry room’s proportion and its proximity to the
bathroom, which inuences the location of the soiled area and simplies its sterilization.
Table 10. Factor analysis for laundry indicating high factor loadings for the reasons considered in
the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the
pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix a
Component
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: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
(B)
Factors
La.1.1 There is no separate laundry space
La.1.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
La.1.3 Narrow space (proportion)
La.1.4 Indirect connection to the bathroom (relationship)
3.3.11. Storage
Storage refers to a separate storage room (not only a cabinet). Storage is not a common
room in modern housing projects despite being mentioned in standards. We aimed to better
understand residents’ responses to this activity and precisely separately defined space.
Figure 75 shows the residents’ dissatisfaction, where all values were above 78.2% for
the pre-pandemic period and increased to the extreme value of 92.8%—the highest score
in spaces in the current study during or after the pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 118 of 83
Figure 75. The variations in dissatisfaction for storage throughout the three stages of the pandemic.
Regarding the main reasons for dissatisfaction due to the absence of specic space
within current apartments, Figure 76 clearly shows that the majority of dissatisfaction re-
sponses focused on the absence of storage as a constant issue reported by 75% of residents,
followed by the proportion and area for apartments containing storage.
Figure 76. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding storage activity.
When analyzing dissatisfaction regarding storage by separating the responses of res-
idents who had storage in their apartments from those who did not, as indicated in Figure
77, 95.6% claimed dissatisfaction, especially during and after the pandemic. On the other
hand, those who did not have storage reported very high dissatisfaction with this activity,
and during the last two stages of the pandemic, in this study, it reached 84.5%.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 119 of 83
Figure 77. The variations in dissatisfaction due to the availability or absence of a storage space.
Figures 78 and 79 show the results when combining the eect of apartment categories
with the availability of storage space. The percentages are very high for cases that do not
contain specic storage space, as shown in Figure 80.
Figure 78. The dissatisfaction percentages of 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments without a specic storage
space.
When comparing the percentages of dissatisfaction to cases that already contain a
kind of storage space, the results in Figure 79 indicate lower numbers; however, the de-
cline during the pandemic and post-pandemic stages is small, indicating defects in both
categories even when space is available.
The dierence was signicant during the pre-pandemic period, indicating the in-
creased importance of this space to be accommodated in apartments.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 120 of 83
Figure 79. The dissatisfaction percentages of both categories of apartments with a specic storage
space.
Figure 80. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding both 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments
with the absence of a specic storage space.
All residents of apartments that did not have a specic storage space complained
about the absence of such a space, as shown in Figure 80, indicating no concern about the
availability of storage in the form of cabinets or any other type except for a specic room
for such activity.
In cases where the space was available in other apartments, both 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 cate-
gories indicated area and proportion as the main reasons for resident dissatisfaction, and
variations between the two categories are very high. The dierences reached 50% between
both categories, with the highest scores observed for 2 + 1 apartment residents, as seen in
Figure 81.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 121 of 83
Figure 81. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding both 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments
with the availability of a specic storage space.
The factors that ranked rst in the factor analysis were the proportion, the existence
of separate storage, and the area; the link between the storage and the entry was the weak-
est component.
The strongest factors during the three periods, presented in Table 11 A,B, were those
related to the lack of separate storage space and the storage’s relationship to the entrance;
the area was the strongest during the pandemic, and the proportion factor was the strong-
est factor both during and after the pandemic.
These ndings demonstrate that the existence of a storage space and its relation to
the entrance and proportion are important to consider when designing storage spaces for
future apartment buildings.
As displayed in the following tables, the reason for this 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 travel through
the apartment to reach the storage space.
Table 11. Factor analysis for storage space indicating high factor loadings for the reasons considered
in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the
pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
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
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 122 of 83
St.3.4 0.983
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
(B)
Factors
St.1.1 There is no separate storage space
St.1.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
St.1.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
St.1.4 Indirect connection to the entrance (relationship)
3.3.12. Balcony
The balcony is the area that immediately connects the interior space to the outside
environment. One of the important types of balcony in apartments is the living room bal-
cony, which links the living room with the outside world. Also important is the kitchen
balcony and the bedroom balcony, which serve as an internal space connection and exten-
sion to the outside world.
The eect of the pandemic on those spaces can be found in Figure 82, where there
was a clear shock of a sudden increase from 31.8% in the pre-pandemic stage to 64.7%
during the pandemic—more than double.
Figure 82. The variations in dissatisfaction for balconies throughout the three stages of the pan-
demic.
Figure 83 shows the dierences in dissatisfaction, dierentiating the responses of res-
idents living in apartments with one balcony or more from those who do not have a bal-
cony. The pre-pandemic dissatisfaction of residents who did not have balconies was about
three times that of those who had balconies; a clear increase was registered due to the
pandemic in both types during and after the pandemic.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 123 of 83
Figure 83. The dissatisfaction percentages of both types of apartments regarding the availability or
absence of balconies throughout the three stages of the study.
The reasons for dissatisfaction in residents who had apartments with balconies, as
presented in Figure 84, indicated the proportion of the balcony to be the rst-ranked rea-
son for dissatisfaction, with an increased trend from 41.4% before the pandemic to 57.7%
after the pandemic, followed by area concerns, with same trend between 32.3% and 41.2%
for the post-pandemic stage.
A new reason for dissatisfaction that appeared is the number of separated balconies.
A total of 27.9% of residents were dissatised due to the small number of balconies before
the pandemic, which also increased to reach 35.8% after the pandemic. All these indicators
point to the necessity of the availability of more than just one balcony in apartment de-
signs.
Figure 84. The reasons for variation in dissatisfaction for all apartments with balconies.
The indicators of dissatisfaction dierences between 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments, which
both have balconies, are seen in Figure 85, which support previous ndings that 2 + 1
category residents showed higher dissatisfaction levels than 3 + 1 category residents dur-
ing and after the pandemic. What diers is that 2 + 1 residents did not show higher dis-
satisfaction in the pre-pandemic stage, as was the case for internal spaces.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 124 of 83
Figure 85. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding both 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments
with balconies.
Figures 86 and 87 explain reasons for this dissatisfaction despite the availability of
balconies in categories 2 + 1 and 3 + 1. Concerning category 2 + 1 apartments, residents
named the proportion and then number of balconies, followed by eect of limited space,
as the main reasons for their response; most of the indicators were moderate, with num-
bers moving between about 28% and 43%.
Figure 86. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding all 2 + 1 apartments with balconies.
For residents of 3 + 1 apartments, the same three reasons were claimed for dissatis-
faction, except replacing the second with the third, but the numbers were signicantly
higher than those in the 2 + 1 category, moving from about 27% up to more than 75% and
showing greater sensitivity by those occupants, as shown in Figure 87.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 125 of 83
Figure 87. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding all 3 + 1 apartments with balconies.
