Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20

Performance index for public housing in East

Malaysia

Olga Postnikova, J. A. Bamgbade & N. H. Wong

To cite this article: Olga Postnikova, J. A. Bamgbade & N. H. Wong (2022) Performance index
for public housing in East Malaysia, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 18:5,
652-670, DOI: 10.1080/17452007.2021.1956418

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2021.1956418

Published online: 21 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 241

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taem20
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
2022, VOL. 18, NO. 5, 652–670
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2021.1956418

Performance index for public housing in East Malaysia

Olga Postnikova, J. A. Bamgbade and N. H. Wong
Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Low-income housing in both developing and developed countries faces Received 28 November 2020
several unhealthy conditions that expose the dwellers to hazards. Accepted 15 June 2021
Considering that achieving overall citizen satisfaction requires the
KEYWORDS
provision of healthy and affordable housing, Malaysia has consistently Public housing; housing
initiated different housing programs to support its citizens, primarily performance; affordability;
low-income households. One such is the Government Housing performance index; Malaysia
Schemes, whose performance has been called to question over the
years. This study aimed to develop a performance index to evaluate
public houses in East Malaysia by considering a four-step evaluation
such as item selection, an examination of relationship, index scoring
and index validation. Contributing factors towards the performance of
public housing were determined and evaluated following their
importance to create a performance index for the public housing in
East Malaysia. Some primary factors and their indicators (the sub-
factors) were identified based on an extensive literature review. After
that, copies of questionnaires were administered in different locations
and analysed using a decision support tool. The result indicated the
importance of the performance index in contributing to low-income
household’s health, comfort and improved living affordability.

Highlights

Building infrastructure and accessibility are vital to improving performance index.

PH residents’ comfort from the design elements is essential for housing performance.
Occupants’ health benefit is best achieved through a fit-for-purpose physical space.
Building facilities and amenities are crucial for a sustained performance index.

Introduction
Housing performance standards are increasingly mainstream in building development worldwide to
prevent and eliminate hazardous conditions that can endanger people, public and private properties
(Jiang & Wong, 2016). These performance standards are diverse, region-specific and vary among dis-
ciplines. At the core of most of them are the improved inhabitants’ health and comfort and improved
living affordability. Considerations are also given to greenhouse gas end-user emissions as housing
development is the single largest emitter of all CO2 (Stevenson & Baborska-Narozny, 2018). However,
there is a growing recognition that conventional building performance standards and models often
struggle to achieve their set objectives (Golubchikov & Deda, 2012; Moore, Strengers, & Maller, 2016).
These failings may result from policy approaches that neglect more profound social and health

CONTACT J. A. Bamgbade jbamgbade@swinburne.edu.my Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science, Swinburne

University of Technology, Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 653

benefits (such as energy poverty), which are recurring political and social constructs in developing
and the developed countries (González-Eguino, 2015). There is also an increasing recognition of low-
income housing occupants’ engagement to establish a complex range of factors towards improving
performance indices within the home. Such moves prompt Malaysia to initiate several policy
agendas through various schemes and programs to address the housing deficit, especially among
the low-income earners, such that it meets the Human Development Indices (HDIs) of its citizens
(Islam & Ismail, 2010).
The current Malaysian Plan (The 11th Malaysia Plan), which is a national policy dedicated to
propelling the country into a developed nation, stands on six strategic thrusts. Under the
second thrust – improving well-being for all – the government aims at enhancing the general
well-being of all Malaysians regardless of socio-economic status or geographic location, such
that all Malaysians can equally access affordable housing (‘Tenth Malaysia Plan,’, 2010). With
this thrust, the government seeks to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low-
income and middle-income households. It also aims to eradicate squatter settlements through
different Public Housing (PH) programs such as Projek Perumahan Rakyat (PPR), Rumah Mesra
Rakyat (RMR), and others (Samad, Zainon, Rahim, Lou, & Abd Karim, 2016). The Current PH pro-
grams in Malaysia originated during the National Development Plan (NDP) (1991-2000) and
have been slightly modified since that time (Ahmed, 2014).
The preeminent purpose of any housing is to provide its dwellers with an environment that
ensures comfort, safety, health, and a secure indoor environment (Ma, Reed, & Liang, 2019). It
is expected that buildings should be designed following the professional standards implied by
the local authorities. These considerations should also consider the users’ changing needs that
are not defined by any standards and specifications (Gopikrishnan & Topkar, 2017). To explore
if the primary purpose is achieved and the needs of the dwellers are met, a regular assessment
of building performance becomes necessary to improve the building conditions or future
similar projects (Ibem & Alagbe, 2015). Thus, to evaluate how a building is performing, the rel-
evant factors associated with its performance have to be identified according to users’ perception
(Khair, Ali, Sipan, Juhari, & Daud, 2015). Apart from the empirical evidence from the extant studies,
this study also relies on the views expressed by the occupants at the post-occupancy stage of
building performance since pre-occupancy is mere assumptions based on simulations or esti-
mations. In contrast, post-occupation data is based on factual information from the users
(Preiser & Nasar, 2008).
Previous studies on PH in Malaysia suggest that dwellers are dissatisfied with the quality and con-
ditions of some of the buildings under Malaysian PH schemes (Hashim, Samikon, Ismail, & Ismail,
2015; Sulaiman, Hasan, & Jamaluddin, 2016; Zainal, Kaur, Ahmad, & Khalili, 2012). Moreover, pre-
viously existing techniques for the assessment of the performance of PH did not consider the devel-
opment of an approach that the responsible authorities could use for evaluation (Wahi, Zin,
Munikanan, Mohamad, & Junaini, 2018). Given the significance of PH performance, and the lack of
a systematic indexing approach to its assessment (Gopikrishnan & Paul, 2018), this paper seeks to
determine the potential constructs that can contribute to PH performance. The majority of Malaysian
studies on PH were conducted in West Malaysia (Lukuman, Sipan, Raji, & Aderemi, 2017; Sulaiman
et al., 2016; Wahi et al., 2018). However, East Malaysia, though a relatively large area, has only a
few studies on PH.
Hence, this study aims to conduct in-depth research on PH in this region (East Malaysia). This
study sought to determine the contributory strengths of the identified factors to PH performance
and to assess the relative importance of the identified constructs for PH performance in East Malay-
sia. In addition, the research aimed to develop a performance index for PH in East Malaysia. To
achieve these objectives, the researchers adopted a quantitative research approach using a ques-
tionnaire survey and analysed the potential factors and sub-factors influencing PH in East Malaysia
through responses from the PH dwellers in the region.
654 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Public housing (PH)

