See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323822222

Facilities and maintenance services for sustainable high-rise living

Article  in  Facilities · March 2018

DOI: 10.1108/F-03-2017-0037

CITATIONS READS

15 3,196

4 authors, including:

Mal Kong Sia Vivien W.C. Yew

Tunku Abdul Rahman University College Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
10 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental Sustainability View project

Climate-Based Literary Theory and Analytical Model for Indigenous Malaysian Communities impacted by Climate Change and Climate Migration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mal Kong Sia on 21 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Facilities
Facilities and maintenance services for sustainable high-rise living
Mal Kong Sia, Vivien Wong Chin Yew, Zhi Yong Lim, Ye Dongqing,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mal Kong Sia, Vivien Wong Chin Yew, Zhi Yong Lim, Ye Dongqing, (2018) "Facilities and maintenance
services for sustainable high-rise living", Facilities, Vol. 36 Issue: 7/8, pp.330-348, https://
doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2017-0037
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2017-0037
Downloaded on: 21 May 2018, At: 16:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 53 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Impact of facilities maintenance on user satisfaction", Facilities, Vol. 35 Iss 7/8 pp. 405-421 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2016-0034">https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2016-0034</a>
(2018),"Maintenance of lift systems affecting resident satisfaction in low-cost high-rise residential
buildings", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 16 Iss 1 pp. 17-25 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JFM-04-2017-0015">https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-04-2017-0015</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Token:Eprints:HPGPSEYJK8IIC2BISQTK:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


F
36,7/8
330
Received 22 March 2017
Revised 17 July 2017
Accepted 25 September 2017
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)
Facilities
Vol. 36 No. 7/8, 2018
pp. 330-348
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-2772
DOI 10.1108/F-03-2017-0037
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm
Facilities and maintenance
services for sustainable
high-rise living
Mal Kong Sia
Department of Quantity Surveying and Real Estate,
Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Vivien Wong Chin Yew
School of Social, Development and Environmental Studies,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
Zhi Yong Lim
Department of Quantity Surveying and Real Estate,
Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Dongqing Ye
Department of Urban and Rural Planning, Jinling College, Nanjing University,
Nanjing, China
Abstract
Purpose – It is essential to provide the necessary facilities in a building for human living. However, most
unit owners of high-rise buildings do not realise the importance of good property management until their
buildings and common facilities have deteriorated. It is thus important to ensure adequate maintenance is
provided to create and sustain a healthy living environment for high-rise households. The purpose of this
study is to measure and compare the perceptions and satisfactions of residents with the facilities and
maintenance services provided in two different condominiums located next to each other.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey questionnaires were used, and the data were collected from
120 residents of each condominium which was developed by the same developer but completed at different
times. Using the IBM SPSS Statistics software, cross tabulations, x 2 tests of independence and independent-
samples t-tests were carried out for descriptive and inferential statistics. A simple post questionnaire survey
was conducted to confirm the findings obtained from x 2 tests and t-tests.
Findings – The results show that residents’ perceptions of facilities and maintenance services provided are
significantly higher for the newer condominium compared to the older one. Residents’ satisfactions with
facilities are also higher for the newer condominium. However, poorer lift services and their maintenance have
resulted in lower overall mean satisfaction with maintenance services for the newer condominium.
Nevertheless, results from data collected in post questionnaire survey reveal that the respondents still prefer
to live in the newer condominium despite higher rental rates.
Research limitations/implications – This paper reports only the data collected from samples of two
condominiums in Kuala Lumpur.
Practical implications – There is a dearth of literature on residents’ perceptions and satisfactions
towards facilities and maintenance services provided for high-rise residential living, particularly in Malaysia,
where high-rise buildings are either managed by joint management body or management corporation
depending on whether the strata titles have been issued. The findings can be used as benchmarks for property
management purposes of condominiums.
Originality/value – This paper could be considered as the first in reporting residents’ perceptions and
satisfactions with the facilities and maintenance services provided in residential high-rise buildings since the
 implementation of the Strata Management Act 2013, which was implemented to provide for proper Sustainable
maintenance and management of high-rise buildings and the common properties.
high-rise living
Keywords Perception, Satisfaction, Facilities, Maintenance services, Condominiums, High-rise
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Living in high-rise residential buildings has become more popular in Malaysia (Wan Abd
331
Aziz et al., 2014). There are almost 6 million Malaysians out of 20 million city folks living in
stratified buildings such as apartments and condominiums (Yuen, 2016). It was found by the
Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry in its Strata Scheme
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Management Quality Evaluation on the standards of joint management bodies (JMBs) and
management corporations (MCs) of apartments and condominiums that about 69 per cent of
apartments and condominiums nationwide in 2015 scored only one and two stars (below
average) in seven areas, namely, collection of funds, security, risk management,
maintenance, administration, community support and compliance with the law (Yuen, 2016).
The quality of managing stratified buildings, therefore, needs to be addressed and
improved. Che-Ani et al. (2009) reported an existence of gaps in the satisfaction levels of
residents (N = 150) towards maintenance and the effectiveness of facilities management by
MCs in residential high-rise buildings. Results from interviews with the chairmans of seven
low-cost housing estates in Petaling and Hulu Langat Districts revealed that the mean score
for maintenance performance was only 3.1 on a five-point Likert scale (close to average)
(Muhamad Ariff and Davies, 2009). According to Wan Abd Aziz et al. (2014), low level of
satisfaction among residents (N = 151) of low-cost flats and middle-cost apartments with
high-rise living was due to lack of understanding on current legislations. Fakhrudin et al.
(2011) discussed the need to establish JMB under the Building and Common Property
(Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (BCPMM Act 2007) to eliminate those problems
arisen among developers, purchasers and MC. Since the repeal of the BCPMM Act 2007 in
2013 and its replacement with the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA 2013), no study has
been carried out on residents’ perceptions and satisfactions with the facilities and
maintenance services provided in residential high-rise buildings. Hence, to bridge this gap,
this paper aims to measure and compare the perceptions and satisfactions of residents and
tenants with the facilities and building maintenance services provided in two different
condominiums, with one condominium being managed by JMB and the other condominium
being managed by MC. Both condominiums were developed by the same developer and
located near each other in Kuala Lumpur but completed in different years.