One of the most interesting criteria in residents’ evaluation of their dissatisfaction
regarding balconies (beyond the availability of balcony space) is the number of balconies
available according to apartment designs. Figure 88 indicates decreased dissatisfaction
with the increase in balconies on a normal, continuous trend from single to double to con-
tinuous.
Another interesting indicator for resident needs lowered for the same stages by al-
most half. The pre-pandemic stage did not imply any dissatisfaction with apartments with
continuous balconies. Another nding is the ratio of increase from before the pandemic to
during the pandemic; the ratio is also higher in single-balcony apartments.
Figure 88. The variations in dissatisfaction regarding all apartments with dierent numbers of bal-
conies; zero cases were excluded.
Considering the typology of balconies regarding the interior space annexed to them,
Figure 89 shows that the maximum complaints throughout the three stages were directed
at the kitchen balcony, followed by bedrooms and living rooms. The net score of the dis-
satisfaction increase from before the pandemic to during the pandemic was about 32%.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 126 of 83
Figure 89. The variations in dissatisfaction regarding dierent balcony types related to internal
spaces.
Residents’ dissatisfaction with various types of balconies related to spaces conrms
the sequence of reasons, as indicated in Figures 90–92 for living room balconies, bedroom
balconies, and kitchen balconies, sequentially.
Figure 90. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding living room balconies.
During the pandemic, the highest rank of dissatisfaction was due to a shortage in
numbers for all cases who had balconies, followed by proportion and then the area of the
balcony. Regarding the type of balcony, bedroom balconies obtained the highest dissatis-
faction grade, followed by kitchens and living rooms, in all stages of the pandemic. The
reason for lesser dissatisfaction with the living room balconies might be the extra care
given in designing these spaces.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 127 of 83
Figure 91. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding bedroom balconies.
Figure 92. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction regarding kitchen balconies.
The factors are arranged in order of strength, as revealed by the factor analysis in
Table 12 A,B: the lack of a balcony, few balconies, the area, the relationship to the kitchen,
the proportion, and nally, the relationship to the living room.
Table 12. Factor analysis for balconies with high factor loadings for the reasons considered in the
research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the pan-
demic, Orange: after the pandemic)..
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
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
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 128 of 83
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: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
(B)
Factors
Bal.1.1 There is no balcony
Bal.1.2 Limited space, difficult to walk or sit (area)
Bal.1.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
Bal.1.4 Indirect connection to the living room (relationship)
Bal.1.5 Indirect connection to the kitchen (relationship)
Bal.1.6 Few balconies
(number)
The absence of a balcony exerted the greatest inuence throughout the three periods,
while other factors were the 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 considered when designing balconies in future apartments. The bal-
cony’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 a table and chairs, as displayed in the following tables.
3.3.13. Apartment Corridor
The apartment corridor refers to the corridor inside the apartment dierentiated
from the apartment oor corridor. As shown in Figure 93, the pandemic raised the re-
spondent’s dissatisfaction by more than double during the pandemic, and a slight de-
crease occurred in the post-pandemic stage.
Figure 93. The variations in dissatisfaction with apartment corridors due to the pandemic.
More than 50% of residents reported that the main reason for their dissatisfaction
was the narrow space of apartment corridors, even before the pandemic, as shown in Fig-
ure 94. The second and third factors are the limited space for the needed requirements
other than just movement in the corridor—precisely, the lack of storage capacity—and the
excessive number of doors that cause confusion in use.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 129 of 83
Figure 94. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction with apartment corridors throughout the
three stages of the pandemic.
Classifying apartments in this study according to the two mentioned categories can
generate a beer understanding and exact conclusions, as shown in Figure 95, where res-
idents of 2 + 1 apartments showed higher levels of dissatisfaction, possibly due to limited
space sizes and lower living conditions. After the pandemic, the results showed an over-mod-
erate rate of dissatisfaction with regard to the layout and design of apartment corridors.
Figure 95. The variations in dissatisfaction with corridors in 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments.
Figure 96 illustrates the reasons for dissatisfaction with each of the two categories,
indicating that the proportion of the apartment corridor is the greatest reason, followed
by the area for extra needs, then the disposition of door openings in the corridor. The
dissatisfaction percentage in the 2 + 1 category was slightly higher than the 3 + 1 category
in the pre-pandemic stage and was altered in the post-pandemic stage. Even more residents
of 2 + 1 apartments were dissatisfied, but residents of 3 + 1 apartments equalized them.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 130 of 83
Figure 96. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction with apartment corridors throughout the
three stages of the pandemic for 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments.
When analyzing dissatisfaction due to the spatial organization of spaces, Figure 97
shows that in closed-organization apartment design, residents had higher levels of dissat-
isfaction in the pre- and post-pandemic stages, about 9%.
This was contrary to during the pandemic, when open-organization residents’ dis-
satisfaction values exceeded those of closed-organization residents, mainly due to pan-
demic safety requirements and obligations to minimize contact.
Figure 97. The dissatisfaction variations for corridors comparing closed and open spatial organiza-
tions.
The causes of dierent results of dissatisfaction due to dierent spatial organizations
are presented in Figure 98. The results support the ndings of Figure 97; during the pan-
demic, open-spatial-organization apartment residents showed higher dissatisfaction lev-
els, while closed-spatial-organization apartment residents showed higher levels after the
pandemic.
The proportion in both organizations dominated the other two results, especially
with a closed organization, the same case as the 3 + 1 category reasons for dissatisfaction
shown in Figure 96. The other interesting nding is the reduced eect of doors on the
corridor dissatisfaction level in the closed-organization plan compared to in the open-or-
ganization plan, which might be an adaptation other than logic since doors had less of an
impact on movement in corridors with an open plan.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 131 of 83
Figure 98. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction with apartment corridors throughout the
three stages of the pandemic for closed and open spatial organizations.
Table 13 A,B show the results of applying the factor analysis process for evaluation.
The area was the most signicant component in the factor analysis, followed by the eect
of the number of doors in the corridor and then proportion in third place.
When comparing the factors throughout the three periods, except for the area, which
was the most signicant 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 13. Factor analysis for apartment corridors indicating high factor loadings for the reasons
considered in the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red:
during the pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic)..