According to Yeop Mat Dali (1996), public housing (PH) connotes a type of low-cost housing units
that attempt to address the housing needs/problems of urban areas and involve the government’s
intervention by providing low-cost housing to low-income earners. As a result of the fact that PH is
designed to address issues of housing affordability among the under-privileged/the low-income
earners, PH projects are traditionally executed by the public sector, with financing strategies and
proper institutional arrangements established and in compliance with the building regulations of
the local authorities. Nonetheless, egregious facilities often expose inhabitants to a series of environ-
mental toxins and structural deficiencies that deteriorate their health. Low-income earners are cate-
gorised as Malaysians whose monthly household income falls below 4,849 Malaysian Ringgit and are
named B40 (CompareHero.my, 2020). In the most recently-released data, the B40 group in Malaysia
consists of male (80.6%) and female (19.4%), with an average age of 43, mainly with secondary edu-
cation (60%) or primary/no education (31.4%), and who are low-skilled (25.5%) or semi-skilled
(65.5%) (Hamid, Ho, & Ismail, 2019). The funding for low-cost PH comes from the federal government,
while the state governments are responsible for identifying available land for PH projects and the
approval of the sales of PH units to eligible buyers (Shuid, 2016).

Housing performance
Several terms are used to describe the evaluation of a completed building project at the post-
occupancy period, such as building evaluation, building appraisal, or building performance (Ile-
sanmi, 2010). Building performance emphasises the expectations of a building to contribute to a
healthy, safe, and secure environment for the occupants (Wahab & Kamaruzzaman, 2011). This
includes buildings devoid of hazards to occupants’ health while also providing favourably safe
environments for the dwellers throughout the buildings’ lifecycles. This conception is not homo-
geneous in all regions. Differences abound in building performance studies, considering the histori-
cal development of and cultural norms in different countries. These variations necessitate a
grounded understanding of the divergent theories of, opinions on, and approaches to building per-
formance methodology to develop a generalised pattern. At the centre of these are the inhabitants’
quality of life and their localised building cultures (Stevenson & Baborska-Narozny, 2018). Hence, fol-
lowing Bluyssen (2010), the broad conceptual definition of housing performance adopted in this
study encompasses quality assurance and a building’s ability to integrate residents’ perceptions
to attain desired residential satisfaction.

Public housing performance evaluation

There are two categories of building performance evaluation, and these classifications are based on
the points of view of building experts and residents. In the parlance of experts’ (i.e. developers,
designers, engineers, and others), performance evaluation may be useful at the earliest stages of
project building (i.e. planning, design, and execution). On the other hand, residents perceive it as
vital during occupancy and maintenance. Moreover, responses by occupants might be considered
as feedback or lessons learnt to enhance the performance of an existing building or to serve as
essential information for similar building projects (Preiser & Nasar, 2008). Generally, to adequately
evaluate building quality that is directly associated with performance, a specific factor or set of
factors must serve as a ‘marker’ or as ‘markers’ that places a condition to be estimated. Hence, build-
ing performance can be assessed, compared and evaluated with the aid of factors and related sub-
factors upon which performance is dependent (Kim, Yang, Yeo, & Kim, 2005).
Ismail, Jabar, Janipha, and Razali (2015) suggested that residential quality of life is measured by
examining a building’s physical characteristic. This includes the sizing of the interior division, the
quality of workmanship and materials, and the physical environment that comprises such factors
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 655

as provided facilities, lightings, privacy, noise, ventilation, humidity, location, management, and
density. However, this study added housing condition as a measurement indicator of the quality
of life, with subcategories including the surrounding environment, house tenure, availability of ame-
nities, and type and physical conditions of flats, highlighting the additional indicator (housing
tenure) identified in the study (Zainal et al., 2012). Gopikrishnan and Paul (2018) suggested that attri-
butes such as physical condition, space, lighting, air, noise and water, waste disposal, safety, acces-
sibility, societal issues, finishes and amenities have significant impacts on dwellers’ satisfaction. In the
same way, outdoor elements of building performance such as public facilities and planning infra-
structure are essential for residents, as well as indoor features (Sulaiman et al., 2016).
Gopikrishnan and Topkar (2017) went a step further to analyse the potential public housing indicators
responsible for performance. A few of the highlighted factors include design, infrastructure, and public
amenities. The researchers concluded that once these indicators are appropriately delivered, satisfactory
performance will be recorded. A divergent view was expressed by Ibem and Alagbe (2015), where
housing services and infrastructure, management and neighbourhood facilities, and unit attributes
came tops. Khair et al. (2015) align with Ibem and Alagbe’s classification, with the addendum of physical
environmental subordinates such as dwelling unit features, location, health and safety, temperature and
humidity, physical condition, external and internal utilities, lighting, ventilation, and aesthetics.

Infrastructure and accessibility

The assessment of PH scheme locations, considering the proximity to public transportation and dis-
tance to public facilities such as hospitals and schools, has been studied as an essential factor in the
evaluation of PH performance (Hashim, Samikon, Nasir, & Ismail, 2012; Ibem & Alagbe, 2015; Sulai-
man et al., 2016; Tan, 2012). The availability of such systems as water and electricity supply, acces-
sibility of network for telecommunication, drainage, and sewage is paramount during the planning
stage, as these also form a part of the housing services and infrastructure (Ibem & Alagbe, 2015; Khair
et al., 2015). A recent study conducted by Gopikrishnan and Paul (2018) demonstrated the impor-
tance of easy building access to all occupants. Moreover, external roads come along with the acces-
sibility factor of a building.