2. Literature review
In Malaysia, the National Land Code 1965 first introduced the concept of strata titles or the
subdivisions of building into parcels (Kamarudin, 2014). Because of the inadequacies in the
provisions on subdivisions of building under the National Land Code 1965, the Strata Titles
Act 1985 (Act 318) (STA 1985) was introduced on 1 June 1985 (Wan Abd Aziz et al., 2014).
Under the STA 1985, the developer is required to transfer strata ownerships to the
purchasers. Before the issuance of the individual strata titles to unit owners, the building is
still under the ownership and responsibility of the developer, as stated in Section 18
Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (Fakhrudin et al.,
2011). After the issuance of the individual strata titles, the unit owners are required to
establish an owners’ association or an MC to take over the responsibility to manage the
facilities and common areas of the building from the developer. Amendments of the STA
 F 1985 to overcome the problems of maintaining facilities and common areas in strata
36,7/8 developments before the setting up of the MC have led to the introduction of the BCPMM
Act 2007 (Act 663) in April 2007 (Wan Abd Aziz et al., 2014). The BCPMM Act 2007
introduced the JMB, which comprises the developer and the owners to undertake building
maintenance together before the MC takes over completely. To address the issues and
problems in stratified high-rise living, the BCPMM Act 2007 was repealed and replaced with
332 the SMA 2013 (Wan Abd Aziz et al., 2014). The duties and responsibilities of a developer,
JMB and MC in the various acts on common properties are illustrated in Figure 1.

2.1 Facilities in a condominium

A modern building is required to provide the necessary facilities for human living, such as
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

clean air and water, the removal of waste produced, optimum thermal and humidity control,
privacy, security and visual/acoustic comfort (Osbourn and Greeno, 2007, p. 4). These
facilities are intended to help in achieving the performance of a building in terms of thermal
comfort, sound control, security, sanitation, fire protection, lighting and ventilation. From
residents’ perspective, building performance must be maintained as long as their
satisfaction levels are to be sustained. The higher the quality of facilities and services
provided, the higher the satisfaction of residents.
Facilities in the common areas of a condominium building are common properties under
the STA 1985, where a common property is defined as any lot that is not included in a parcel
or accessory parcel. In other words, any facilities that are not included in the sub-divided
title (strata title) are deemed to be common properties (The Commissioner of Law Revision,
2006). Various common facilities are provided in a condominium depending on the use of a
building. Table I shows the typical facilities provided in a condominium building, which are
provided to satisfy the use and needs of the building residents.

2.2 Importance of maintenance services in a condominium

Residents in a high-rise residential building usually consist of owners and tenants renting
the units there. High-rise residential buildings in Malaysia are plagued with many problems.
Tiun (2009) discussed in length these problems, which include lack of consideration on
issues relating to building management and maintenance during the design and
construction stages, ignorance of buyers, lack of regulation on property managers,
insufficient legislation, issue of professionalism in property management and maintenance,
management transparency and security and safety issues. The study by Che-Ani et al. (2009)
revealed that most of the residential high-rise buildings were not effectively managed. The
residents complained of incompetent facilities management such as dysfunctional lifts, the
collection of rubbish not according to schedule and damages due to vandalism.
There was a total of 10,074 claims lodged with the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims
during the Malaysia Eighth Plan in 2001-2005 (Fakhrudin et al., 2011). One of the reasons
given was developers failed to keep the buildings in good repair. Table II shows the
complaint statistics provided by the National House Buyers Association (HBA) (2018b) from

Figure 1.
Duties and
responsibilities of
common property in a
stratified building
Developer
• Before issuing of strata titles.
• Section 18 Schedule H Housing
Development (Control and
Licensing) Act 1966 on
duties/responsibilities.
• Section 43 STA 1985 on
duties/responsibilities.
JMB MC
• Established under Section • Section 43 STA 1985 on
17 SMA 2013 duties/responsibilities.
• Consists of the developer • BCPMM Act 2007 (repealed).
and the purchasers. • Section 59 SMA 2013 on
• Section 21 SMA 2013 on duties/responsibilities.
duties/responsibilities. • Solely responsible for all matters
relating to a common property.
 Swimming pool *
Sustainable
Gym * high-rise living
Lifts *
Car parking *
Motorbike parking *
Multi-purpose hall *
Retail space *
Office space * 333
Private green space **
Guard house *
Children playground **
Water fountain **
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) *
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Security door entrance * Table I.

Air-conditioning and ventilation **
Sports facilities **
Typical facilities
Waste disposal services * provided in a
condominium
Source: Yan (2015); * Means basic facility; ** Means optional facility building

(%)
Types of Complaints 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Strata titles 26 27 28 29 29 30
Management and maintenance 11 19 19 21 23 24
Late delivery and LAD claims 18 13 15 12 14 12
Certificate of fitness 16 14 13 15 12 9
Abandoned projects 6 6 10 9 11 14
Shoddy workmanship and defects 7 11 7 9 7 7
Non-adherence to building plans/deviations 13 7 4 3 1 1 Table II.
Infrastructure 3 3 4 2 1 1
Failure to recovery on awards/prosecution of awards 2 2
Complaint statistics
100 100 100 100 100 100 from 2001 to 2006 on
management and
Source: National House Buyers Association (HBA) (2018b) maintenance