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3
Ap.Co.1.1 0.910
Ap.Co.1.2 0.815
Ap.Co.1.3 0.914
Ap.Co.2.1 0.979
Ap.Co.2.2 0.955
Ap.Co.2.3 0.948
Ap.Co.3.1 0.979
Ap.Co.3.2 0.928
Ap.Co.3.3 0.910
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
a
.
a
. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
(B)
Factors
Ap.Co.1.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Ap.Co.1.2 Narrow shape (proportion)
Ap.Co.1.3 Too many doors in the corridor (number)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 132 of 83
3.3.14. Apartment Layout
The apartment layout was categorized according to the literature into the following
two types widely available in Erbil projects: rst, a corridor system that arranges rooms
in the apartment sequentially on one or both sides of an axis (in this research, it is dened
as a closed plan according to Heckman [24] (p. 48)), and second, a continuous oor design,
which minimizes room boundaries to a small number of carefully placed walls that create
distinct zones and make the space dynamic. In this type, the living room, dining area, and
kitchen blend with the corridors leading to the master and children’s bedrooms; the rooms are
set off from one another [24] (p. 50). The current research defines this type as an open plan.
The general satisfaction trend through the three stages of the pandemic is presented
in Figure 99, where a sudden increase in residents’ dissatisfaction is observed from before
the pandemic to during the pandemic. The value tripled after the pandemic, showing a
slight decrease that is almost insignicant, which means increased awareness about this
important item.
When comparing 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartments and adding sub-categories of 2 + 2 and 3
+ 2, as shown in Figure 100, 2 + 1 apartments had more dissatisfaction reported by resi-
dents than 3 + 1 apartments.
This new interesting result concerns sub-categories. Both had extra living space com-
pared to the original reference, and this increase clearly lowered dissatisfaction levels for
2 + 2 and 3 + 2, respectively.
Figure 99. The variations in dissatisfaction for various apartment layouts due to the pan-
demic.
Figure 100. The variations in dissatisfaction with apartment layouts throughout the three stages of
the pandemic for 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 categories and 2 + 2 and 3 + 2 sub-categories.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 133 of 83
To determine the eects of the spatial organization of spaces on residents’ dissatis-
faction, Figure 101 shows the great superiority of the open spatial organization in dissat-
isfaction ratios during and post-pandemic period; this is mainly due to non-welcome so-
cial contact during the pandemic, with continued fear after the pandemic keeping values
very high.
Figure 101. The variations in dissatisfaction for corridors with closed and open spatial organiza-
tions.
To dierentiate spatial organization reasoning, the reasons for dissatisfaction ad-
dressed by closed-spatial-organization apartments are illustrated in Figure 102. The area
being inexible to exploit rooms for dierent activities topped the reasons for dissatisfac-
tion, with 63.4%, followed by the proportion and lack of balconies linking inside and out-
side spaces. All reasons suered a clear increase during the pandemic, similar to that in
the post-pandemic stage but with slight dierences.
Figure 102. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction with apartment layouts with a closed organ-
ization.
The reasons for dissatisfaction with an open spatial organization are more concen-
trated than those of a closed organization. The main reason for dissatisfaction is the num-
ber of balconies, followed by the inability to exploit rooms, as shown in Figure 103. The
reasons had the opposite rank compared to those for a closed organization despite a
higher magnitude.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 134 of 83
Figure 103. The reasons for variations in dissatisfaction with apartment layouts with an open spatial
organization.
The results of factor analysis in Table 14 A,B show that the existence of a balcony was
the most important element; area exibility was the second most important; area type,
entrance space, and proportion were the third, fourth, and fth most important factors,
respectively; and the weakest factor was exibility.
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 strongest factors were the
area exibility, exibility, and area type.
These ndings demonstrate the importance of having rooms for multiple uses, spaces
that can be resized to create new areas, and private areas. As a result, these three factors
must be considered when designing the apartment layouts in the future, as demonstrated
by the tables below.
Table 14. Factor analysis for balconies indicating high factor loadings for the reasons considered in
the research during the three stages of the pandemic (Blue: before the pandemic, Red: during the
pandemic, Orange: after the pandemic).
(A)
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Ap.La.1.1 0.874
Ap.La.1.2 0.835
Ap.La.1.3 0.515 0.586
Ap.La.1.4 0.544
Ap.La.1.5 0.872
Ap.La.1.6 0.890
Ap.La.2.1 0.829
Ap.La.2.2 0.918
Ap.La.2.3 0.893
Ap.La.2.4 0.929
Ap.La.2.5 0.920
Ap.La.2.6 0.850
Ap.La.3.1 0.719
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 135 of 83
Ap.La.3.2 0.939
Ap.La.3.3 0.929
Ap.La.3.4 0.919
Ap.La.3.5 0.834
Ap.La.3.6 0.919
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
(B)
Factors
Ap.La.1.1 Difficulties in the sterilization process due to insufficient space in the
entrance (entrance) space)
Ap.La.1.2 Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work, study, etc.)
due to limited space and multiple divisions (area flexibility)
Ap.La.1.3 Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (flexibility)
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 (existence)
Ap.La.1.6 Limited private spaces (area type)
4. Discussion
Considering the results, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on apartment satis-
faction levels in Erbil revealed signicant insights into the importance of interior space
quality. The presence of an entrance lobby signicantly inuenced residents’ 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 expe-
rienced a lile less of an increase in the dissatisfaction rate, from 34.4% before the pan-
demic to 62.7% during the pandemic. The key reasons for dissatisfaction included the pro-
portion of the lobby, the area, and the connectivity with an entrance toilet. The analysis
also highlighted dierences 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 decreas-
ing post-pandemic. Additionally, the availability of a toilet within the lobby signicantly
impacted dissatisfaction levels, showing a clear increase during the pandemic for apart-
ments without this feature and a signicant impact related to the distance of the toilet
from the entrance. The results align with those found by Fakhimi [25] and Gür [26] who
found that adequate entrance design and the availability of hand-washing basins, toilets,
and dressing rooms close to entrances aect residents’ satisfaction. These ndings under-
line the critical role of entrance lobbies in enhancing residential satisfaction, especially
during health crises, and suggest that the functionality and design of these spaces are cru-
cial in meeting residents’ expectations and needs.
Satisfaction with the living room was signicantly aected by spatial organization
and privacy needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dissatisfaction increased notably in
living rooms due to a limited area and narrow space, especially in closed spatial organi-
zations. This was intensied by the pandemic’s restrictions, which heightened the need
for privacy and adequate space. These ndings align with those by Yang et al. [27] who
explored satisfaction and residential demand during the COVID-19 pandemic and found
that the space and area of living rooms are crucial during situations like the pandemic and
claim that since activities are more likely to be transformed in such spaces, they have to
be designed optimally in relation to space and functions as per the residential demands
in the long run. Interestingly, dissatisfaction decreased during the pandemic due to a
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 136 of 83
reduced need for gathering but increased again post-pandemic as normal activities re-
sumed. Smaller dwellings (2 + 1 congurations) experienced higher dissatisfaction levels
than larger ones (3 + 1 congurations), suggesting that space limits played a critical role.