Design criteria
Yang et al. (2018) established a strong relationship between the design of a building and its dwellers
and thus appraised building performance by investigating occupants’ perceptions. The study con-
tributed to the awareness and the decision-making process of design. According to Khair et al.
(2015), apart from building design, ventilation, humidity, safety systems, sound insulation, room
sizing, and lighting also significantly influence the satisfaction of dwellers. In Ibem and Alagbe
(2015), PH dwellers’ satisfaction depends on room sizes, natural lighting, and unit ventilation. In
furtherance, Kim et al. (2005) added factors such as humidity, staircase design, corridor design,
indoor air, and units’ (building) plan as the key factors to study when measuring the satisfaction
of building occupants.

Building facilities and amenities

Adequate parking areas, children’s playgrounds, and lifts are catalysts for building performance
(Husin, Nawawi, Ismail, & Khalil, 2015). Gopikrishnan and Topkar (2017) also concluded that
common spaces, security guard areas, and even green areas for recreation and aesthetics improve
building performance. Such facilities and amenities can simultaneously increase residents’ satisfac-
tion and improve building performance (Gajewska, 2017; Hashim et al., 2012).

Physical condition
Factors such as cracks in the walls, dampness, and leakages through pipes or cracks greatly affect
building performance (Amerio et al., 2020; Gopikrishnan & Topkar, 2017). In Figure 1, persistent
dampness can be observed on the walls of the depicted buildings; this can result in material
656 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Figure 1. Public houses with dampness and unkept utility pipes.

damage, corrosion, structural decay, and microbial growth (Sharpe, Thornton, Tyrrell, Nikolaou, &
Osborne, 2015). Hashim et al. (2012) highlighted physical factors affecting the performance of a
building negatively to be corrosion of pipes, seepages through walls, staining of vanity tops, and
paint defects. Good plumbing works in buildings have been noted to be essential in building per-
formance (Husin et al., 2015).
Based on this discussion, this study hypothesised that:
Infrastructure and accessibility factors would contribute to PH performance (H1)
Satisfactory design components would contribute to PH performance (H2)
Desirable building facilities and amenities indices would contribute to PH performance (H3)
Physical condition factors would contribute to PH performance (H4)
The summarised framework of public housing performance and contributing factors is provided
below in Figure 2.

Techniques for PH performance evaluation

Kim et al. (2005) assessed housing performance using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) tech-
nique. The authors converted the weight obtained for an individual category to credit that was

Figure 2. A framework of PH performance and the contributing factors.

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 657

later used to perform the final evaluation. Similarly, the study conducted by Gopikrishnan and Paul
(2018) collected data related to performance attributes through surveys that helped to measure the
satisfaction of dwellers. An alternate model for affordable PH was created to focus on low mainten-
ance, mismanagement, and affordability of the current PH programs in Malaysia. With the help of this
model, the residents were able to actively participate in enhancing the performance of the residen-
tial buildings (Bilal, Meera, & Razak, 2019).
A study on PH performance by assessing factors- using questionnaire surveys to collect data from
three different parties (management, resident, and non-resident)- yielded great results. Eventually,
including the three parties’ opinion gave a broader perspective on the performance of PH
(Hashim et al., 2012). When a correlation analysis was initiated between occupants’ safety satisfaction
level and the safety performance of a building, it provided a thorough assessment of building per-
formance; the correlation analysis showed relations between the two categories of performance and
quality (Husin et al., 2015).

Research design
A quantitative research approach was adopted in this study to investigate the relationship in the pro-
posed variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The study’s variables were measured using a survey
instrument, while the data were analysed using statistical procedures. The quantitative research
approach is based on collecting and analysing numerical data and generalising the findings
across groups of people to explain a particular viewpoint (Bryman, 2012). There are several advan-
tages of the quantitative research approach. These include the ability to receive valid, reliable and
generalisable findings to a larger population, the ability to reduce biases when collecting and ana-
lysing data, and the ability to perform research remotely. However, there are a few drawbacks to this
research method. One such demerit is that it is sensitive to measurement errors and flawed sampling
techniques.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilised in this study to examine the complex, inter-
related paths between the predictors and the criterion variables simultaneously. PH performance
was then evaluated through index construction based on the traditional method adopted by
Babbie (2015), as shown in Figure 3. Since item selection was considered the first step in constructing
a composite index, this paper ensured the logical validity of each item that appeared to indicate a
composite index, and expectedly, only one concept’s dimension should be represented in the com-
position. The selected items should provide the variance, or else the item will not be useful for the
index construction. Moreover, the variable may be explicitly measured or predetermined based on
the included items and their nature.
The next step is examining the empirical relationships among the selected items. There are two
types of relationships among the items: bivariate and multivariate relationships. Examining empirical
relationships can be achieved through statistical techniques useful for the next step of item scoring
and further combining into an index. After deciding if the scores will be divided equally or not, the
composite measure was constructed via a composite index based on the desired range of scores. The
last consideration is the index validation that can be either external or internal. Internal validation
was conducted – through item analysis (item selection) – on cases with larger numbers of items
(Babbie, 2015).