2001 to 2006. Among the types of complaints surveyed, complaints on management and
maintenance remained on the second place in the list, which increased to 24 per cent in 2006
from 11 per cent in 2001. Complaints received on shoddy workmanship and defects
remained almost the same from 2001 to 2006.
Buildings are subject to the law of diminishing shown in Figure 2 (Douglas, 1996) as their
original forms cannot be preserved over time because of both external factors such as
climate and exposure and internal factors such as usage and lack of maintenance. Moreover,
because of usage, wear and tear, weather and dampness, improper maintenance services
and others, building performance declines over its lifespan (Watt, 2007). A building is
subject not just to natural deterioration over the years, but defects in a building can also
occur because of poor workmanship and poor quality of materials used in its construction.
According to the Chartered Institute of Building and British Standard, building
maintenance is necessary to keep, restore or improve every facility and services
in a building and its surroundings to an agreed standard (Fakhrudin et al., 2011;
 F Lee and Scott, 2009). Building maintenance services are necessary to enable business
36,7/8 processes to function at an optimum level while providing comfortable conditions for
occupants to achieve their maximum performance potential (CIBSE, 2000). Failure to
maintain and sustain the environment in high-rise living is likely to lead to
deterioration in the residents’ well-being (Muhamad Ariff and Davies, 2009).
Appropriate maintenance strategy, therefore, needs to be implemented to ensure that
334 utility significant items and health, safety and environmentally significant items are
working in optimal conditions (Horner et al., 1997). Thus, efficient maintenance
services are necessary during the building’s life span to keep building facilities up to
the expected quality (Fakhrudin et al., 2011; Douglas, 1996) to sustain a healthy living
standard of residents.
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

2.3 Residents’ satisfaction with facilities and maintenance services

Satisfaction with building facilities and maintenance services can be defined as the
impression of residents of their property and how facilities and maintenance affect their
lives in the building and surroundings (Tan, 2016; Rahman et al., 2015). Satisfaction of
residents can also be defined as the reflection of residents’ feelings and thoughts with the
building (Mohd et al., 2016).
Tan (2016) explained that residents’ satisfaction can be assessed from two perspectives.
The first perspective is the purposive approach, which aims to understand the purpose of
residents in the building and whether the quality of the facilities and services in the building
are met with the residents’ purposes. As an example, residents are seeking security and
safety within the building to be provided by the security guard. The second perspective is
the aspiration-gap approach, where residents have their own set of aspiration on their
property and whether the actual conditions of building facilities are met with their desires,
for instance, the expectations of residents towards the proper maintenance of their building
to enjoy a good environment within the building.
According to Tan (2016), once the purposes of both approaches have been met,
residents’ satisfaction with the building facilities and maintenance services provided
would be high. In other words, the quality of facilities and maintenance services
provided will determine the extent of residents’ satisfaction with the building. In the
study on the impact of facilities maintenance on user satisfaction, Grum (2016)
mentioned that respondents’ satisfaction with other observed dependent variables such
as internet access, central heating and security could be related to the level of facilities
maintenance provided.

Performance

Desired facilities
performance

Minimum standard
Actual building
performance
Figure 2.
Time
Performance of a
building over time
Source: Douglas (1996)
 2.4 Statistical hypothesis testing of research objectives Sustainable
Specifically, this paper aims to study the relationship between condominium type and high-rise living
residents’ feedback on facilities and maintenance services provided, as well as to measure
and compare the residents’ perceptions and satisfactions with the facilities and maintenance
services provided in the two condominiums.
According to Yockey (2011), the x 2 test of independence can be used to test whether there
is a relationship between condominium type and residents’ feedback on facilities and
maintenance services provided in the two condominiums, with each variable consisting of 335
two categories. The null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the
condominium type and residents’ feedback on building facilities and maintenance services.
If the test produces results that seem unlikely, i.e. the null hypothesis is true (p < 0.05), then
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

the null hypothesis is rejected. If the test produces results that seem fairly likely, i.e. the null
hypothesis is true (p > 0.05), then the null hypothesis is accepted.
Independent-samples t-test can be used to compare the means of two groups of
respondents on a continuous dependent variable of interest (Yockey, 2011; George and
Mallery, 2016). However, Grum (2016) used analysis of variance to compare the means of
three or more groups instead of the t-test. In this study, the dependent variables are the
residents’ perceptions and satisfactions with the various facilities and maintenance services
provided in the two condominiums. The null hypothesis states that the mean perception
scores for the two groups of respondents are equal in the population ( m Condo 1 = m Condo 2).
The alternative hypothesis states that the mean perception scores for the two groups of
respondents are not equal in the population (H1: m Condo 1 = m Condo 2). If the t-test produces
results that seem unlikely, i.e. the null hypothesis is true (p < 0.05), then the null hypothesis
is rejected. If the t-test produces results that seem fairly likely, i.e. the null hypothesis is true
(p > 0.05), then the null hypothesis is accepted.

3. Methodology
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used for data collection. Kumar (2014)
mentioned that the matching method can be used to ensure the effects of extraneous
variables to be the same for both groups of respondents under study. Therefore, this study
intentionally chose two condominiums built by the same developer and provided with
nearly matching facilities. However, maintenance services are provided by two different
management teams. A plausible reason for any difference between the two condominiums
for residents’ perceptions of facilities could be due to the age of condominium, and any
difference between residents’ perceptions of maintenance services provided could be due to
the different management teams. The locations of these two condominiums and their
particulars are shown in Table III. It is noted that the strata titles for individual units of
Condominium 1 have not been issued, whereas individual unit owners in Condominium 2
have received the strata titles. Therefore, the management team for Condominium 1 is JMB,
whereas the management team for Condominium 2 is MC.
On-site inspections were carried out to identify the facilities provided at the two
condominiums, and the information is shown in Table IV. The facilities provided within the
units in both condominiums are similar, whereas the common facilities provided outside the
units in both condominiums are almost identical, with the exception of table tennis room and
the multi-purpose hall for Condominium 1 only.
To find out the maintenance schedules for utility significant items and health-, safety-
and environmentally significant items of both condominiums, discussion sessions were held
separately with the personnel of management team of each condominium. The maintenance
schedules for facilities and common areas in both condominiums are shown in Table V. It is
 F noted that the swimming pool in Condominium 2 is maintained more often compared to the
36,7/8 swimming pool in Condominium 1.
For the quantitative method, a questionnaire survey was used to collect the respondents’
perceptions and satisfactions with the facilities and building maintenance services provided
in the two condominiums. The survey questionnaire, pilot tested first, was designed based
on the information gathered earlier from qualitative methods and consists of five sections.
336 Section 1 consists of five questions which elicit the demographic details of respondents such
as the status of residency, nationality, age and the duration lived in the condominium.
Section 2 elicits residents’ feedback on facilities and maintenance services provided.
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Information Condominium 1 Condominium 2