Furthermore, the availability of a balcony signicantly 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 nec-
essary relief and a connection to the outdoors during lockdowns. These ndings are sup-
ported by Duarte et al.’s [28] research on home balconies during COVID-19, who found
balconies to be residents’ primary means of connecting with outdoor spaces during
COVID-19 restrictions, enabling the residents to perform various activities there. Further-
more, they signicantly enhance mental and physical well-being. Both closed and open
spatial organizations saw dierent dissatisfaction impacts related to the availability of
balconies, with closed systems beneting more post-pandemic. These ndings highlight
the need for future living room designs to consider factors such as space proportion, pri-
vacy, and the integration of elements like balconies to enhance residents’ satisfaction, es-
pecially in light of potential future lockdowns and restrictions similar to COVID-19.
The presence of a dedicated reception room impacted residents’ 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 aributed to the adaptation of reception areas for study, recre-
ational 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 re-
ception rooms resumed. The multifunctional use of the space, rather than visitor fre-
quency, primarily drove dissatisfaction during the pandemic. Residences raised privacy
concerns across all three stages, with dissatisfaction rates reaching 66.7%, primarily due
to the mixing of the family living room and the guest reception area. The ndings call for
beer arrangements in designing receptions considering the residential privacy needs.
Family dining spaces, the main gathering areas for family members before the pan-
demic, experienced signicant dissatisfaction during and after the pandemic, 50.3% and
59.4%, respectively, compared to the time before the pandemic, which was only 33.6%.
The ndings indicate that residents were primarily dissatised with the narrow space of
the dining areas and felt diculty passing through them when seated, and mixing it with
guest dining increased the dissatisfaction of the residents due to privacy concerns. Dissat-
isfaction was observed with close values in both 2 + 1 and 3 + 1 apartment congurations,
50.1% and 54.5%, respectively, during the pandemic, increasing to 61.7% after the pan-
demic in small apartments, suggesting that residents changed needs and reconsidered
more adequate designs with beer spacing and separate dining spaces for family mem-
bers and guests. The results parallel the ndings of other studies [23,29] calling for
thoughtful design consideration in dining spaces while considering residential privacy
concerns, especially in smaller apartments.
Master bedrooms, being the primary resting place of the apartment heads, experi-
enced signicant dissatisfaction, with larger apartment categories observing lesser dissat-
isfaction than the smaller ones across all stages. The lack of a private bathroom in the
master bedroom served as the primary factor behind the high dissatisfaction levels during
the pandemic. This can be particularly aributed to the fact that the pandemic increased
the need for private spaces. Primary factors leading to the reduced dissatisfaction levels
in the master bedroom were the presence of balconies through which residents were able
to obtain a view of the outside and practice several dierent activities there. Duarte et al.
[28] and Yang et al. [27] both support the fact that the presences of balconies and bath-
rooms within master bedrooms are essential criteria aecting the satisfaction of residents.
These ndings suggest the critical need for well-designed master bedrooms with adequate
space, privacy, and essential amenities like bathrooms and balconies to enhance residents’
satisfaction, particularly in compact living conditions.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 137 of 83
Children’s bedrooms, due to their multipurpose uses (being resting places and serv-
ing as a study room), experienced dissatisfaction rate increases from 29.1% to 36.5%. The
dissatisfaction rate shows a smaller increase compared to other spaces, in which dissatis-
faction rates increased more than 25% and increased more in a smaller apartment cong-
urations than larger ones. The main reasons for dissatisfaction were limited space and
inadequate room proportions, particularly in 3 + 1 apartments, where space decits 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. A balcony in children’s
bedrooms signicantly improved satisfaction during and after the pandemic. The open
spatial organization resulted in lesser dissatisfaction than closed layouts, and this trend
intensied during and after the pandemic, showing a clear preference for more open liv-
ing arrangements in children’s bedrooms. The ndings from other studies [24,26,27] also
highlight the critical role of children’s bedrooms and their eects on residential satisfac-
tion, as these spaces were not only used for sleeping and resting alone during the pan-
demic but were also used as study and workspaces. Hence, adequate design considering
such unexpected conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary when designing
such spaces in the future.
Dissatisfaction with kitchen spaces signicantly 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 nar-
row proportions of the kitchen, which worsened during the pandemic due to the in-
creased kitchen usage for multiple purposes, including family gatherings. The lack of a
family dining area within the kitchen also contributed to this dissatisfaction. This study
found that smaller apartments (2 + 1 category) reported higher dissatisfaction than larger
ones (3 + 1 category), likely due to more acute space constraints in smaller kitchens. Ad-
ditionally, balconies in kitchen areas slightly mitigated dissatisfaction, particularly before
the pandemic, but this benet was less pronounced during and after the pandemic. Other
studies highlight that kitchens during the pandemic were not merely used for cooking
purposes but also were used more like oces and study rooms [1,27]. The ndings sug-
gest that improving spatial proportions and providing dedicated areas for dining within
the kitchen could enhance residents’ 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. The proportion, area suciency, and dis-
tance from the entrance were identied as the main reasons for dissatisfaction, with the
proportion showing the highest increase during the pandemic. The presence of an addi-
tional master bathroom signicantly reduced dissatisfaction, highlighting the benets of
having more than one bathroom in reducing congestion and enhancing privacy. Apart-
ments with both a family and a master bathroom reported markedly lower dissatisfaction
levels, emphasizing the importance of multiple bathrooms in larger dwellings (3 + 1 cate-
gories) compared to those with only one bathroom (2 + 1 categories). These ndings par-
allel ndings from Elrayies [30] and İslamoğlu [1] who found that bathrooms signicantly
inuenced the satisfaction of residents as they were used more often for 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.
Signicant dissatisfaction with toilets was observed, particularly in the pre-pandemic
stage, where dissatisfaction exceeded 54%. This dissatisfaction intensied during the pan-
demic by an additional 13.3%. A deeper analysis revealed that 2 + 1 apartment categories
consistently registered higher dissatisfaction across all stages than 3 + 1 categories, with
the disparity growing during the pandemic. The absence of a separate toilet space mark-
edly increased dissatisfaction levels, surging from 70.3% pre-pandemic to 83.9% during
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 138 of 83
the pandemic for apartments lacking separate toilets. In contrast, apartments with sepa-
rate 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 aected,
with 75% of residents citing the lack of a separate toilet space as a primary cause of dis-
satisfaction, compared to only 12.5% in the 3 + 1 category, likely due to the laer’s gener-
ally higher availability of two bathrooms. The analysis of toilet dissatisfaction reasons for
apartments with separate facilities showed that limited space, restricted activity options,
and proximity to the entrance were the main concerns, with dissatisfaction percentages
ranging modestly from 11.7% to 23.8%, except for the relationship to the entrance, which
had only 5.3% dissatisfaction. Similar to studies concerning bathroom designs, Walisinghe
[31] reported that the main dissatisfaction concern from the residents during COVID-19
was the design and size of toilets. Similarly, İslamoğlu [1] reported that the number of
toilets aected the residents’ satisfaction, and future apartment designs should consider
incorporating more than one toilet. These ndings highlight the critical importance of
thoughtful toilet placement and adequate space allocation in residential design to enhance
residential satisfaction.