Data and sample

A quantitative survey was conducted with PH residents in Kuching, Sarawak in 2019 (n = 113).
The surveys were done on multiple PH schemes and included a range of housing perform-
ance-related questions concerning public housing infrastructure and accessibility criteria, sat-
isfactory design components, building facilities and amenities indices, and physical condition
factors. This method was chosen given its convenience and flexibility as it eliminates
658 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Figure 3. Steps adopted in index construction (based on Babbie, 2015).

interviewer bias and allows respondents to fill up the questionnaire on the spot (Nigel, Fox, &
Hunn, 2009).
The survey instrument consisted of 56 questions, prepared in English language and translated to
Bahasa Melayu. After contacting the administrative office of Housing Development Corporation
(HDC) Sarawak, the list of locations and number of units in each location was provided. Given
that one unit is registered under one person, the official population of the residents was 15,581.
Using the sample size determination technique in Krejcie and Morgan (1970), a sample size of
375 was arrived at. A non-probability purposive sampling technique was utilised in this study to
select the respondents (Bryman, 2012). This technique was chosen since this study intended to
select only the PH residents in the study areas.
The selection of the factors and items in this study was based on a review of previous studies
(Table 1). Forty-three (43) sub-factors were selected as independent variables, comprising: infrastruc-
ture and accessibility, design, building facilities and amenities, and physical condition, respectively.
The factor mapping (Figure 4) illustrates how the 43 items were grouped and further refined using
the PLS-SEM approach.
The Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to model the
hypothesised relationships and the theoretical framework (Sarstedt, Ringle, & Hair, 2017). Although
PLS-SEM is similar to the conventional regression method, it is more advantageous when used to

Table 1. The Core Factors Relevant to Public Housing Performance Evaluation.
The Core Factors
Public infrastructure and
Accessibility
Housing physical conditions,
including maintenance and
safety for building integrity
Building facilities and
amenities, including housing
unit attributes
Design elements
estimate the relationships between constructs (Bamgbade, Kamaruddeen, & Nawi, 2017; Chin, Mar-
colin, & Newsted, 2003).
Results and discussion
Response rate
For data collection, copies of questionnaires were administered among residents of PH units in
Kuching, Sarawak, in the following PH locations: RPR Taman Sri Harmoni, RPR Demak Laut, PPR
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 659
Sub-factors Literature
Public transport, distance to school and work Hashim et al. (2012); Ibem and Alagbe
places, playground area, shop houses, fire and (2015); Gajewska, 2017; Sulaiman et al.
police stations, hospital, electricity, (2016).
telecommunication, and water supply, parking
area, security area, refuse disposal,
neighbourhood facilities and environment,
noise; safety, public amenities, space,
environment (indoor temperature, visual
obstruction and internal ventilation).
Space, indoor air, parking, illumination, Gopikrishnan and Topkar (2017); Amerio
aesthetics, waste disposal, safety and security, et al., 2020; Seshadhri & Paul (2018);
amenities, air, noise and water, finishes, Zainal et al. (2012); Khair et al. (2015);
accessibility, drainage, housing conditions, Tan (2012).
location, dwelling unit features, ventilation,
internal utilities and services, external utilities
and services, lighting, aesthetics, locational
attributes, neighbourhood attributes, social-
cultural attributes, structural attributes,
materials, services (fire and plumbing systems,
electrical services); fittings (window and door,
sanitary fittings and security bar/grille), safety
of structure.
Room sizes within a unit, natural lighting, Husin et al. (2015); Gopikrishnan and
privacy level, security measures, ventilation, Topkar (2017); (Gajewska, 2017; Hashim
number of bedrooms, protection from noise et al., 2012).
pollution and dampness in the housing,
circulation of air, fire protection; thermal
comfort level, privacy level; housing services
and infrastructure (such as road network,
electricity and water supply, drainage and
sanitary facilities, external lighting, disposal
facilitates); neighbourhood facilities, (such as
transportation, parking lots, green areas,
playground, education, healthcare and
shopping facilities, open space, recreational
facilities); management and maintenance
facilities (such as communal activities and
maintenance & management of facilities in the
estate)
Thermal comfort (temperature and humidity); Ismail et al. (2015); Khair et al. (2015); Kim
visual comfort (artificial lighting, daylighting et al. (2005); Yang et al. (2018); Zainal
and view); indoor air (ventilation system and et al. (2012)
indoor air quality); acoustic comfort (sound
insulation and noise); spatial plan (the plan of
unit and parking); usability (security, safety,
adaptability and safety); location (public
amenities and access to transportation); site
(landscaping and land use); surroundings
(possibility of natural disaster, green areas and
resource of pollution).
660 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Figure 4. Item selection process (Source: The Researcher).

Sri Wangi, RPR Tondong, PPR Taman Dahlia, RPR Taman Sri Makmur (Figure 5). A total of 113 ques-
tionnaires out of 180 were returned. Considering that the PLS-SEM approach allows data analysis
with a small population size (Sarstedt et al., 2017), the preliminary number of questionnaires was
smaller than the population size. Therefore, the 62 per cent response rate was considered satis-
factory for the present study (Babbie, 2015) Figure 5.

Figure 5. Map of the study area (Source: The Researcher).

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 661

Data screening
Data screening for multivariate analysis was performed to remove any hidden errors using SPSS. This
was done to better understand the data used for analysis (Badara & Saidin, 2014; Sarstedt et al.,
2017). The samples (113 questionnaires) were coded and input into SPSS to conduct missing
values analysis and a normality test. The missing values analysis helped the researchers to address
many issues caused by incomplete data. The analysis was able to detect missing values and the
intensity of the missing data, and if they (the data) are missing at random (Pallant & Manual,
2013). No missing value was found in this dataset.
The distribution (normal or not) of data is usually determined using either graphical or numerical
tests (either by analysing graphs or performing the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality). Several
graphs can be used for this analysis, including Q-Q plots, box plots, and histograms, among others
(Pallant & Manual, 2013). To ensure the data collected followed a normal distribution, a normality test
was performed on the criterion variable. The histogram below resembles a bell curve, and the Q-Q
plot shows only a few points out of the linear line, indicating that the normality assumptions were
not violated in this study Figures 6–7.

Descriptive analysis
The demographic characteristics of the respondents showed that a larger number of respon-
dents were females from the ages of 36–45 (Table 2). The responses showed that the Bumipu-
tra/Malay race had the highest set of respondents. The highest frequency in the type of
housing unit was seen in PPR, and the lowest in others (RPR). The monthly household
income of the majority of the respondents was between 1000–2000 Malaysian Ringgit

Figure 6. Normality test histogram.

662 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Figure 7. Normal Q-Q plot.