Coordinates 3.2231414° N, 101.7271937° E 3.2226469° N, 101.7277737° E

Tenure type Freehold Freehold
Year of vacant possession 2013 2005
Number of blocks and Two blocks of buildings in total; Three blocks of buildings in total;
condominium height 30 levels of each block; 17 levels of each block;
5 levels of car park including 3 levels of car park including
ground floor; and ground floor; and
26 levels of residential unit 15 levels of residential unit
Number of units 700 units 950 units
Table III. Built-up area and design Ranging from 1,313 to 1,600 ft2; Ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 ft2;
Details of of standard unit three bedrooms and two four bedrooms and two
Condominium 1 and bathrooms bathrooms
Condominium 2 Management team JMB MC

Condominium Condominium
Facilities found within the
unit 1 2 Common facilities outside the unit 1 2

Shower head H H Swimming pool H H

Wash basin and tap H H Gym room H H
Sitting water closet H H Table tennis room H Nil
Doorbell point H H Children playground H H
Ceiling light point H H Lifts Eight Six
units units
Ceiling fan point H H Mail box H H
13 A switch socket outlet H H Refuse chamber H H
Telephone socket outlet H H Retail shop/restaurants H H
SMATV socket outlet H H Motorbike parking H H
Water heater point H H Multi-purpose hall H Nil
Air-conditioner point H H Recreation area H H
Aluminium kitchen sink H H Security door entrance (at lift lobby from Level 1 H H
and tap to Level 4)
DB comes with MCB and H H Refuse disposal room (at every floor) H H
ELCB
Fire-fighting equipment and systems H H
Table IV. Car parking lots H H
Facilities provided in CCTV H H
Condominium 1 and Guard house H H
Condominium 2 Entrance auto gate H H
 Maintenance schedule
Sustainable
Facility or specified area In Condominium 1 In Condominium 2 high-rise living
Swimming pool Fortnightly (or when management Once in two days (in between
deems necessary) 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.)
Gym room 3-4 p.m. daily 8-5 p.m. daily (cleaning only)
Children playground 10-11 a.m. daily 8-5 p.m. daily
Lift cars (cleaning) Twice daily (9-10 a.m.; 8-9 p.m.) 8-5 p.m. daily 337
Lift cars (polish) Once in two days (10-11 a.m.) N/A
Lift lobby and corridor 7-9 a.m. daily 8 a.m.-5 p.m. daily
Lift engine and operation (by lift Fortnightly (or when in Monthly (or when in emergency)
company) emergency)
Refuse disposal 10 a.m. or 3 p.m. daily 8 a.m.-5 p.m. daily
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Refuse chamber Thrice a month Thrice a month

Recreation area 4 p.m. once in a week
CCTV When management deems
necessary
Entrance auto gate and security When management deems
door entrance necessary
Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) Monthly (by TNB personnel)
main switching station
Fire-fighting equipment and Monthly testing by management
systems and annually checking and
certifying by Jabatan Bomba dan
Penyelamat Malaysia’s personnel
Syabas bulk metre Daily record of metre reading
8 a.m.-5 p.m. daily
When management deems
necessary
When management deems
necessary
Monthly (by TNB personnel)
Table V.
Monthly testing by management
and annually checking and Maintenance
certifying by Jabatan Bomba dan schedule in
Penyelamat Malaysia’s personnel Condominium 1 and
Monthly record of metre reading Condominium 2

Section 3 consists of ten questions which elicit residents’ perceptions of facilities provided in
the condominiums based on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree. Section 4 consists
of 15 questions which elicit residents’ perceptions of maintenance services provided in the
condominiums based on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,
3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree. Finally, Section 5 consists
of 18 questions which elicit residents’ satisfactions with the building facilities and
maintenance services provided in the condominiums based on a five-point Likert scale, with
1 = strongly dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = satisfied
and 5 = strongly satisfied.
Prior to the administration of the formal survey questionnaires to targeted
residents, a pilot study was carried out to examine the feasibility of the designed
questionnaire to ensure that the questions being asked are formulated clearly and the
anticipated time commitment is reasonable and suitable for respondents. The pilot
study was carried out with five sets of questionnaires being administered to the
residents of Condominium 1. For the formal survey, 120 questions were administered
to the respondents purposively selected within the compound of each condominium.
The data collected were coded and entered into the IBM SPSS Statistics software for
descriptive and inferential statistics.
A simple post questionnaire survey was carried out after the results of formal
questionnaire survey were completed. The main purpose of conducting post questionnaire
survey is to collect follow-up information (Hillmer, 2016). A total of 120 questionnaires were
distributed, with data collected from 60 respondents of each condominium.
 F 4. Results
36,7/8 The demographic details of the respondents from Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 who
participated in the formal questionnaire survey are shown in Table VI. The proportions of
respondents between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 appear to be almost the same in
terms of age, gender, resident status, the number of years staying and race, except for
respondents of Indian subgroup.
338 Table VII gives the results from cross tabulations and x 2 tests of independence for the
data collected in Section 2. From the results shown in Table VII, the respondents in
Condominium 1 indicated a need to improve the condominium’s common facilities and
maintenance services, whereas the respondents in Condominium 2 indicated otherwise. It is
noted that respondents from both condominiums provided almost the same result on the
ease of contacting the management team. In addition, respondents in Condominium 1 would
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

contact management team for facilities and maintenance services. On the other hand,
respondents in Condominium 2 might not. It is noted that the most popular method used by
respondents from both condominiums for facilities and maintenance services is to approach
the maintenance office.
Table VIII gives the results of independent-samples t-tests on the data collected for
the ten questions in Section 3. Based on 95 per cent confidence interval (CI), it is
observed that there is no difference in residents’ perception of item S3Q7 between
Condominium 1 and Condominium 2, as p > 0.05. However, residents’ perceptions of the