Dissatisfaction with laundry spaces signicantly escalated during the pandemic, ris-
ing from 67.1% pre-pandemic to 77.8% during the pandemic. This high level of dissatis-
faction persisted post-pandemic, with a slight decrease. The ndings from the results in-
dicated that a lack of laundry space in apartments signicantly aected the satisfaction
rate of the residents, and those without a separate laundry space observed higher dissat-
isfaction compared to those with a laundry space in their apartments, especially smaller
apartments, which, due to the limited space, lacked a laundry space in their apartments.
While the satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates are close and the main reasons behind this
dissatisfaction stemmed from limited laundry space and an improper proportion of the
space, future designs should consider dedicating a separate space for laundry activities
that is both functional and accessible to the residents.
Storage space served many needs of the apartments but experienced signicant dis-
satisfaction from the residents of the apartments. Before the pandemic, dissatisfaction
rates were lower compared to the time during and after the pandemic. The dissatisfaction
rate increased to 92.8% during and after the pandemic from 78.2% before the pandemic.
Both residents with storage space and those without the space reported high dissatisfac-
tion rates, with those lacking it reporting higher dissatisfaction, 95.6%, compared to those
with storage space, reporting 84.5%. The reasons that led to residents’ dissatisfaction with
storage space in their apartments can be primarily aributed to the limited space and pro-
portion of the space. The analysis indicated that dissatisfaction was notably higher in
apartments lacking specic storage spaces. Even in apartments with some form of storage,
dissatisfaction persisted due to inadequate space and poor proportions, but it was ob-
served more in smaller apartments (2 + 1 category), where space constraints were more
acute. The ndings of the study parallel ndings from other studies [18–21,23,25] which
highlight the signicant role of these spaces in the well-being and comfort of the residents
in apartment and residential complexes, as the lack of a sucient storage area aected the
satisfaction level and prevented residents from storing sanitary equipment, exercise equip-
ment, and other appliances. The importance of storage space was underscored, especially dur-
ing the pandemic, highlighting the need for well-designed storage solutions in future apart-
ment constructions to address these significant dissatisfaction levels effectively.
Balconies in apartments signicantly inuenced residents’ satisfaction, particularly
during the pandemic. Dissatisfaction escalated sharply from 31.8% pre-pandemic to 64.7%
during the pandemic, reecting the heightened importance of balconies as essential ex-
tensions of living space. Residents without balconies experienced dissatisfaction rates
three times higher than those with balconies pre-pandemic, which intensied during and
after the pandemic. The proportion, area, and number of balconies were identied as pri-
mary dissatisfaction factors. Notably, dissatisfaction concerning balcony proportion and
area increased post-pandemic. The ndings also highlighted a particular demand for
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 139 of 83
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 research
has been performed in this area, while not investing in such detail as the present study;
Aydin et al. [32] highlight the signicant role of balconies during the pandemic and claim
that they are recognized as a place for gathering and dancing, a playground for children,
and a space for eating activities. Peters and Masoudinejad [33] found that apartments with
balconies were preferred more by residents, and larger balconies, especially those facing
green areas and natural views, were more preferred compared to small balconies and
those facing other apartments. The analysis highlights the critical need for satisfactory
balcony space in apartment design, emphasizing that multiple and well-proportioned bal-
conies can signicantly enhance residents’ satisfaction by oering 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 move-
ment, 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 than larger apartments, which signi-
cantly aected the proportion of corridor doors and additional space needs. Residents
from open- and closed-design organizations also reported dissatisfaction with closed de-
signs, reporting greater dissatisfaction before and after the pandemic and lesser dissatis-
faction during the pandemic compared to an open spatial design due to safety concerns
that emerged at the time. The ndings highlight the need for future designs to reconsider
the design of corridors that provide functionality and area allocation in unexpected events
like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Overall, dissatisfaction with the apartment layouts indicated a sharp increase from
the pre-pandemic to during-pandemic stages and almost rose three times higher than be-
fore the pandemic. At the same time, it slightly decreased in the post-pandemic stage.
Smaller apartments (2 + 1) experienced more dissatisfaction than larger ones (3 + 1), but
additional living space in sub-categories (2 + 2 and 3 + 2) reduced dissatisfaction levels.
Open spatial organizations experienced higher dissatisfaction during and after the pan-
demic due to non-welcomed social contact, whereas closed spatial organizations faced
inexibility issues. The presence of balconies was the most signicant factor in reducing
dissatisfaction, followed by area exibility, entrance space, and room proportion. Previ-
ous studies [5,34] have suggested partitions or sliding panel partitions that allow for beer
individual privacy, and wider doorways and corridors were the main concerns for resi-
dential satisfaction during COVID-19. The present research ndings and those from the
previous studies call for exible spaces and adequate apartment layout designs in the fu-
ture that consider the privacy of individuals.
5. Conclusions
The pandemic signicantly inuenced residents’ housing needs, with some eects
being permanent while others were moderated post-pandemic. A key observation is the
notably heightened interaction between residents and their dwellings due to quarantine
and social-distancing measures, which fortied the relationship between residents and
their homes. This intensied connection led to a sustained focus despite varying trends
and shifts in satisfaction levels. An analysis of dissatisfaction trends across the three stages
revealed distinct trajectories, as outlined in Table 15, which presents average percentages
supporting the following conclusions:
There are ve spaces for which the percentage of dissatisfaction increased during the
pandemic. The percentage was preserved or increased after the pandemic,
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 140 of 83
conrming that the pandemic had a clear and stable impact on these spaces [living
room, family dining, children’s bedroom, laundry, and storage].
This study found that there are eight spaces [entrance, master bedroom, kitchen, fam-
ily bath, toilet, apartment corridor, balcony, and apartment layout] for which the per-
centage of dissatisfaction decreased during the pandemic compared to the rate after
the pandemic while maintaining a clear dierence in percentage between before and
after the pandemic. This conrms that the eect of the pandemic is still present.
On the other hand, in a single space [reception], where the rate of dissatisfaction be-
fore the pandemic was higher than the rate during and after the pandemic, a decrease
in satisfaction is due to a reduced need for that activity due to the quarantine, not to
alterations in space, to minimize dissatisfaction. This is a kind of shift in residents’
opinions added to the non-need for a guest reception room.