(47.8%). The table also revealed that most respondents (55.8%) have been residing in their
current homes for more than five years.
The descriptive analysis (Table 3) also demonstrated that infrastructure and accessibility construct
have a 3.267 mean. The mean for the design component is 3.37, which is slightly higher than infra-
structure and accessibility, while the standard deviation for all the constructs ranges from 0.584–
0.745. Building facilities and amenities have the lowest mean value compared to others, with only
2.967, but a higher standard deviation than the design component. The mean value for the physical
condition is 3.427, which is the highest, while building performance had a mean value of 3.35, with
the mean value of the indicators ranging from 3 to 4.

PLS-SEM outer model assessment

In this study, the outer model was used for item selection and item analysis that are considered as
steps of constructing an index (Babbie, 2015). The initial 43 items selected were further filtered to 28
items with the aid of the factor loading assessment (Table 3). Hair and Sarstedt (2011) suggested that
four assessments are required in the measurement model to validate reflective constructs. These
include internal consistency reliability, item reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Indicator reliability
The indicator reliability was assessed through outer loadings of each measure of a latent variable
(Hair, Ringle, & Mena, & A, 2012). The recommended threshold of outer loading is above 0.708. As
such, loadings showed that the latent variable describes a variance of more than 50% among the
items (J. F. Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). However, the rule of thumb can be used to consider
retaining items between 0.4 and 0.7 for the exploratory research (Hulland, 1999). 28 items out of 43
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 663

Table 2. Demographic profile of the respondents.

Demographic Variable Sub- categories Frequency Percentage
Respondent’s gender Male 51 45.1
Female 62 54.9
Total 113 100
Respondent’s age 18–25 years 32 28.3
26–35 years 31 27.4
36- 45years 33 29.2
46–60 years 16 14.2
Above 60 1 0.9
Total 113 100
Number of people per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit 3 2.7
3 per dwelling unit 15 13.3
4 per dwelling unit 34 30.1
More than 4 per dwelling unit 61 54.0
Total 113 100
Respondent’s race Bumiputra / Malay 108 95.6
Chinese 5 4.4
Total 113 100
Number of bedrooms in the 2 73 64.6
respondent’s unit 3 40 35.4
Total 113 100
Type of housing program PPR (Program Perumahan Rakyat) 74 65.5
RMR (Rumah Mesra Rakyat) 27 23.9
RMM (Rumah Mampu Milik) 7 6.2
Others 5 4.4
Total 113 100
Monthly household income (in Malaysian Ringgit) Less than 1000 35 31.0
1000–2000 RM 54 47.8
Above 2000–3000 RM 21 18.6
More than RM3000 3 2.7
Total 113 100
Number of occupancy years in the building Less than 1 year 12 10.6
1–3 years 26 23.0
4–5 years 12 10.6
More than 5 years 63 55.8
Total 113 100

were excluded from the model as their loadings were below 0.6. Hence, 28 indicators with loadings
between 0.606 and 0.885 were retained (Table 3).

Internal consistency reliability

Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are the widely used approaches for the esti-
mation of internal consistency reliability. Composite reliability considers the contribution of the
actual item’s loading, and is suggested as an alternative to be used in exploratory research
(Wong, 2013). Therefore, it was selected for the current study. A range between 0.7 and 0.9 is con-
sidered to be satisfactory (Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012). Hence, com-
posite reliability coefficients of latent variables are satisfactory in this study (Table 3).

Convergent validity
The consideration of the outer loading and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is vital to establish
convergent validity (Sarstedt et al., 2017). Convergent validity is an assessment of the AVE across all
items associated with a construct. The AVE is calculated as the mean of the squared loadings of each
item, as they are associated with a construct as given in the formula below. To achieve suitable con-
vergent validity, AVE is supposed to be above 0.5 (Chin et al., 2003). In the current study, the AVE for
each of the constructs met these criteria (Table 3).
664 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Table 3. Items Description, Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model.

Indicator Outer Cronbach’s Composite
Construct Indicator code loading Alpha reliability AVE
Infrastructure & Accessibility of the network for INFRA3 0.673 0.803 0.859 0.504
Accessibility telecommunication
Reliability of water supply INFRA4 0.704
Efficiency of garbage collection INFRA6 0.771
system
Adequacy of drainage design INFRA7 0.704
Convenience of access roads INFRA9 0.641
Accessibility of the building and INFRA10 0.758
surrounding facilities
Design Indoor air quality DES5 0.759 0.852 0.888 0.532
Internal ventilation DES6 0.819
External ventilation DES7 0.796
Adequacy of fire safety system DES9 0.660
Adequacy of safety system DES11 0.716
against natural disasters
Adequacy of sound insulation DES12 0.658
towards external noises
Adequacy of natural lighting DES13 0.681
Building Facilities & Accessibility of parking area BFA1 0.713 0.838 0.880 0.551
Amenities Adequacy of parking area BFA2 0.764
Adequacy of playground area BFA3 0.747
Safety of playground area BFA4 0.725
Adequacy of common spaces BFA5 0.746
Safety of common safety BFA6 0.756
Physical Condition Leakage through pipes PSY 1 0.646 0.889 0.910 0.530
Leakage through cracks PSY2 0.683
Dampness PSY3 0.606
Cracks on the walls PSY4 0.720
Safety of staircases in common PSY6 0.702
spaces
Plumbing work PSY7 0.818
Vanity tops PSY8 0.821
Ceiling fittings and tiles PSY9 0.798
Painting PSY10 0.727
Building Efficiency of overall safety PER1 0.874 0.858 0.904 0.703
Performance performance
Efficiency of overall comfortable PER2 0.885
performance
Efficiency of overall convenient PER3 0.814
performance
Efficiency of overall humanization PER4 0.775
performance

Discriminant validity
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation approach was applied to assess the discriminant
validity. This approach was introduced by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015), and is considered
more efficient than the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loading assessment. HTMT ratio approach
estimates the average of the Heterotrait–Heteromethod correlations between latent variables. Cor-
relations between constructs are considered to be acceptable with a value lower than 0.90. In this
study, discriminant validity was proven, as the correlations between the latent variables were
below 0.90 value (Table 4).