Respondents’ Condominium 1 Condominium 2

demographics No. (%) No. (%)

Age (years)
18-25 65 54.2 58 48.3
26-55 44 36.7 55 45.8
Over 56 11 9.2 7 5.8
Subtotal 120 100.0 120 100.0
Race
Malay 28 23.3 33 27.5
Chinese 44 36.7 37 30.8
Indian 9 7.5 0 0.0
Others/foreigners 39 32.5 50 41.7
Subtotal 120 100.0 120 100.0
Gender
Male 53 44.2 74 61.7
Female 67 55.8 46 38.3
Subtotal 120 100.0 120 100.0
Resident_status
Owner 26 21.7 13 10.8
Tenant 94 78.3 107 89.2
Subtotal 120 100.0 120 100.0
Years_living
<1 year 61 50.8 28 23.3
Table VI. >1 year 28 23.3 39 32.5
Demographic details >2 years 31 25.8 53 44.2
of respondents Subtotal 120 100.0 120 100.0
 Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Condominium
Residents’ feedback 1 2 Pearson x 2 df Asymp. sig p-value (two-sided) Finding

The need to improve condominium’s facilities and maintenance services

Yes
Count 93 62 17.506 1 0.000 Reject null hypothesis
Expected count 77.5 77.5
No
Count 27 58
Expected count 42.5 42.5
Ease of contacting management team
Easy
Count 108 111 0.470 1 0.493 Accept null hypothesis
Expected count 109.5 105.5
Hard
Count 12 9
Expected count 10.5 10.5
Contacting management team for facilities and maintenance services
Yes
Count 107 77 20.963 1 0.000 Reject null hypothesis
Expected count 92.0 92.0
No
Count 13 43
Expected count 28.0 28.0

independence
2 tests of
Table VII.
Cross tabulation and
339
Sustainable
high-rise living
 Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

340
36,7/8

Residents’
Table VIII.

perceptions of

(CI = 95 per cent)

facilities provided
Mean m
Significance p-
Condominium 1 Condominium 2 value
Statement Code (N = 120) (N = 120) t df (two-tailed)

Facilities and related services are safe and comfortable to

incorporate and use S3Q1 3.19 3.03 2.499 195.378 0.013
Modern security systems (such as entrance auto gate, security
door entrance with access card and CCTV) are advanced and
efficient S3Q2 4.12 2.89 10.677 238 0.000
Security guards have provided sufficient patrolling services S3Q3 3.98 3.52 4.355 213.129 0.000
Security guards stationed at guard house are working strictly
and diligently S3Q4 3.50 3.18 2.933 238 0.004
Security guards are knowledgeable in using the security
equipment and facilities (such as walkie-talkie and CCTV) to
ensure optimum safety and security levels S3Q5 3.79 3.34 5.644 238 0.000
Sports facilities (such as gym room, table tennis room and
swimming pool) are attractive S3Q6 2.94 2.41 4.170 238 0.000
Physical facilities (such as car park, lifts, retail shops, multi-
purpose hall and restaurants) are sufficient and performing
efficiently S3Q7 3.66 3.66 0.000 238 1.000
Leisure areas (such as open space, recreation area and
playground) are visually appealing S3Q8 3.83 3.48 3.319 231.849 0.001
Fire-fighting equipment and systems (such as fire staircase,
fire alarm, extinguisher, water sprinkler and fire and smoke
detectors) are sufficient S3Q9 3.54 3.29 2.841 238 0.005
Refuse disposal room at every floor is well located and
designed which effectively exclude odour S3Q10 4.56 4.06 6.512 238 0.000
Overall mean 3.71 3.29
 other nine items in Condominium 1 are significantly higher than those in Condominium Sustainable
2, as p < 0.05. high-rise living
Table IX gives the results of independent-samples t-tests on the data collected for the 15
questions in Section 4. Based on 95 per cent CI, it is observed that there is no difference in
residents’ perceptions of items S4Q2, S4Q4 and S4Q6 between Condominium 1 and
Condominium 2, as p > 0.05. However, Condominium 1 performs significantly better than
Condominium 2 for items S4Q1, S4Q3, S4Q5, S4Q7, S4Q9, S4Q10, S4Q11, S4Q13, S4Q14 and
S4Q15, as p < 0.05. On the other hand, Condominium 2 performs significantly better than 341
Condominium 1 for items S4Q8 and S4Q12, as p < 0.05. Nevertheless, the mean perception
scores for S4Q8 and S4Q12 in both condominiums are below average.
Table X gives the results of independent samples t-tests on the data collected for the 18
questions in Section 5. It is noted that residents’ satisfactions with S5Q6, S5Q11, S5Q13,
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

S5Q14 and S5Q15 in both condominiums are below average. Based on 95 per cent CI, it is
observed that there is no difference in residents’ satisfactions with items S5Q2, S5Q3, S5Q4,
S5Q7, S5Q11, S5Q13, S5Q15, S5Q16, S5Q17 and S5Q18 between Condominium 1 and
Condominium 2, as p > 0.05. However, Condominium 1 performs significantly better than
Condominium 2 for items S5Q1, S5Q5, S5Q8, S5Q9, S5Q10 and S5Q12, as p < 0.05. On the
other hand, Condominium 2 performs significantly better than Condominium 1 for items
S5Q6 and S5Q14, as p < 0.05.

4.1 Residents’ preferred condominium

The results of the post questionnaire survey are shown in Table XI. All 60 respondents (100
per cent) from Condominium 1 indicated they prefer to live in Condominium 1. Surprisingly,
54 respondents (90 per cent) from Condominium 2 indicated they prefer to stay in
Condominium 1 too. Only six of them (10 per cent) chose to remain in Condominium 2. This
indicates that Condominium 1 is more favourable to live in. The main reason for
respondents from both Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 choosing to stay in
Condominium 1 is facilities provided despite the higher rentals in Condominium 1, as shown
in Table XII.