Out of the 14 spaces and activities tested in this study, 9 of them showed a dissatis-
faction value that exceeded 50% of respondents, indicating a clear disparity between
designs and family needs. The results strongly signaled the problem of missing stor-
age and laundry spaces, followed by shortages in requirements for the kitchen, sep-
arate toilet, balcony, family dining, entrance lobby, and apartment corridor with the
apartment layout conguration.
Less critical cases agreed with residents’ dissatisfaction; those within the range of less
than 50% down to 30% are living rooms, bathrooms, children’s bedrooms, and recep-
tion, followed by master bedrooms.
Table 15. The average dissatisfaction percentages for all apartments’ spaces and items considered
in the current research.
No. Dissatisfaction
Stages Trend B < [D A] [B < A] and
[D > A]
[B > D,A] and
[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. Before pandemic 34.0%
En.Q1. During pandemic 65.2%
En.Q1. After pandemic 57.9%
2
Re.Q1. Before pandemic 52.7%
Re.Q1. During pandemic 32.7%
Re.Q1. After pandemic 37.3%
3
Li.Q1. Before pandemic 21.1%
Li.Q1. During pandemic 45.5%
Li.Q1. After pandemic 47.5%
4
Fd.Q1. Before pandemic 33.6%
Fd.Q1. During pandemic 50.3%
Fd.Q1. After pandemic 59.4%
5
Ma.Q1. Before pandemic 9.5%
Ma.Q1. During pandemic 25.7%
Ma.Q1. After pandemic 24.8%
6
Ch.Q1. Before pandemic 29.1%
Ch.Q1. During pandemic 36.5%
Ch.Q1. After pandemic 36.6%
7
Ki.Q1. Before pandemic 48.4%
Ki.Q1. During pandemic 69.1%
Ki.Q1. After pandemic 68.5%
8 Ba.Q1. Before pandemic 31.8%
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 141 of 83
Ba.Q1. During pandemic 40.3%
Ba.Q1. After pandemic 39.9%
9
To.Q1. Before pandemic 54.7%
To.Q1. During pandemic 68.0%
To.Q1. After pandemic 66.8%
10
La.Q1. Before pandemic 67.1%
La.Q1. During pandemic 77.8%
La.Q1. After pandemic 77.8%
11
St.Q1. Before pandemic 78.2%
St.Q1. During pandemic 92.8%
St.Q1. After pandemic 92.8%
12
Ap.Co.Q1. Before pandemic 27.8%
Ap.Co.Q1. During pandemic 58.2%
Ap.Co.Q1. After pandemic 51.9%
13
Bal.Q1. Before pandemic 31.8%
Bal.Q1. During pandemic 64.7%
Bal.Q1. After pandemic 61.2%
14
Ap.La.Q1. Before pandemic 16.7%
Ap.La.Q1. During pandemic 57.0%
Ap.La.Q1. After pandemic 56.7%
6. Recommendations
The current study strongly recommends amendments to how layouts are designed
and planned while considering the importance of specic space requirements ignored
during modern architects’ engagement in the design of apartments and houses. Flexibility
issues to be maintained and dierent layouts that can serve dierent family structures
with various lifestyles must be considered.
In line with the ndings of the current study and those from previous studies [15],
this study recommends that future apartment designs should adopt a closed organization
rather than an open one. This approach allows for more separate rooms, facilitates easy
conversion of room purposes, and beer respects the privacy of residents compared to
open plans, which is particularly advantageous in situations like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Furthermore, future apartment layout designs as shown in Figure 104 should consider
having multiple and adequately spaced balconies that allow for comfortable siing and
multifunctional uses. Additionally, apartments lacking storage rooms shall be designed
with wider corridors to enable residents to place wardrobes in them for storage purposes.
Incorporating more than one child’s bedroom in future designs allows families to use
them for dierent purposes apart from sleeping such as study and work spaces. Lastly, to
enhance privacy, it is preferable to locate family dining within kitchens, and living rooms
should be enclosed and connected to balconies.
Governmental housing institutes must consider new requirements to guarantee bet-
ter housing and living conditions and be more adaptable to changing requirements due
to sudden changes like pandemics.
Furthermore, it is recommended to expand this study to cover the fourth time-stage
of eect by taking a new reference point of 5–6 years after the pandemic to register dissat-
isfaction level changes; this issue was out of the reach of this study due to the limited time
available.
Another important issue is to conduct parallel research on single-family housing pro-
jects with a homogenous typology to comprehend the achievements of both typologies, in
addition to the current study of multifamily housing projects, to achieve beer housing.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 142 of 83
Figure 104. Future apartment layout design recommendations.
Author Contributions: Writing—original draft, N.J.A.; Supervision, H.A.H.A.-S. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data supporting the ndings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon request.
Conicts of Interest: We, the researchers (Nazik Abdulhamid and Hasan Al-Sanjary), declare no
conicts of interest with any ocial governmental or non-governmental agencies regarding the re-
search submied to this journal.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 77 of 83
Appendix A
Tab le A1. 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. Other 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
Limited space for the wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for the wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for the wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
No direct connection with the toilet [WC] (relationship) No direct connection with the toilet [WC] (relationship) No direct connection with the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 relationship with the entrance (relationship) Bad relationip with the entrance (relationship) Bad relationship with the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
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)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 78 of 83
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space, limited wardrobe and 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion) Narrow space (proportion)
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’ s bedroom
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space, limited wardrobe and 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)
Kitch
en
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 79 of 83
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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)
Has only one door (number) Has only one door (number) Has only one door (number)
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 does not have enough bathrooms (number) The family does not have enough bathrooms (number) The family does not have enough bathrooms (number)
There is no bathroom separate from the toilet [WC] (privacy) There is no bathroom separate from the toilet [WC] (privacy) There is no bathroom separate 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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]
Before the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
There is no separate laundry space There is no separate laundry space There is no separate laundry space
Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for a wardrobe and 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)
St
or
ag
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]
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 80 of 83
Before the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
There is no separate storage space There is no separate storage space There is no separate storage space
Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion) Narrow shape (proportion)
Indirect connection to the entrance (relationship) Indirect connection to the entrance (relationship) Indirect connection to the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the pandemic
Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area) Limited space for a wardrobe and 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)
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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the kitchen (relationship) Indirect connection to the kitchen (relationship) Indirect connection to the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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 the pandemic During the pandemic After the 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, draw, play,
etc.) due to limited space and multiple divisions (area flexibility)
Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work, study,
draw, play, etc.) due to limited space and multiple divisions (area
flexibility)
Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work,
study, draw, play, etc.) due to limited space and multiple
divisions (area flexibility)
Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (flexibility) Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (flexibility) Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (flexibility)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 81 of 83
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)
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 (privacy) Limited private spaces (area type) Limited private spaces (area type)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 82 of 83
Appendix B
Tab le A2. Factor abbreviation table.