Structural (inner) model assessment and discussion

This research applied such techniques as path coefficients’ significance, effect size, total effect and pre-
dictive relevance assessment (Sarstedt et al., 2017). The goal of inspecting the standardised path coeffi-
cient is to test the statistical significance of the hypothesised paths. Path coefficient analysis may be
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 665

Table 4. Heterotrait– Monotrait ratio (HTMT) test for discriminant validity.

Latent variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Building Performance 3.278 .745
2 Building facilities & amenities 2.967 .684 0.718
3 Design 3.127 .584 0.786 0.865
4 Infrastructure & Accessibility 3.267 .670 0.730 0.746 0.760
5 Physical condition 3.427 .671 0.850 0.781 0.796 0.753

reported by t values, β values and ρ values. The ρ values analysis is often adopted by many researchers
since it decreases the probability of inaccurately rejecting the null hypothesis (Hair, Hopkins, & Kuppel-
wieser, 2014). Hence, ρ values analysis was preferred in this study. It is recommended that the ρ value
reflects the significance of the path if its value falls under 0.05 (Fisher, 1992).
The evaluation of the path coefficients in the research model showed that not all the ρ values are
acceptable (Table 5). For instance, the infrastructure and accessibility (H1) are seen to be statistically
insignificant to building performance as a ρ value slightly higher than 0.05 was recorded. The design sat-
isfaction construct proved to be of significant effect on building performance (β = 0.199, ρ < 0.05), which
supported Hypothesis 2. In contrast, building facilities and amenities construct do not significantly affect
building performance (β = 0.030, ρ > 0.05). However, the physical condition criteria has the highest sig-
nificant effects on building performance (β = 0.510, ρ < 0.05), giving support to hypothesis 4 .

Effect size
Effect size illustrates the effect of an exogenous (independent) variable on an endogenous latent
variable through the changes in the coefficient of determination R2 (Chin, 1998). The values of
0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are considered small, medium and large effects for the effect size where
values less than 0.02 have no significant effect on the endogenous construct (Cohen, 2013).
R2Included − R2excluded
Effect size f 2 =
1 − R2Included
As shown in Table 6, the effect size for building facilities and amenities, design component, infra-
structure and accessibility, and physical condition factors on building performance were 0.01,
0.039, 0.30 and 0.280. According to the guidelines suggested by Cohen (2013), the effect sizes of
the exogenous latent constructs in this study may be considered as none, small, and medium,
respectively.

Assessment of predictive relevance

The Stoner-Geisser Q2 value of predictive relevance is calculated with the blindfolding procedure
that is only applicable to a reflective endogenous latent variable (Geisser, 1974). In PLS-SEM, the
Q2 measured for a peculiar endogenous construct must be higher than zero, indicating that indepen-
dent (exogenous) variables have predictive relevance for the dependent (Bamgbade, Nawi, Kamar-
uddeen, Adeleke, & Salimon, 2019; Hair et al., 2014). The predictive relevance of the building
performance construct is 0.404.

Table 5. Structural Model Results.

Original Sample Sample Mean STDEV t values ρ values Decision
H1 0.146 0.154 0.085 1.709 0.088 Not supported
H2 0.199 0.202 0.094 2.122 0.034 Supported
H3 0.030 0.026 0.098 0.303 0.762 Not supported
H4 0.510 0.507 0.105 4.834 0.000 Supported
666 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Table 6. The effect size on building performance.

Constructs R 2Included R 2Excluded f2 Effect Size
Building facilities & amenities 0.633 0.633 0.001 None
Design 0.633 0.619 0.039 Small
Infrastructure & Accessibility 0.633 0.622 0.030 Small
Physical condition 0.633 0.531 0.280 Medium

Importance performance Map analysis (IPMA)

As indicated in Figure 8, IPMA is an extension of the analysis of the path coefficient estimates, done
by considering the average values of the latent constructs’ scores. The technique confirms the total
effects on the endogenous construct of the structural model, where the goal is to identify the impor-
tant elements in the construct with strong overall effects but with a low yield (Ringle & Sarstedt,
2016). In this case, the IPMA indicated that building facilities and amenities are the least significant
of the four elements, with a value of 46.5.
The importance of this element is also low as it has a total effect of 0.035 only. By implication, a
one-unit increase in the quality of building facilities and amenities will increase the building perform-
ance by just 0.035 units. Infrastructure and accessibility constructs show greater performance and
relatively higher importance, with values of 55.00 and 0.148, respectively. The satisfactory design
component is captured in the matrix with values of 52.0 and 0.20. Physical condition records the
highest performance and importance in the matrix with 56.0 and 0.52, respectively. Thus, to increase
PH performance, aspects related to the physical condition should be given priority since they have
the highest performance and importance values .
The total effects of each exogenous construct are shown in Table 7. In the IPMA result, where the
physical condition has the most relative importance to building performance while building facilities
and amenities recorded the least, the effect sizes of each of the exogenous constructs also
follow suit.

Index construction
In this study, the index was constructed based on the methodological proposition. Items selection
was based on a comprehensive literature review that ensured each item’s performance and ade-
quately represented the composition (Babbie, 2015). Due to the large number of items selected in

Figure 8. Importance- Performance Map.

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 667

Table 7. Total effects of exogenous variables on the endogenous variable.

Building Performance
Building Facilities and Amenities 0.030
Design 0.199
Infrastructure & Accessibility 0.146
Physical Condition 0.510

this first step of index construction, face validity was further conducted to reveal the most relevant
items to the constructs. Then, the variance of the items allowed the consideration of all the aspects
to describe the building performance of PH in Sarawak, Malaysia. A validation exercise was then con-
ducted through item analysis to examine multivariate relationships between the items under the
SmartPLS environment, which was used to assign scores for the index.
Incidentally, the total effects under the PLS inner model assessment, which represents the relative
importance of every latent variable, suggested that their scores have an unequal split due to their
significantly different effects on the endogenous latent variable. Based on the total effects,
scoring for the performance index was achieved by approximating the values to every construct –
the sum of which is equal to one (Tables 8–9).
Considering given scores, the index was constructed as follows:

PH Performance Index = 0.15X 1 + 0.25X 2 + 0.05X 3 + 0.55X 4

Where:
X1 = Latent variable mean of infrastructure and accessibility,
X2 = Latent variable mean of satisfactory design components component,
X3 = Latent variable mean of desirable building facilities and amenities,
X4= Latent variable mean of physical condition factor
When using the index to evaluate the performance of PH, the calculation of the latent variable
mean should be centred on data collected from residents of PH units, using a Likert scale, where
1 represents the worst condition, and 5 represents the best. Therefore, scale values for
X1 , X2 , X3 , X4 vary from one to five.
The results constructed from the performance index formula can be further defined as follows:

Table 8. Latent variables scoring.