5. Conclusion
Table IV shows that the common facilities provided outside the units in both
condominiums are almost identical, with the exception of table tennis room and the multi-
purpose hall for Condominium 1 only. However, Condominium 1 is newer, as it was
completed in 2013. On the other hand, Condominium 2 is older, as it was completed in
2005. From Table VIII, the overall mean perception score for facilities provided in
Condominium 1 is 3.71, compared to 3.29 for Condominium 2. Residents’ perceptions of
facilities are significantly higher for all items in Condominium 1 than in Condominium 2,
except for item S3Q7, as facilities in Condominium 2 are older, and because of the law of
diminishing (Douglas, 1996), their performance may have deteriorated. However, there is
no significant difference in the sufficiency and efficiency of physical facilities for both
condominiums (S3Q7), as the residents’ perception of item S3Q7 in Condominium 1 has
been affected by the residents’ perception of maintenance services provided to lifts’
operation (S4Q8 in Table IX). For Condominium 2, the mean perception scores for items
S3Q2 and S3Q6 are below average, indicating that the management team of
Condominium 2 needs to upgrade the security systems to be more efficient and the sports
facilities to be more visually appealing.
From Table IX, the overall mean perception score for maintenance services provided
in Condominium 1 is 3.38, compared to 3.21 for Condominium 2. There is no significant
 Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

342
36,7/8

per cent)
Residents’
Table IX.

perceptions of

provided (CI = 95
maintenance services
Mean m
Significance p-
Condominium 1 Condominium 2 value
Statement Code (N = 120) (N = 120) t df (two-tailed)

Surrounding environment (such as corridor, walkway

and open space) is efficiently kept clean S4Q1 3.86 3.33 3.858 224.191 0.000
The leisure areas (such as recreation area and
playground) are kept clean S4Q2 3.75 3.65 1.151 238 0.251
Maintenance schedule is clearly stated and openly
published on notice board or at appropriate place S4Q3 2.34 2.03 2.491 230.629 0.013
Cleaning staffs are strictly adhering to the provision of
maintenance schedule S4Q4 3.84 3.93 0.782 238 0.435
Maintenance schedule is arranged in convenient time
which avoids compact hours and affects the operation
of facilities S4Q5 3.24 3.08 2.483 234.071 0.014
Cleaning staff appears tidy and with uniform S4Q6 3.70 3.69 0.074 238 0.941
Lift cars and lobby in the condominium are clean S4Q7 3.85 2.84 8.137 188.279 0.000
The maintenance services provided to lifts’ operation
(lift engine and parts) are sufficient and efficient S4Q8 2.23 2.85 5.005 238 0.000
Daily handling of refuse disposal is acceptable S4Q9 3.96 3.23 6.719 213.223 0.000
Water supply has no issue and not interrupting S4Q10 4.14 3.96 2.523 173.015 0.013
Electrical supply has no issue and not interrupting S4Q11 3.97 3.73 2.478 238 0.014
The maintenance services provided to gym room’s
equipment are adequate S4Q12 1.93 2.89 9.024 216.983 0.000
The maintenance services provided to swimming pool
are adequate S4Q13 4.11 3.96 2.753 238 0.006
The maintenance services to security systems in
building are appropriate S4Q14 3.48 3.12 2.675 238 0.008
The responding time to the resident’s report by
management team regarding the complaints or
feedback to the maintenance services is efficient S4Q15 2.23 1.91 2.750 220.911 0.006
Overall mean 3.38 3.21
 Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Mean m
Significance p-
Condominium 1 Condominium 2 value (two-
Statement Code (N = 120) (N = 120) t df tailed)

Security system S5Q1 3.53 3.17 2.832 238 0.005

Security guards’ services S5Q2 3.43 3.27 0.959 230.071 0.338
Swimming pool in the condominium S5Q3 3.89 3.98 0.836 238 0.404
Gym equipment S5Q4 3.37 3.30 0.489 230.845 0.625
Car park provided S5Q5 4.07 3.73 2.838 231.111 0.005
Lifts’ services S5Q6 2.13 2.77 5.206 232.795 0.000
Existing retail shops, multi-purpose hall and restaurant S5Q7 3.18 2.99 1.720 237.830 0.087
Leisure areas S5Q8 3.39 3.15 2.203 238 0.029
Fire-fighting equipment and systems S5Q9 3.40 3.15 3.258 235.001 0.001
Refuse disposal room provided on every floor S5Q10 3.47 2.98 4.633 238 0.000
Overall mean for facilities 3.39 3.25
Cleaning maintenance schedule provided S5Q11 2.98 2.89 0.686 238 0.493
Cleaning maintenance services to the condominium’s environment S5Q12 3.60 3.26 2.407 176.333 0.017
Cleaning maintenance services to the condominium’s physical
facilities S5Q13 2.60 2.66 0.389 225.366 0.698
Lifts’ maintenance services provided S5Q14 1.98 2.83 7.566 225.521 0.000
Gym equipment maintenance services provided S5Q15 2.56 2.68 1.103 209.557 0.271
Swimming pool maintenance services provided S5Q16 4.13 3.99 1.356 233.048 0.176
Cleaning staff S5Q17 3.64 3.52 1.121 192.456 0.264
Frequency of handling the refuse disposal S5Q18 2.93 3.10 1.682 238 0.094
Overall mean for maintenance 3.05 3.12

(CI = 95 per cent)

maintenance services
satisfactions with
Residents’

facilities and
Sustainable

Table X.
343
high-rise living
 F Condominium 1 Condominium 2
36,7/8 Question No. (%) No. (%)

Which condominium do you prefer to live in?