Abbreviation * Description Stage
En. Entrance
En.1.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Before the pandemic
En.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
En.1.3 No direct connection with the toilet [WC] (relationship)
En.2.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
During the pandemic
En.2.2 Narrow space (proportion)
En.2.3 No direct connection with the toilet [WC] (relationship)
En.3.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
After the pandemic
En.3.2 Narrow space (proportion)
En.3.3 No direct connection with the toilet [WC] (relationship)
Li. Living room
Li.1.1 Limited space, limited shelves or cabinet (area)
Before the pandemic
Li.1.2 Limited space for family activities and entertainment (area)
Li.1.3 Narrow space, difficult for family activities and entertainment (proportion)
Li.1.4 No direct connection with the balcony (relationship)
Li.1.5 The activity [family gathering] is mixed with reception (privacy)
Li.2.1 Limited space, limited shelves or cabinet (area)
During the pandemic
Li.2.2 Limited space for family activities and entertainment (area)
Li.2.3 Narrow space, difficult for family activities and entertainment (proportion)
Li.2.4 No direct connection with the balcony (relationship)
Li.2.5 The activity [family gathering] is mixed with reception (privacy)
Li.3.1 Limited space, limited shelves or cabinet (area)
After the pandemic
Li.3.2 Limited space for family activities and entertainment (area)
Li.3.3 Narrow space, difficult for family activities and entertainment (proportion)
Li.3.4 No direct connection with the balcony (relationship)
Li.3.5 The activity [family gathering] is mixed with reception (privacy)
Fd. Family dining
Fd.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Before the pandemic
Fd.1.2 Narrow space, difficult to walk by when seated (proportion)
Fd.1.3 Family dining is mixed with guest dining (privacy)
Fd.2.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
During the pandemic Fd.2.2 Narrow space, difficult to walk by when seated (proportion)
Fd.2.3 Family dining is mixed with guest dining (privacy)
Fd.3.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
After the pandemic
Fd.3.2 Narrow space, difficult to walk by when seated (proportion)
Fd.3.3 Family dining is mixed with guest dining (privacy)
Ma. Master bedroom
Ma.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Before the pandemic
Ma.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ma.1.3 The master bedroom does not have an independent bathroom (relationship)
Ma.1.4 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
Ma.2.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
During the pandemic
Ma.2.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ma.2.3 The master bedroom does not have an independent bathroom (relationship)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 83 of 83
Ma.2.4 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
Ma.3.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
After the pandemic
Ma.3.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ma.3.3 The master bedroom does not have an independent bathroom (relationship)
Ma.3.4 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
Ch. Children bedroom
Ch.1.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Before the pandemic
Ch.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ch.1.3 Far from the bathroom (relationship)
Ch.1.4 Few bedrooms (number)
Ch.1.5 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
Ch.2.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
During the pandemic
Ch.2.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ch.2.3 Far from the bathroom (relationship)
Ch.2.4 Few bedrooms (number)
Ch.2.5 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
Ch.3.1 Limited space, limited wardrobe and cabinet (area)
After the pandemic
Ch.3.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ch.3.3 Far from the bathroom (relationship)
Ch.3.4 Few bedrooms (number)
Ch.3.5 The activity [sleeping] is mixed with the family gathering zone (privacy)
Ki. Kitchen
Ki.1.1 Limited space, limited workspace (area)
Before the pandemic
Ki.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ki.1.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ki.1.4 Has only one door (number)
Ki.1.5 The activity [cooking] is mixed with family gatherings (privacy)
Ki.2.1 Limited space, limited workspace (area)
During the pandemic
Ki.2.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ki.2.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ki.2.4 Has only one door (number)
Ki.2.5 The activity [cooking] is mixed with family gatherings (privacy)
Ki.3.1 Limited space, limited workspace (area)
After the pandemic
Ki.3.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ki.3.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ki.3.4 Has only one door (number)
Ki.3.5 The activity [cooking] is mixed with family gatherings (privacy)
Ba. Bathroom
Ba.1.1 Limited space (area)
Before the pandemic
Ba.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ba.1.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ba.1.4 The family does not have enough bathrooms (number)
Ba.1.5 There is no bathroom separate from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
Ba.2.1 Limited space (area)
During the pandemic
Ba.2.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ba.2.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ba.2.4 The family does not have enough bathrooms (number)
Ba.2.5 There is no bathroom separate from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
Ba.3.1 Limited space (area) After the pandemic
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 84 of 83
Ba.3.2 Narrow space (proportion)
Ba.3.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
Ba.3.4 The family does not have enough bathrooms (number)
Ba.3.5 There is no bathroom separate from the toilet [WC] (privacy)
To. Toilet
To.1.1 Limited space (area)
Before the pandemic
To.1.2 Narrow space (proportion)
To.1.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
To.1.4 The whole family shares one toilet space [WC] (number)
To.2.1 Limited space (area)
During the pandemic
To.2.2 Narrow space (proportion)
To.2.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
To.2.4 The whole family shares one toilet space [WC] (number)
To.3.1 Limited space (area)
After the pandemic
To.3.2 Narrow space (proportion)
To.3.3 Far from the entrance (relationship)
To.3.4 The whole family shares one toilet space [WC] (number)
La. Laundry
La.1.1 There is no separate laundry space
Before the pandemic
La.1.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
La.1.3 Narrow space (proportion)
La.1.4 Indirect connection to the bathroom (relationship)
La.2.1 There is no separate laundry space
During the pandemic
La.2.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
La.2.3 Narrow space (proportion)
La.2.4 Indirect connection to the bathroom (relationship)
La.3.1 There is no separate laundry space
After the pandemic
La.3.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
La.3.3 Narrow space (proportion)
La.3.4 Indirect connection to the bathroom (relationship)
St. Storage
St.1.1 There is no separate storage space
Before the pandemic
St.1.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
St.1.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
St.1.4 Indirect connection to entrance (relationship)
St.2.1 There is no separate storage space
During the pandemic
St.2.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
St.2.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