Latent variable Scoring
Infrastructure and accessibility 0.15
Design 0.25
Building facilities and amenities 0.05
Physical condition 0.55
Total 1

Table 9. Description of index values.

Performance Index value Meaning
1 ≤ Performance index , 2 Poor performance.
Requires immediate actions.
2 ≤ Performance index , 3 Not satisfactory performance.
Requires actions.
3 ≤ Performance index , 4 Satisfactory performance.
Periodic maintaining is essential.
4 ≤ Performance index , 5 Excellent condition.
668 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Conclusion
This study illustrates a new way of assessing PH performance based on residents’ perception using
PLS-SEM, thereby providing a model for the public sector and the developers on the potential
indices for sustainable low-income housing provision. The relevant factors were identified and
selected from the extant literature, which was subsequently used to develop a performance index
for public housing in East Malaysia. The indicators compiled under building physical conditions
were observed to have the highest contribution to the PH performance, while factors under building
facilities and amenities made the least contribution.
The index construction was commenced by subjecting some 43 indicators from the extant litera-
ture to a mapping process and arrived at 28 through factor loading under the PLS measurement
model assessment. The structural model analysis was also conducted to determine the effects of
the predictors (under which the 28 factors were grouped) on the criterion variable. The model pro-
jections made it possible to identify potential predictors for building performance indices explicitly.
The indices provide additional information on the core components of public housing delivery and
contribute to the ongoing discussions on low-income household’s health and comfort and improved
living affordability. This paper expanded the disciplinary boundaries to communicate various multi-
dimensional constructs relevant to low-income housing schemes to a wider audience to contribute
to the discussion on housing delivery and drive social reform in the built environment. Several
studies have evaluated building performance using different approaches, but this study proposed
a technique that systematically evaluates the performance of PH taking into account the specific
needs and expectations of the inhabitants. This research addressed the knowledge gap by develop-
ing a systematic approach to PH evaluation in East Malaysia. Thus, the index can be viable to the
building stakeholders responsible for PH design, including facilities management, to stem the tide
of unsustainable and poor housing conditions in low-income communities.
There are a few limitations to the findings of this paper. First, this study was able to access respon-
dents in the flat type of PH houses. This might be responsible for the insignificant paths in the PLS
inner model. Further research is needed to analyse these dimensions by adopting a different type of
housing provided through PH programs. Of significant note is the language barrier during the data
collection stage. Thus, the researcher had to continuously seek the assistance of a translator within
the local community to communicate with the respondents in their local language. It is expected
that future studies should consider a mixed research approach to identify other contemporary indi-
cators to construct a more accurate composite index to evaluate PH in Malaysia.
Additional research is also needed to analyse the responses from the PH dwellers for sustained and
reliable homes and curtail housing deficits leading to the social crisis among the low-income popu-
lation. An interdisciplinary effort and cross-scale linkage can also expand the study scope such that
the collateral effects of inadequate responses from the PH dwellers can be addressed. Studies in
this direction will give a more in-depth insight into how persistent poor housing quality and structural
deficiencies in lower-income neighbourhoods have created more social problems at all levels.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
J. A. Bamgbade http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6521-7145

References
Ahmed, E.A. (2014). Economic aspects and applied policies of poverty reduction in Malaysia. Journal of Scientific
Research and Reports, 3(22), 2817–2833.
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 669

Amerio, A., Brambilla, A., Morganti, A., Aguglia, A., Bianchi, D., Santi, F., … Signorelli, C. (2020). Covid-19 lockdown:
Housing built environment’s effects on mental health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(16), 1-10.
Babbie, E. R. (2015). The basics of social research. Boston, MA: CENGAGE Learning.
Badara, M. A. S., & Saidin, S. Z. (2014). Internal audit effectiveness: Data screening and preliminary analysis. Asian Social
Science, 10(10), 76–85.
Bamgbade, J., Kamaruddeen, A., & Nawi, M. (2017). Towards environmental sustainability adoption in construction firms:
An empirical analysis of market orientation and organizational innovativeness impacts. Sustainable Cities and Society,
32, 486–495.
Bamgbade, J., Nawi, M., Kamaruddeen, A., Adeleke, A., & Salimon, M. G. (2019). Building sustainability in the construction
industry through firm capabilities, technology and business innovativeness: Empirical evidence from Malaysia.
International Journal of Construction Management, 1–16.
Bilal, M., Meera, A. K. M., & Razak, D. A. (2019). Issues and challenges in contemporary affordable public housing schemes
in Malaysia. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 12(6), 1004-1027.
Bluyssen, P. M. (2010). Towards new methods and ways to create healthy and comfortable buildings. Building and
Environment, 45(4), 808–818.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. OUP Oxford.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business
Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measur-
ing interaction effects: Results from a monte carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study.
Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press.
CompareHero.my. (2020). T20, M40 And B40 Income Classifications In Malaysia. Compargo Malaysia Sdn Bhd. Retrieved
03/04/2021 from https://www.comparehero.my/budgets-tax/articles/t20-m40-b40-malaysia
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
California: Sage publications.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-
item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449.
Fisher, R. A. (1992). Statistical methods for research workers (breakthroughs in statistics (pp. 66-70). New York, NY: Springer.
Gajewska, K. (2017). Citizens as peers complementing government functions: The case of new governance modes in
public housing in Warsaw, Poland. Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, 25(2), 181–198.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107.
Golubchikov, O., & Deda, P. (2012). Governance, technology, and equity: An integrated policy framework for energy
efficient housing. Energy Policy, 41, 733–741.
González-Eguino, M. (2015). Energy poverty: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 377–385.
Gopikrishnan, S., & Paul, V. K. (2018). MEASURING SATISFACTION WITH USER REQUIREMENT RELATED BUILDING
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES: A QUESTIONNAIRE. Journal of Building Performance, 9(1), 133–146.
Gopikrishnan, S., & Topkar, V. (2017). Attributes and descriptors for building performance evaluation. HBRC Journal, 13
(3), 291–296.
Hair JF, S. M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
Hair, S., Ringle, M., & Mena, C. M., & A, J. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation
modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European
Buksiness Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Hair, R. C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–
152.
Hamid, H. A., Ho, G., & Ismail, S.. (2019). Demarcating households: An integrated income and consumption analysis.
Khazanah Research Institute, Malaysia.License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0
Hashim, A. E., Samikon, S. A., Ismail, F., & Ismail, Z. (2015). Managing facilities on Malaysian low-cost public residential for
sustainable adaptation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 52–60.
Hashim, A. E., Samikon, S. A., Nasir, N. M., & Ismail, N. (2012). Assessing factors influencing performance of Malaysian low-
cost public housing in sustainable environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 920–927.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
Husin, H. N., Nawawi, A. H., Ismail, F., & Khalil, N. (2015). Correlation analysis of occupants’ satisfaction and safety per-
formance level in low cost housing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 238–248.
670 O. POSTNIKOVA ET AL.

Ibem, E. O., & Alagbe, O. A. (2015). Investigating dimensions of housing adequacy evaluation by residents in public
housing. Facilities, 33(7/8), 465–484.
Ilesanmi, A. O. (2010). Post-occupancy evaluation and residents’ satisfaction with public housing in lagos. Nigeria.
Journal of Building Appraisal, 6(2), 153–169.
Islam, R., & Ismail, Y. (2010). Malaysia on course to become a developed country: Prioritizing issues with the analytic
hierarchy process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2(2), 79–107.
Ismail, F., Jabar, I. L., Janipha, N. A. I., & Razali, R. (2015). Measuring the quality of life in low cost residential environment.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 270–279.
Jiang, W., & Wong, J. K. (2016). Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry: A
study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 850–860.
Khair, N., Ali, H. M., Sipan, I., Juhari, N. H., & Daud, S. Z. (2015). Post occupancy evaluation of physical environment in
public low-cost housing. Jurnal Teknologi, 75(10), 155–162.
Kim, S.-S., Yang, I.-H., Yeo, M.-S., & Kim, K.-W. (2005). Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multi-
family residential buildings in korea. Building and Environment, 40(8), 1103–1116.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Lukuman, M., Sipan, I., Raji, F., & Aderemi, O. S. (2017). Sustainable livable housing: A review of what traditional urban
areas residents find important. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 4(3), 190–198.
Ma, L., Reed, R., & Liang, J. (2019). Separating owner-occupier and investor demands for housing in the Australian states.
Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 37(2), 215–232.
Moore, T., Strengers, Y., & Maller, C. (2016). Utilising mixed methods research to inform low-carbon social housing per-
formance policy. Urban Policy and Research, 34(3), 240–255.
Nigel, M., Fox, N., & Hunn, A.. (2009). Surveys and questionnaires. The NIHR Research Design Service for Yorkshire & the
Humber.
Pallant, J., & Manual, S. S. (2013). A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Australia: Allen & Unwin. doi, 10,
1753-6405.12166.
Preiser, W. F., & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing building performance: Its evolution from post-occupancy evaluation.
International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 84–99.
Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
116(9), 1865–1886.
Samad, D., Zainon, N., Rahim, F. A. M., Lou, E., & Abd Karim, S. B. (2016). Malaysian affordability housing policies revisited.
(Ed.),^(Eds.). MATEC web of conferences.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of Market
Research, 26, 1–40.
Seshadhri, G, & Paul, V. K. (2018). User satisfaction index: An indicator on building performance. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Structures, 2(1), 14–33
Sharpe, R., Thornton, C., Tyrrell, J., Nikolaou, V., & Osborne, N. (2015). Variable risk of atopic disease due to indoor fungal
exposure in NHANES 2005–2006. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 45(10), 1566–1578.
Shuid, S. (2016). The housing provision system in Malaysia. Habitat International, 54, 210–223.
Stevenson, F., & Baborska-Narozny, M. (2018). Housing performance evaluation: Challenges for international knowledge
exchange. Building Research & Information, 46(5), 501–512.
Sulaiman, F. C., Hasan, R., & Jamaluddin, E. R. (2016). Users perception of public low income housing management in
Kuala Lumpur. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234(Suppl. C), 326–335.
Tan, T.-H. (2012). Meeting first-time buyers’ housing needs and preferences in greater Kuala Lumpur. Cities, 29(6), 389–
396.
Tenth Malaysia Plan. (2010). The Government of Malaysia,[Online] Available: http://www. epu. gov. my
Wahab, A., & Kamaruzzaman, S.-N. (2011). Building Performance and Evaluation Methods: A Preliminary Review. (Ed.),^
(Eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Project and Facilities Management, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Wahi, N., Zin, R. M., Munikanan, V., Mohamad, I., & Junaini, S. (2018). Problems and Issues of High Rise Low Cost Housing
in Malaysia. (Ed.),^(Eds.). IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS.
Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32.
Yang, Y., Zhang, X., Lu, X., Hu, J., Pan, X., Zhu, Q., … Su, W. (2018). Effects of building design elements on residential
thermal environment. Sustainability, 10(1), 1–15.
Yeop Mat Dali, A. S.. (1996). The implementation of public low-cost housing programme in Malaysia 1976-1990.University
of Sheffield.
Zainal, N. R., Kaur, G., Ahmad, N. A., & Khalili, J. M. (2012). Housing conditions and quality of life of the urban poor in
Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 827–838.