Condominium 1 60 100.0 54 90.0
Condominium 2 0 0.0 6 10.0
Subtotal 60 100.0 60 100.0
344
Give the reason for choosing the preferred condominium
Facilities 47 78.3 54 90.0
Maintenance services 5 8.3 0 0.0
Table XI. Management team 8 13.3 0 0.0
Residents’ preferred Others (not indicated) 0 0.0 6 10.0
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

condominium Subtotal 60 100.0 60 100.0

Rental (RM)
Condominium Property Floor area (square feet) per month per ft2 Date posted

Condominium 1 Property 1 1,608 2,300 1.430 22/11/2016

Property 2 1,313 1,800 1.371 21/11/2016
Property 3 1,313 1,900 1.447 18/11/2016
Table XII. Average 1.416
Rental rates for Condominium 2 Property 1 1,272 1,400 1.101 21/11/2016
Property 2 1,272 1,500 1.179 18/11/2016
Condominium 1 and Property 3 1,313 1,600 1.219 28/10/2016
Condominium 2 Average 1.166
during the study
period Source: Propwall-a (n.d.), Propwall-b (n.d.)

difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 for items S4Q2, S4Q4 and S4Q6
with respect to the cleanliness of leisure areas, the maintenance schedule for cleaning
and appearance of cleaning staff. The reason for Condominium 1 to perform
significantly better than Condominium 2 for items S4Q1, S4Q3, S4Q5, S4Q7, S4Q9,
S4Q10, S4Q11, S4Q13, S4Q14 and S4Q15, in Table IX, could be because Condominium 2
is older and deterioration has occurred over time despite scheduled maintenance being
provided. Condominium 2 performs significantly better than Condominium 1 for items
S4Q8 and S4Q12, because the scheduled time provided for maintenance for lifts and
gyms is longer. As mentioned by Grum (2016), respondents’ satisfactions are affected
by the level of maintenance facilities provided. However, the mean perception scores for
S4Q8 and S4Q12 in both condominiums are below average, signifying that maintenance
services provided to lifts’ operations and gym room equipment need to be increased and
improved. The mean score for S4Q7 for Condominium 2 is below average. There is a
need to improve the cleanliness of lift cars and lobby area in Condominium 2. For both
Condominiums 1 and 2, the mean perception scores for items S4Q3, S4Q8, S4Q12 and
S4Q15 are below average, indicating that the management teams of both
Condominiums 1 and 2 need to ensure the maintenance schedule is clearly stated and
openly published on notice board or at appropriate place, the maintenance services for
lifts’ operation (lift engine and parts) are upgraded to be more efficient, the maintenance
 services to gym room’s equipment are improved and the response time to complaints Sustainable
and feedback from residents regarding maintenance services is reduced. high-rise living
From Table X, the overall mean satisfaction of residents with the facilities provided in
Condominium 1 is 3.39, compared to 3.25 in Condominium 2. Therefore, based on overall
mean satisfaction with facilities, Condominium 1 is better than Condominium 2. This could
be due to higher residents’ perception with facilities in Condominium 1 than Condominium
2, as shown in Table VIII. The overall mean satisfaction of residents with the maintenance
services provided in Condominium 1 is 3.05, compared to 3.12 in Condominium 2. Therefore,
345
residents’ satisfaction with maintenance services in Condominium 2 is better than
Condominium 1, contrary to higher residents’ perception of maintenance services for
Condominium 1 than Condominium 2, as shown in Table IX. This could be due to lower
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

residents’ satisfaction with utility-significant items in Condominium 1 such as lifts’ services,

provision of lifts’ maintenance services and provision of maintenance services to lifts’
operation (lift engine and parts).
From Table VII, it is noted that the respondents in Condominium 1 are more demanding
and have higher expectations as they preferred improvement for the condominium’s
common facilities and maintenance services. They would contact the management team for
facilities and maintenance services. This is also supported by the following findings
obtained from cross-checking with Tables VIII, IX and X:
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 for
residents’ satisfaction with security guard services, even though residents’
perceptions with patrolling services by strict and diligent security guards and
knowledgeable security guards for optimum safety and security in Condominium 1
are significantly higher.
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 for
residents’ satisfactions with gym equipment, swimming pool and swimming pool
maintenance services, even though residents’ perceptions towards the attractiveness
of sports facilities and maintenance of swimming pool in Condominium 1 are
significantly higher.
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 for
residents’ satisfaction with frequency of handling refuse disposal, even though
residents’ perception with acceptability of daily handling of refuse disposal in
Condominium 1 is significantly higher.
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2
for residents’ satisfaction with cleaning maintenance services to physical
facilities, even though residents’ perception with convenient maintenance
schedule, which is clearly stated and openly published, is significantly higher in
Condominium 1.

Referring to Tables VIII, IX and X together, the following conclusions can also be made:
 Residents’ satisfaction with security system in Condominium 1 is significantly
higher because it has advanced and efficient modern security systems, and
maintenance services to security systems are appropriate.
 Residents’ satisfaction with leisure areas in Condominium 1 is significantly higher
because they are more visually appealing.
 Residents’ satisfaction with fire-fighting equipment and systems in Condominium 1
is significantly higher because they are sufficient.
 F  Residents’ satisfaction with refuse disposal rooms in Condominium 1 is significantly
36,7/8 higher because they are well located and designed to exclude odour effectively.
 Residents’ satisfaction with cleaning maintenance services to physical environment
in Condominium 1 is significantly higher because the surrounding environment is
efficiently kept clean.
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2
346 for residents’ satisfaction with retail shops, multi-purpose hall and restaurant
because there is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and
Condominium 2 for residents’ perception with sufficiency and efficiency of
physical facilities.
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

for residents’ satisfaction with cleaning maintenance schedule because there is

no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2
for residents’ perception with cleaning staffs’ adherence to maintenance
schedule.
 There is no significant difference between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 for
residents’ satisfaction with cleaning staff because there is no significant difference
between Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 for residents’ perception with
cleaning staff who appears tidy.
 Residents’ satisfaction with lifts’ maintenance services in Condominium 2 is
significantly higher because residents’ perception with lifts’ operation (lift engine
and parts) is significantly better in Condominium 2.
 Residents’ satisfactions with lifts’ services and lifts’ maintenance services are
significantly higher because residents’ perception with lifts’ operation (lift engine
and parts) is significantly better in Condominium 2.