St.2.4 Indirect connection to entrance (relationship)
St.3.1 There is no separate storage space
After the pandemic
St.3.2 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
St.3.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
St.3.4 Indirect connection to entrance (relationship)
Bal. Balcony
Bal.1.1 There is no balcony
Before the pandemic
Bal.1.2 Limited space, difficult to walk or sit (area)
Bal.1.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
Bal.1.4 Indirect connection to the living room (relationship)
Bal.1.5 Indirect connection to the kitchen (relationship)
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 85 of 83
Bal.1.6 Few balconies (number)
Bal.2.1 There is no balcony
During the pandemic
Bal.2.2 Limited space, difficult to walk or sit (area)
Bal.2.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
Bal.2.4 Indirect connection to the living room (relationship)
Bal.2.5 Indirect connection to kitchen (relationship)
Bal.2.6 Few balconies (number)
Bal.3.1 There is no balcony
After the pandemic
Bal.3.2 Limited space, difficult to walk or sit (area)
Bal.3.3 Narrow shape (proportion)
Bal.3.4 Indirect connection to the living room (relationship)
Bal.3.5 Indirect connection to the kitchen (relationship)
Bal.3.6 Few balconies (number)
Ap.Co. Apartment corridor
Ap.Co.1.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
Before the pandemic
Ap.Co.1.2 Narrow shape (proportion)
Ap.Co.1.3 Too many doors on the corridor (number)
Ap.Co.2.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
During the pandemic
Ap.Co.2.2 Narrow shape (proportion)
Ap.Co.2.3 Too many doors on the corridor (number)
Ap.Co.3.1 Limited space for a wardrobe and cabinet (area)
After the pandemic
Ap.Co.3.2 Narrow shape (proportion)
Ap.Co.3.3 Too many doors on the corridor (number)
Ap.La. Apartment layout
Ap.La.1.1 Difficulties in the sterilization process due to insufficient space in the entrance
(area)
Before the pandemic
Ap.La.1.2 Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work, study, etc.) due
to limited space and multiple divisions (area)
Ap.La.1.3 Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (area)
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 (number)
Ap.La.1.6 Limited private spaces (privacy)
Ap.La.2.1 Difficulties in the sterilization process due to insufficient space in the entrance
(area)
During the pandemic
Ap.La.2.2 Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work, study, etc.) due
to limited space and multiple divisions (area)
Ap.La.2.3 Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (area)
Ap.La.2.4 Narrow rooms unable to be expanded into functional use areas (proportion)
Ap.La.2.5 Lack of balconies as spaces to link the interior with the exterior (number)
Ap.La.2.6 Limited private spaces (privacy)
Ap.La.3.1 Difficulties in the sterilization process due to insufficient space in the entrance
(area)
After the pandemic
Ap.La.3.2 Inability to exploit rooms for multiple activities (sleep, work, study, etc.) due
to limited space and multiple divisions (area)
Ap.La.3.3 Inability to shrink spaces and create new ones (area)
Ap.La.3.4 Narrow rooms unable to be expanded into functional use areas (proportion)
Ap.La.3.5 Lack of balconies as spaces to link the interior with the exterior (number)
Ap.La.3.6 Limited private spaces (privacy)
* For the items listed under the abbreviation column, e.g., Ap.La. 1.1, the rst digit signies the stage
of the pandemic, while the second digit denotes the associated factors.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 86 of 83
Appendix C
Tab le A3. Apartment plans and layouts.
Empire Wings [2 + 1]—closed plan. Zanyary B [2 + 1]—open plan. Cihan-Qaradagh [2 + 1]—closed plan.
Cihan-Pirmam [2 + 1]—closed plan. Eskan Tower [2 + 1]—open plan. Quattro [2 + 1]—open plan.
FM-Plus Life [2 + 1]—closed plan. Plus Life C [2 + 1]—open plan. Plus Life D [2 + 1]—open plan.
Parkview D [2 + 1]—closed plan. Parkview C [2 + 2]—closed plan. Cihan-korak [2 + 2]—opened plan.
Parkview B [3 + 2]—closed plan. Empire Royal [3 + 1]—closed plan. Zanyary C [3 + 1]—open plan.
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.
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.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2619 87 of 83
Cihan-Arr. Kor. Gar. [3 + 1]—closed
plan. MRF2-4-5[3 + 1]—closed plan. Roya D [3 + 1]—closed plan.
Roya-A-C [3 + 1]—closed plan. Plus Life A [3 + 1]—open plan.
References
1. İslamoğlu, Ö. Determining Female Housing Users Housing Needs and Satisfaction Levels During the Pandemic. Iconarp Int. J.
Archit. Plan. 2022, 10, 444–464. hps://doi.org/10.15320/iconarp.2022.210.
2. Ateek, G. Future of Sustainable Architecture: Rethinking COVID-19 a Pandemic or Turning Point?; Bahçeşehir University: Istanbul,
Türkiye, 2020.
3. Elrahman, A.S.A. The fth-place metamorphosis: the impact of the outbreak of COVID-19 on typologies of places in post-pan-
demic Cairo. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2021, 15, 113–130.
4. Cramer, M.; Zaveri, M. Working from Home Has Benets Some Don’t Want to Lose. The New York Times 2020. Available online:
www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/business/pandemic-work-from-home-coronavirus.html (accessed on 15 May 2024).
5. Hizra, F.; Dewi, C.; Izziah. Houses amid COVID-19: Environmental challenges and design adaptation. In IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 881, p. 012033.
6. Enwerekowe, E.O.; Katyen, A.M. The eect of housing conditions on social distancing during a pandemic in selected urban
slums in north central Nigeria. Civ. Environ. Res. 2020, 12, 30–37.
7. Šiljeg, S.; Marić, I.; Cavrić, B. Theories of housing quality satisfaction: an overview. Geoadria 2018, 23, 51–84.
8. Mohit, M.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Rashid, Y.R. Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost housing in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 18–27.
9. Brkanić, I. Housing quality assessment criteria. Electron. J. Fac. Civ. Eng. Osijek-E-GFOS 2017, 8, 37–47.
10. Wimalasena, N.N.; Chang-Richards, A.; Wang, K.; Dirks, K. Housing quality indicators: A systematic review. In Proceedings of
the 10th World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 24–26 June 2022; pp. 531–544.
11. Bakar, A.A.; Malek, N.A.; Mohit, M.A.; Othman, R.; Sanusi, A.N.Z. Housing space quality towards quality of life: A case study
of double storey terrace houses. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2016; Volume 66, p. 00083.
12. Kim, M.-K.; Kim, E.-J. Apartment Space Planning Directions for Infectious Disease Prevention and Management: Insights Based
on Residents’ Experiences. Buildings 2023, 13, 2203.
13. Hajjar, R.M. Exploring a new housing design paradigm for post pandemic multi-story buildings in Lebanon. Archit. Plan. J.
(APJ) 2021, 27, 1.
14. Hijazi, J.; Aiah, D. Saudi residences’ adaptability: how employees worked from home during COVID-19 lockdowns. Civ. Eng.
Archit. 2021, 9, 915–931.
15. Itma, M.; Monna, S. Responsiveness and Adaptability of Housing Spatial Design to New Emerging Functions: The Case of
COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2022, 17, 7.
16. Moreira, A.; Farias, H. The Post-COVID Home. How Connement Altered Domestic Space Use and Living Modes, in Lisbon.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1195.
17. Spennemann, D.H. Designing for COVID-2x: reecting on future-proong human habitation for the inevitable next pandemic.
Buildings 2022, 12, 976.
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<