The study shows that residents’ perceptions of facilities and maintenance services are
higher for Condominium 1, which is newer than Condominium 2. Interestingly, even
though the rental rates for Condominium 1 are higher, respondents from
Condominium 1 and Condominium 2 still prefer to stay in Condominium 1 mainly
because of facilities provided, which are definitely newer than Condominium 2. From
the discussion presented above, it can be concluded that condominiums with better
and newer facilities will lead to higher residents’ perceptions and satisfactions, as
newer facilities are more efficient and appealing. Similarly, better maintenance
services provided will lead to higher residents’ satisfaction with maintenance
services, confirming the finding by Grum (2016). As living in residential high-rise
buildings has become a lifestyle trend among the urban professionals in Malaysia
(Che-Ani et al., 2009; Wan Abd Aziz et al., 2014), it is necessary to provide well-
managed facilities and efficient maintenance services to create a good environment
for sustainable vertical living. However, residents’ satisfactions with facilities and
maintenance services could be moderated by residents’ higher expectations on quality
of maintenance services provided.
Further research could be replicated to study high-rise living in apartments and low-
cost flats. This study did not study the relationship between management team
(whether JMB and MC) and residents’ perceptions of facilities and maintenance
services, and hence residents’ satisfactions with facilities and maintenance services.
Future research could be carried out to study the moderating effect of the management
team.
 References Sustainable
Che-Ani, A.I., Jamil, M., Zain, M.F.M., Mohd-Nor, M.F.I. and Mohd-Tawil, N. (2009), “A satisfaction high-rise living
survey of high-rise residential management in Malaysia: sustainable indicators”, WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 120, pp. 643-652.
CIBSE (2000), Guide to Ownership, Operation and Maintenance of Building Services, The Chartered
Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.
Douglas, J. (1996), “Building performance and its relevance to facilities management”, Facilities, Vol. 14
Nos 3/4, pp. 23-32.
347
Fakhrudin, I.H., Suleiman, M.Z. and Talib, R. (2011), “The need to implement Malaysia’s building and
common property act 2007 (act 663) in building maintenance management”, Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 170-180.
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2016), IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
14th ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Grum, B.B. (2016), “Impact of facilities maintenance on user satisfaction”, Facilities, Vol. 35 Nos 7/8,
pp. 405-421.
Hillmer, B. (2016) “Create a pre-test and post-test survey”, available at: https://help.surveygizmo.com/
help/pre-post-test-survey (accessed 10 December 2016).
Horner, R.M.W., El-Haram, M.A. and Munns, A.K. (1997), “Building maintenance strategy: a new
management approach”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 273-280.
Kamarudin, F. (2014), “The development of an effective and efficient dispute resolution processes for
strata scheme disputes in Peninsular Malaysia”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Faculty of Law,
Queensland University of Technology.
Kumar, R. (2014), Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 4th ed., SAGE,
London.
Lee, H.H.Y. and Scott, D. (2009), “Overview of maintenance strategy, acceptable maintenance standard
and resources from a building maintenance operation perspective”, Journal of Building
Appraisal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 269-278.
Mohd, T., Johari, N. and Ghani, R.A. (2016), “Satisfaction level of gated and guarded community
residents”, Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 222, pp. 747-754.
Muhamad Ariff, N.R. and Davies, H. (2009), “Sustainable living environment for urban low-income
households in Malaysia: key factors for maintenance”, International Symposium in Developing
Economies: Commonalities among Diversities, CIBW107, pp. 380-393.
National House Buyers Association (HBA) (2018b), “Complaints statistics”, available at: www.hba.org.
my/HBA/Statistic/complaints_2006.htm (accessed 2 March 2017).
Osbourn, D. and Greeno, R. (2007), Mitchell’s Introduction to Building, 4th ed., Pearson Education,
London.
Propwall-a (n.d.), “Platinum Hill PV2, Setapak”, Property Insight, available at: www.propwall.my/
setapak/platinum_hill_pv2 (accessed 3 November 2016).
Propwall-b (n.d.), “Platinum Hill PV3, Setapak”, Property Insight, available at: www.propwall.my/
setapak/platinum_hill_pv3 (accessed 3 November 2016).
Rahman, M.S., Hussain, B., Uddin, A.M. and Islam, N. (2015), “Exploring residents’ satisfaction of
facilities provided by private apartment companies”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 130-140.
Tan, T.H. (2016), “Residential satisfaction in gated communities”, Property Management, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 84-99.
The Commissioner of Law Revision (2006), Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 318), Percetakan Nasional
Malaysia Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.
 F Tiun, L.T. (2009), “Managing high-rise residential buildings in Malaysia: where are we”, Proceedings of
the 2nd NAPREC Conference, INSPEN, Bangi.
36,7/8
Watt, D.S. (2007), Building Pathology, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, NJ.
Wan Abd Aziz, W.N.A., Haniff, N.R., Musa, Z.N., Aini, A.M., Sarip, A.G. and Zyed, Z. (2014), “Vertical
living phenomenon in Malaysia”, in Engaging the Challenges – Enhancing the Relevance, FIG
Congress, Kuala Lumpur, 16-21 June.
348 Yan, C. (2015), “Condos in the suburb: what are the drivers behind the decision to move into suburban
condominiums”, Unpublished degree thesis, University of Waterloo.
Yockey, R.D. (2011), SPSS Demystified: A Step by Step Guide to Successful Data Analysis, 2nd ed.,
Pearson Education, London.
Yuen, M.K. (2016), “Lower levels in high-rise living”, Sunday Star, 25 September, p. 20.
Downloaded by Tunku Abdul Rahman University College At 16:34 21 May 2018 (PT)

Further reading
National House Buyers Association (HBA) (2018a), “Building and common property (maintenance and
management) act 2007 (act 663)”, available at: www.hba.org.my/laws/building/bcpAct2007.htm
(accessed 22 November 2016).
Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad (2013), Strata Management Act 2013 (Act 757), Percetakan
Nasional Malaysia Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.

Corresponding author
Mal Kong Sia can be contacted at: siamk@tarc.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats