The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-4708.htm

Defect characterisations in the Defect

characterisations
Malaysian affordable housing in affordable
housing
AbdulLateef Olanrewaju, Yien Yen Tan and See Ning Soh
Construction Management, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia
539
Abstract
Received 21 November 2018
Purpose – The successive Malaysian government aims to provide housing to households earning the median Revised 10 November 2020
income and below. However, there has been continuous criticism and complaints from the media and literature 16 January 2021
on the magnitude of the defects in affordable housing. Therefore, this research has investigated the defects in Accepted 3 March 2021
affordable housing for the users’/occupants’ perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach – With a response rate of 69%, the research developed a questionnaire
instrument that included twenty-one defects in buildings based on literature and observation. These were
scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very common to least common. Twelve causes of defects
measured on a five-point scale were included in the survey. Thirteen additional items that had to do with
remedial actions to reduce defects were included. These were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly agree to least agree. The survey forms were administered to all the 152 home occupants in a Program
Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) housing estate through hand delivery in a northern state in Malaysia.
Findings – The data revealed that broken doors, damaged roofs, damp walls and broken tiles in rooms were
the most common defects in the housing development. It was found that defects in the buildings were caused by
poor workmanship, defective materials, poor designs and bad weather. Additionally, to rectify the defects,
adequate supervision is required during maintenance, the repairs must be conducted on time and there is a need
to have competent maintenance organisations. Through factor analysis, the 21 defects were structured into six
factors, the 12 causes were grouped into 5 factors and the 13 remedial actions were grouped into 6 factors.
Practical implications – The information on the nature, degree and kinds of defects from the users’
perspectives will dictate when repair work is to be undertaken and allow future work to be programmed and
financed as part of a maintenance rolling programme.
Originality/value – This research focused specifically on “Program Perumahan Rakyat” housing
development. Furthermore, none of the previous research on defects conducted attempted to categorise the
defects in the buildings. The categorisation is very important for systemic decision-making because there are
continuous interactions amongst the defects, causes and remedial actions.
Keywords Maintenance cost, New buildings, Satisfaction, Building performance, Low-cost housing
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Housing performance has profound impacts on occupants’ well-being, comfort, satisfaction,
behaviours and productivity. However, defects hamper housing performance, increase user
dissatisfaction and increase maintenance costs. Mills et al. (2009) estimated that defect costs
represent 4% of the contract value of a new dwelling or renovation. Similarly, research on
defects in residential housing revealed that the defect cost per square metre was $9.86 (Lee et al.,
2018). The research also revealed that the loss amount due to defects in a residential building to
all stakeholders was $15.70.m2. Malaysians spent about 5% of their household income on
building maintenance. As Olanrewaju et al. (2011) explained, defects in the buildings could lead
to vandalism, arson and deaths. Because according to Sommerville and MoCosh (2006), defects
set up internal psychological pressure in the users. In particular, functional and aesthetic
defects in the building create severe psychological impacts (Million et al., 2017). Furthermore,
building defects are unsightly, irritating and dangerous to the occupants and the general public
(Seeley, 1996 and Olanrewaju, 2012). There have been a number of studies on defects in
International Journal of Building
residential buildings in many countries including Norway (Shirkavand et al., 2016), Australia Pathology and Adaptation
(Ilozor et al., 2004), the UK (Hopkin et al., 2016), Denmark (Schultz et al., 2015), Hong Kong (Ming, Vol. 40 No. 4, 2022
pp. 539-568
999), Singapore (Kian, 2004; Chong and Low, 2005; and Christudason, 2007), South Korea (Lee © Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-4708
et al., 2018) and New Zealand (Rotimi et al., 2015) where defects in the residential building are DOI 10.1108/IJBPA-11-2018-0095
IJBPA high and increasing unabated. Although research on defects in buildings is increasing in
40,4 Malaysia (Olanrewaju et al., 2010; Abdul-Rahman et al., 2014; Fauzi and Abidin, 2012; Chang,
2013; and Chang, 2015), the growing concern on the subject is increasing persistently. For
instance, based on an investigation of more than 100 buildings in Malaysia, Anthony (2013)
found that cases of defects in new buildings were common. Furthermore, the National House
Buyers Association (HBA) Malaysia received thousands of complaints annually from
homebuyers on various types of defects in newly purchased units (Chang, 2013). Hong
540 (2016), Ali and Wen (2011), Ahzahar et al. (2011), Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014) and Ramli et al.
(2013) reported high cases of defects in various building typologies. However, there is a dearth
of empirical research on defects in public affordable housing and low-cost housing in particular.
Low-cost housing is unique because there are various constraints in the demand and supply of
affordable housing. Some of these constraints include financial, planning, zoning, labour and
material constraints. Public housing areas are built with little innovation, poor quality materials
and inadequate spaces and housing developments suffer from location problems (Olanrewaju
and Idrus, 2020; Olanrewaju and Wong, 2020). Therefore, the present study evaluated defects in
affordable housing development. Without empirical research on the defects in affordable
housing, it would hinder the opportunity for performance improvements. Specifically, the
objectives of this research are to prioritise the types of defects, causes of the defects and
the possible remedies based on the home occupants’ experiences. Furthermore, this research
categorised the types of defects, the causes and the remedies. Categorising the defects and
the associated causes and remedies is critical for systemic decision-making. For instance, if the
defect analysis is limited to ranking alone, this might lead to fragmented and biased decisions.
Ultimately, this will lead to high maintenance costs, shorter maintenance life spans, disruptions,
loss of profit and poor occupant satisfaction levels. Whilst there are various housing
programmes in Malaysia (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2017), there is a specific lack of information on the
characteristics of the defects in the Program Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) housing programme.
The PPR housing development is peculiar because it was established for those in the low-
income groups in the cities. By 2020, over 70% of Malaysians were expected to reside in urban
areas. Examining the housing performance and satisfaction of low-income occupants is critical
to national growth and productivity. The present research collected the primary data through a
survey questionnaire. The data obtained were analysed using an SAS Enterprise Guide 7.11 to
produce descriptive, illustrative and inferential statistics. The paper is organised as follows.
After the introduction of Section 1, Section 2 provides an extensive literature review about the
defects in housing and low-cost housing in many countries and sheds light on the gap in
housing in Malaysia. In section 3, the adopted research methodology is explained including the
design of the survey questionnaires and a list of the conducted statistical analysis to test the
significance of the survey results. The data analysis and results presentation are located in
section 4. Section 5 discusses the quantification requirements of the six bowties and presents
some results of the quantifications and their possible uses. Finally, section 6 offers the summary
and conclusions. This is followed by a presentation and discussion of the data analyses. Finally,
the paper concludes by summarising the causes, classes and remedies of the defects in
low-costing housing. As part of the conclusion, recommendations were enumerated.

2. Theoretical framework and background

Housing is building typology that provides shelter, accommodation, comfort, protection and
a place of rest for its occupants. Housing can be classified based on the construction method
or design, or by using other metrics like the income of the occupants. Based on the income
classification, housing is often classified as high-income, medium-income and low-income
housing. Affordable housing is often interpreted to mean low- and medium-income housing
development. The Malaysian government is committed to encouraging greater
homeownership amongst those in the median incomes and below. However, the government Defect
recognised the inadequacies of affordable housing supply and has introduced various characterisations
housing programmes and schemes (e.g. Perumahan Rakyat 1Malaysia (PR1MA), 1Malaysian
Civil Servants Housing (PPA1M), Rumah Wilayah Persekutuan (RUMAWIP), Skim
in affordable
Perumahan Mampu Milik Swasta (MyHome), Program Perumahan Rakyat (PPR), housing
Programme Rumah Mampu Milik (RMM) and Federal Land Development Authority
(FELDA)). The schemes and programmes were designed to cater to different sets of buyers or
renters. However, unaffordability is high in Malaysia (Olanrewaju and Woon, 2017; 541
Khazanah, 2017; Lim et al., 2015 and Demographia, 2017). The lack of affordable housing
could lead to congestion, population, overcrowding, accidents and urban sprawls. Whilst the
measures have helped to increase homeownership and reduce the gap in housing deficits
(Olanrewaju and Woon, 2017; Goh and Yahaya, 2011), there are numerous cases of defects in
the buildings (Abdul-Rahman et al., 2014; Kamal et al., 2016; Olanrewaju and Woon, 2017;
CIDB, 2018; Hashim et al., 2015; and Husin et al., 2015). In fact, the prevalence of defects in the
building has led to the establishment of schemes like the Housing Maintenance Programme.

2.1 Program Perumahan Rakyat

The PPR or People’s Housing Programme is one of the various housing programmes
established to increase the homeownership rate amongst those in the medium- and low-
income group, particularly in urban areas (see Table 1). As of March 2015, a total of 23
projects with 12,025 houses had been built and 63 projects with 27,087 houses were under
development (Government of Malaysia, 2016). There are three types of PPR housing:
multistoried flats, 5-storey “walk-up” flats and terrace houses. The multilevel homes range
between 5 floors to 18 floors in the cities. The housing units are only open to married
Malaysians with a salary not more than RM2500 [1] monthly. Moreover, the buyers or renters
must be first-time homebuyers and not younger than 18 years old. The housing specifications
are 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a living room and a kitchen; the total floor area of the units is
less than 700 square feet (MHLG, 2018). Facilities in the housing estate include a community
hall, mosques, kindergartens, playgrounds and dining outlets. The PPR consists of two
categories: PPR for Rentals (PPRS) and PPR for Ownership (PPRM). For rentals, RM124 per
unit is levied for rental per month and the selling price is RM30,000.00 or RM35,000.00 per
unit in Peninsular Malaysia, and RM40,500.00 in Sabah and Sarawak. The selling prices
depend on the type of houses. The PPR housing projects are monitored by the National
Housing Department/Ministry of Housing and the local government. Figure 1 is a floor plan of
3-bedroom units. Whilst the PPR programme has helped to reduce housing deficits, concerns
on the maintenance costs, continuous refurbishments, alterations, modifications and

Housing
Programme unit Condition

PPR 50,000 Buyers/ renter not receiving more than RM2,500 monthly
PR1MA 380,000 For household receiving not more than RM3,000
PPA1M 88,000 For civil servants and particularly those residing in the major cities and most for
first-time buyers
RMR1M 55,000 To assist those in low income to build house on land Table 1.
RUMAWIP 33,000 Low-, low-medium and medium-cost housing Target for public
Total affordable housing
653,000 during the eleventh
Source(s): Government of Malaysia, 2016 plan (2016–2020)
IJBPA operations have remained major problems that require pragmatic considerations (Hashim
40,4 et al., 2015; Husin et al., 2015; CIDB, 2017; and Olanrewaju and Woon, 2017). In fact, because of
the high number of complaints on the conditions of the PPR housing development across
Malaysia, the sum of RM300 million was allocated for the maintenance of the PPR housing
projects in 2017 (CIDB, 2017). As of the time of writing this manuscript, the government is in
the process of establishing a “National Housing Management Corporation (3P)” to conduct
the maintenance of the PPR across the country. There are studies on defects / quality of PPR
542 housing estates (Abdul-Rahman et al., 2014). However, while Abdul-Rahman et al.’s (2014)
study included PPR housing, its essence was lost when “averaged” with other types of
housing programmes and the housing development investigated was more than 10 years old.
Hashim et al. (2012), Husin et al. (2015), Fauzi and Abidin (2012), Hashim et al. (2015) and
Ismail et al. (2015) investigated the defect and safety satisfaction levels of the low-cost
housing in Malaysian cities, and the defects investigated were not wide-ranging, however.
Similarly, the previous studies had not examined the causes of the defects and the associated
measures together (see: Goh and Yahaya, 2011 and Abdul-Rahman et al., 2014). Additionally,
the findings were mainly descriptive. As much as these findings and recommendations for
the studies are useful, the studies tended not to go into the level of details necessary to provide
any systemic explanation of the defects in the PPR buildings.

Bathroom 2
Bathroom 1

Bedroom 2

Bedroom 1

Balcony

Bedroom 3

Kitchen

Living room/Dining area

Figure 1.
Typical plan of
PPR unit
2.2 Housing defects Defect
In this research, building defects are defined as undesirable or inadequate conditions and characterisations
performance in buildings that affect the serviceability, performance, use and structural
condition or appearance of the buildings (Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz, 2015). Other terms
in affordable
often used to describe defect include damage, default, quality deviation, fault, housing
non-conformance and deterioration and decay. In this research, all the terms are
synonymous with defects and are sometimes used interchangeably. As a matter of fact,
studies have revealed that the lack of a unified definition for the defects in a building is a 543
source problem for the evaluation of defects (Mills et al., 2009 and Alencastro et al., 2018).
However, there is common agreement, both in practice and theory, that defects reduce the
performance of buildings. Defects are common in buildings (Mills et al., 2009; Olanrewaju,
2010 and Alencastro et al., 2018) to the extent that even the homebuyers believe that defects
are synonymous with the housing industry. To illustrate, based on an analysis of the
non-conformance of two large Spanish housing developments, 3,676 defects were identified in
68 residential buildings (Forcada et al., 2014). Sommerville and MoCosh (2006) investigated
1,696 new UK houses and found that a small number of properties had up to 389 defects. Pan
and Thomas (2014) identified and examined 3,209 defects in 327 homes in the United
Kingdom. The research found an average of 9.8 defects per dwelling, and most of the defects
were not “considered serious”. In Australia, Georgiou et al. (1999) found 2,740 defects in 1,002
owner-built houses and 1,766 defects in 770 houses that were built by registered builders.
Auchterlounie and Craig (2010) found that the number of homeowners who reported
snagging (i.e. defects) within their new homes had risen by 14% between 2000 and 2010, to a
staggering level of 95%, in the UK. A survey conducted on the 48 residential building in
South Korea identified 755 defects in the buildings. Zalejska-Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin
(2019) reported a high number of cases of defects in Swedish residential buildings. In fact, a
recent survey in the UK by the HomeOwners Alliance and BLP Insurance revealed that about
90% of owners of new-built homes supported “snagging retention” because of the increase in
the number of buyers reporting problems with their new homes (HomeOwners Alliance
(2019)). Similarly, Olanrewaju and Woon (2017) surmised that a significant number of
affordable housing buildings in Malaysia faced pre-occupancy obsolesces. They unpacked
this thesis by making reference to the growing complaints by new occupants as soon they
moved into their homes.
The effects of the defects on the conditions, appearance and performance of buildings
depend on the functional requirements of the buildings. For instance, a condition that might
be acceptable for residential buildings may require immediate maintenance in other types of
buildings. Defects hinder the functional performance of the buildings and services and set up
inner psychological tension in the users if the defects are not rectified in time. The impact of
defects does not only influence the occupants’/clients’ satisfaction levels, but also lead to
disputes and litigation amongst clients/users, developers and maintenance organisations
(Lee et al., 2018 and Zalejska-Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin, 2019). Research has shown that
defects in buildings affect the energy performance of the buildings (Alencastro et al., 2018;
and Zalejska-Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin, 2019). The severity of the defect depends on the
impact that the defect has on the building and associated services. Defects can manifest
within a structure, fabric, services and other facilities (Watt, 1999). Defects in housing are
caused by various agents. For instance, whilst certain defects are caused by designers (latent
defects), part of the defects are caused by contractors (patent defects) and others are caused
by wear and tear and lack of maintenance. Design and construction defects are defects caused
as a result of design errors, specification errors, methods of construction, poor materials and
bad labour. Building defects can be identified by the users themselves or through inspection
by those concerned with the facilities’ management. The severities of a defect will often be
evaluated against the consequences that the defect has on the building and users (Watt, 1999).
IJBPA Based on the extensive review of literature of defects in buildings, the types and causes of
40,4 defects in buildings depend on various characteristics including the building’s typology,
uses, function, classifications, users and location. While there is no conclusive list of the types
and causes of defects in residential buildings, Table 2 contains the summary of types of defect
in housing. The causes of defects common to residential buildings are contained in Table 3.
The lists are not prescriptive and comprehensive but indicative of the nature of the defect in
affordable housing.
544
2.3 Remedies to defect in building
The analysis of the nature and characteristics of defects is essential for improving the
performance of the buildings. Defects in buildings can be avoided or reduced by
implementing several measures or remedial actions. Some of the remedial actions are
conducted during design, construction or operation. While some defects are corrected
through rework (Rhodes and Smallwood, 2003; Love et al., 2005; Simpeh et al., 2015 and
Hwang and Yang 2014), some are corrected through maintenance (Olanrewaju and Abdul-
Aziz, 2015). Unlike maintenance that is conducted when the building is completed or during
the occupation, rework is carried out during construction or before handover/defect liability
period. Because most defects that affect or disrupt users’ activities occurred during the
operation phase of the buildings, building maintenance function is strategic. Maintenance of
building is essential in order to sustain and preserve the building to an acceptable
performance (Hassanain et al., 2014 and Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz, 2015). Extant academic
literature suggests that some of the measures that can reduce defects in buildings and

Poor drainage Rodzi (2017), Ahmad (2004), Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin (2019)
Peeling paint Fores (2017), Ahmad (2004), Forcada et al. (2012)
Roof leakage Chong and Low (2005), Ahmad (2004), Forcada et al. (2012)
Floor cracks Bakri and Mydin (2014), Abdul-Rahman et al., 2014, Chong and Low (2005)
Wall cracks Ahmad (2004), Williams (1993), Watt (1999), Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014)
Ceiling cracks Williams (1993), Watt (1999), Ahmad (2004)
Beam cracks Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015), Ahmad (2004)
Column cracks Ahmad (2004), Ilozor et al. (2004)
Fungi attack on wall Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin (2019)
Bad plumbing Ahmad (2004), Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin
(2019), Forcada et al. (2012), Chong and Low (2005)
Inadequate Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin (2019)
ventilation
Broken windows Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin (2019), Forcada
et al. (2012)
Damaged doors Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Forcada et al. (2012), Chong and Low (2005)
Termites attacks Ilozor et al. (2004)
Broken gutters Williams, 1993, Watt, 1999,
Damaged water Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Chew et al. (2008), Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin
closet (2019), Chong and Low (2005)
Damaged toilet basin Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Chew et al. (2008)
Broken toilet wall Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Chew et al. (2008), Zalejska Jonsson and Hungria Gunnelin
tiles (2019), Chong and Low (2006)
Broken electric Georgiou et al. (1999), Olubodun (2000), Kazaz et al. (2005)
switch
Table 2. Damaged kitchen Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Forcada et al. (2012), Chong and Low (2006)
Summary of major basin
types defects in Broken kitchen wall Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Forcada et al. (2012)
buildings tiles
Cause Author
Defect
characterisations
Poor workmanship in construction Suffian (2013), Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015), Hopkin et al. in affordable
(2016)
Construction material selection Ahzahar et al. (2011), Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz(2015), Hopkin housing
et al. (2016)
Faulty design of building Hopkin et al. (2016), Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015)
Climate condition Ahzahar et al. (2011) 545
Low budget Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015)
Lack of maintenance Ahzahar et al. (2011)
Moisture problem from wet area Chong and Low (2006), Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz(2015), Abdul-
Rahman et al. (2014)
Building age Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014), Forcada et al. (2012)
Number of people living in your unit Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015)
Lack of motivation in taking care of the Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015)
house
Neglect house conditions Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015)
Lack of inspection during maintenance Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015), Hopkin et al. (2016)
process
Vandalism Olubodun and Mole (1999), Tiun (2009), Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014) Table 3.
Shortage of materials Hopkin et al. (2016) Summary of major
Poor quality of materials Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015) causes of defects in
Defective materials Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015) buildings

improve the building performance include regular painting, regular maintenance, using
quality material during construction and maintenance, competence and structure of the
maintenance organisation (Arditi and Nawakorawit, 1999; Assaf et al., 1995, Hassanain et al.,
2014; Suffian, 2013; Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz, 2015 and Silva et al., 2015). Other measures
include site supervision during maintenance, timely repair, experience of maintenance
workers, quality of materials for maintenance, following instructions during maintenance,
regularly paint and discouraging the misuse of the buildings (Olanrewaju and Abdul-
Aziz, 2015).
Housing users can be interpreted differently; in this article, it is construed as the entity or
group of individuals or the organisations who are interested in the adequate functioning of
the building. They are affected by the performance of the building, and the building is also
affected by the activities of the users. Whilst a plethora of research has been conducted on
building defects in many countries, including Malaysia, empirical studies on defects in new
public housing programmes in Malaysia are lacking, despite the continuous critiques and
complaints from new homebuyers. The previous studies that investigated defects and
performance of low-cost housing development considered only a few of the defects. Also,
empirical investigations of the causes and remedies of the defects, especially from the users’
perspectives, are nascent. In addition, the previous studies were primarily concerned with the
ranking of the defects. These gaps justify the need for appropriate research.

3. Research methodology and analytic techniques

This research involved a literature review and a survey questionnaire. The PPR housing
where the survey was conducted comprised of two blocks, each comprising 76 units.
Therefore, the data collection adopted a census method involving all 152 units of PPR
housing in the Perak State in the northern part of Malaysia. Perak is about 180 km from Kuala
Lumpur. The primary data were collected through convenience sampling. This method is
suitable if sufficient information on population size and sample frame is not accessible. It also
IJBPA is useful where location, accessibility and time are critical to the research. However, its
40,4 conclusions may not be generalisable. However, as Sekaran and Bougie (2016) explained,
with large numbers of respondents, the findings can be indicative of the population from
which the sample was drawn. The basic principle of the convenience sampling technique is
that if an ample quantity of data were collected and objectivity is preserved during data
collection, the results can be generalised to the population. This is consistent with the central
limit theorem (CLT), which stated that the distribution of sample means approximates a
546 normal distribution as the sample size increases, and for the CLT principle to be valid, a
sample size of 30 or more is presumed adequate (Olanrewaju and Idrus, 2020).
The survey forms were administered to the respondents by way of hand delivery over a
period of five visits (i.e. 20/07/2018, 25/07/2018, 14/08/2018, 15/08/2018 and 18/08/2018). The
home occupants were asked to tick the types of defects in the buildings (this is interpreted to
mean how common are the defects in the buildings) and the level of their agreement with the
degree that each of the causes will lead to defects. A five-continuum scale was used to
measure the degree of how common a defect was; where 5 denoted extremely common and 1
denoted least common. Similarly, “3” denoted somewhat common and 2 and 4 were located in
between. The analyses of the causes of defects in the housing estates were also measured on a
five-continuum scale, where 5 denoted extremely agree and 1 denoted least agree. The
number 3 denoted agree and 2 and 4 were located in between. The remedial actions for defects
were also examined and measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire went
through two pilot surveys that comprised relevant stakeholders. The pilot study is a small-
scale preliminary study or “pre-experiment” conducted in order to remove or reduce
ambiguity in the instruments (Cohen et al., 2017 and Sekeran and Bougie, 2016) and increase
the validity and reliability of the instruments. In the pilot study, fewer subjects than the
number required for the full study are used. The subjects need to have similar “experiences”
like the main subjects in the main study. In this research, 20 “stakeholders”/subjects,
including 10 from the low-costing housing, were involved in this study. The other
stakeholders included staff of the design team and developers/contractors that were involved
in housing production.
Building defects can be identified by the users themselves or by the maintenance
management organisations. The maintenance organisations have the expertise to identify
“hidden” defects. However, because the functional performance of a building is the ultimate
interest of the users, they are “competent” to evaluate the “visible” defects in the buildings
because the defects affect the occupants. Many studies on defect analyses in buildings have
been conducted from the building owners’/users’ perspectives (Zalejska-Jonsson and Hungria
Gunnelin, 2019; Lee et al., 2018; and Olanrewaju et al., 2017). The fundamental essence of this
research is to identify the defects in affordable housing through a questionnaire instrument
based on the users’ perspectives. The types, causes and remedies of defects were measured by
an average relative index (ARI) Equation (1). This method has been used in previous research
(Ismail et al., 2015; Olanrewaju and Idrus, 2020). The ARI was based on the cumulative
weighting of the initial frequency score of each of the constructs (i.e. factors, criteria, items)
P5
i¼0 ai xi
ARI ¼ P 5
3 100 (1)
5 i¼0 xi

The symbol ai was the index of a group which was a constant expressing the weight given to
a group; xi was the frequency of the responses: i 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ; x5 were the
frequencies of the responses which corresponded to a1 ¼ 1; a2 ¼ 2; a3 ¼ 3; a4 ¼ 4; a5 ¼ 5,
respectively. The data were re-scaled from the Likert scale to ratio data using the
correspondence analysis. For instance, for the types of defects, an ARI score of 1.00–20.00
denoted not common at all, 21.00–40.00 denoted not common, 41.00–60.00 denoted somewhat
common, 61.00–80.00 denoted common and 81.00–100.00 denoted very common. There was a Defect
pooled difference of 1.0% between each of the scales. Thus, the defect with the highest ARI characterisations
score was considered to be the most common defect in the housing estate. The causes of the
defects and defect remedies followed similar methods of analysis. Other statistical tests
in affordable
computed were the one-way test, Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, validity test, mode test and housing
the standard deviation test. A factor analysis was also conducted to identify the association
between the defects, causes and remedies. The factor analysis is used to group constructs that
are not clearly obvious or labelled prior to the computations (Dy and Brodley, 2004; 547
Nasrabadi, 2007; Butcher, 2017 and Usama et al., 2019). It examines the association between
constructs based on the correlation between the constructs to determine the presence of an
underlying pattern among a large number of constructs (Cohen et al., 2017 and Hinton, 2014).
It is very useful in systemic decision-making through the grouping and simplification of the
constructs and formulation of latent variables (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016).

4. Analysing the results of the survey

The survey pooled 152 forms, and 105 (or 69%) completed feedbacks were received during
the survey period. The results are displayed and discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Analysing the respondents’ profiles

The results on the profiles of the respondents are contained in Tables 4–6. More than 76% of
the units had 4 or 5 occupants and none of the housing units had fewer than three occupants
(Table 4). The survey revealed that the higher the number of years in the unit, the more the
number of defects in the unit (Table 5). This finding is interesting because the PPR was
developed for married couples. Defects in the buildings occur frequently (Table 6), suggesting
that the occupants’ number in a unit would not likely increase the frequency of defects in a

Year Frequency Percent

Less than 2 years 23 21.9 Table 4.

2 years 82 78.1 Years of living in
Total 105 100.0 the unit

Number of occupant Frequency Percent

3 9 8.6
4 35 33.3
5 45 42.9
6 15 14.3 Table 5.
7 1 1.0 How many people live
Total 105 100.0 in your unit?

Month Frequency Percent

Every 6 months 3 2.9

Every 9 months 13 12.4 Table 6.
Every year 89 84.8 How often do defects
Total 105 100.0 occur in your unit?
IJBPA unit. The plausible interpretation of this profile was that the respondents had suitable
40,4 information and competency to offer impartial and useable evidence.
4.1.1 Analysing the types of defects in affordable housing buildings. The PPR buildings
were made of brick walls, plaster ceilings, cement floors, wooden doors and metal frames
for doors and windows and consisted of the following measurements: 900mm 3 2100 mm
(normal unit), 1200mm 3 2100mm (disabled), 1800mm 3 2100mm (public area–water and
electrical) and 750mm 3 2100mm (public area–telephone room). To measure the goodness
548 of fit of the defects, reliability and validity, one sample t-test tests were performed. Table 7
shows the results of the one sample t-tests. The results show that the Pr > jtj for all the
defects (Hr: U ≥ U0) was statistically significant. Table 7 also shows that the standard
errors were generally small. The standard errors measured the correctness of the degree
to which the sample mean was close to the population mean. These imply that the results
were representative of the population. Kaiser’s measure of sampling adequacy was
significant (χ 2 (276) 5 644.898, p < 0.001 5 0.668) signifying that the data were drawn
from identical populations and that the defects were connected. It also signified a lack of
multicollinearity amongst the defects. Figure 2 displayed a few defects in the buildings.
The descriptive statistics on the ranking of the defects are contained in Table 8. The
reliability of the data is high (Table 8). The survey found that more than 31% of the
respondents measured that all the defects were very common or common. A total of 30%
measured that the defects were somewhat common, 25% acknowledged that defects existed
but were not common and 7% measured that the defects were not common at all.
The cumulative ARI score for all the defects was 62.3% and the standard deviation was
12.10%. Considering the relationship between mean and standard deviation, these results
suggest that all the occupants measured that the defects are prevalents in the buildings. The

95% Confidence
level of mean
Defect T DF Pr > jtj Lower Upper Std. Error mean

Poor drainage 15.453 104 0.001 2.5585 2.8701 0.079

Peeling paint 30.146 104 0.001 3.8178 4.1442 0.082
Roof leakage 30.905 104 0.001 3.7950 4.1097 0.079
Floor cracks 21.308 104 0.001 3.5514 3.9724 0.106
Wall cracks 19.174 104 0.001 3.2889 3.7016 0.104
Ceiling cracks 12.752 104 0.001 2.7909 3.2663 0.120
Beam cracks 7.314 104 0.001 1.8714 2.1477 0.070
Column cracks 10.624 104 0.001 2.2940 2.6584 0.092
Fungi attack on wall 33.082 104 0.001 3.8949 4.2003 0.077
Bad plumbing 33.468 104 0.001 3.9594 4.2692 0.078
Broken windows 19.358 104 0.001 3.2054 3.5946 0.098
Damaged doors 32.21 104 0.001 4.0248 4.3561 0.084
Termites attacks 10.326 104 0.001 2.2656 2.6296 0.092
Broken roof gutters 35.195 104 0.001 4.0209 4.3219 0.076
Damaged water closet 12.306 104 0.001 2.3029 2.6114 0.078
Damaged toilet basin 9.649 104 0.001 2.0940 2.4013 0.077
Electrical defects 11.95 104 0.001 2.2983 2.6160 0.080
Broken electric switch 13.408 104 0.001 2.2669 2.5331 0.067
Damaged ceiling fan 12.862 104 0.001 2.2210 2.4838 0.066
Damaged kitchen basin 14.998 104 0.001 2.1653 2.3680 0.051
Table 7. Broken kitchen wall tiles 10.908 104 0.001 2.0026 2.2260 0.056
One–sample test and Broken toilet wall tiles 8.671 104 0.001 2.1134 2.4771 0.092
reliability and validity Staircase defects 27.746 104 0.001 3.6621 3.9950 0.084
test value 5 1.5 Damaged staircase handrail 18.963 104 0.001 2.9028 3.2305 0.083
 Defect
characterisations
in affordable
housing

549

Poor drainage Faulty electrical fittings and wiring

Fungi attack on wall on corridor Damaged doors at electrical room and stores

Exposed metal on walls Broken roof gutter

Figure 2.
Displayed some defects
in the studied buildings
Damaged staircases Stained and exposed wiring

ARI for all the defects ranged between 37% and 84%. Using the index in Section 3, four
defects were found to be very common, 8 defects were common, 11 defects were somewhat
common, 2 were not common and none were not at all common. These results confirmed the
outcome of the one sample t-tests that all the defects existed in the buildings.
4.1.2 Results of the factor analysis on the types of defects. The analysis generated statistical
determinants of 4.13E-008. This was adequate because a value of less than 0.000001 indicates
multicollinearity (Hinton, 2014). The commonalities were all above 0.5, which indicated that
IJBPA Not
40,4 common Not Somewhat Very
Defect at all common common Common common Reliability ARI SD

Damaged 0 0 30 25 50 0.734 83.81 11.71

doors
Broken roof 0 0 24 39 42 0.716 83.43 10.64
550 gutters
Bad 0 0 28 37 40 0.722 82.29 10.95
plumbing
Fungi 0 1 27 43 34 0.716 80.95 10.80
attack on
wall
Peeling 0 2 32 37 34 0.711 79.62 11.54
paint
Roof 0 4 25 48 28 0.715 79.05 11.13
leakage
Staircase 0 2 43 31 29 0.741 76.57 11.77
defects
Floor cracks 5 4 35 28 33 0.725 75.24 14.89
Wall cracks 5 9 42 27 22 0.726 69.90 14.59
Ceiling 11 27 32 18 17 0.731 60.57 16.81
cracks
Column 16 40 32 17 0 0.736 49.52 12.88
cracks
Damaged 12 41 44 8 0 0.74 49.14 10.91
water closet
Electrical 10 49 34 12 0 0.727 49.14 11.23
defects
Termites 19 34 38 14 0 0.727 48.95 12.87
attacks
Damaged 9 53 40 3 0 0.73 47.05 9.29
ceiling fan
Broken 23 40 30 12 0 0.73 45.90 12.86
toilet wall
tiles
Damaged 4 69 32 0 0 0.734 45.33 7.17
kitchen
basin
Damaged 17 51 31 6 0 0.735 44.95 10.87
toilet basin
Broken 12 69 24 0 0 0.738 42.29 7.90
kitchen wall
tiles
Beam 26 52 27 0 0 0.739 40.19 9.77
Table 8. cracks
Descriptive of the types Poor 0 0.724 37.14 11.02
of defects drainage

the defects shared a number of common variants with each other. The principal component
analysis and varimax rotation strategy were used. Kaiser’s normalisation technique was
engaged to normalise the row of the factor patterns. Kaiser’s MSA (measure of sampling
adequacy) was approximately 0.668. The interpretations of these statistics are that the listed
defects were sufficient and further additions might have not been required to be included in
the survey. It was found that the 21 defects were able to be structured or organised into 6
factors for meaningful decisions to be made. The 6 factors explained 54% of the total variance Defect
(Table 9). Table 10 contains a distribution of defects of each of the factors. characterisations
4.1.3 Results of the causes of the defects. Except for lack of maintenance, the results of the
t-tests revealed that each of the causal factors (i.e. Pr > jtj) for all the causes (Hr: U ≥ U0) was
in affordable
significant and the standard error was small (Table 11). The descriptive statistics on the housing
weightage of the causes are presented in Table 12. More than 50% of the respondents
measured that all the causes were the main sources of the defects. Some 34% of the
respondents agreed that the causes were somewhat responsible for the defects in the housing 551
buildings. The ARI weightage for the entirety of the causes was 67.03% and the cumulative
standard deviation was 14.88%. Based on the index in Section 4, the causes of the defects
were classifiable into four groups.
4.1.4 Results of the factor analysis of the causes of the defects. The analysis returned
statistical determinants of 0.468, which indicated a lack of multicollinearity. The
commonalities, except for a shortage of material (0.402), were all above 0.5. This confirmed
that the causes had variances with each other. The findings aligned with the Kaiser and
Guttman rule. Kaiser’s MSAwas 0.50. Although this was not high, it was within an acceptable
range. What this meant was that additional causes should have been included. However,
during the survey, the respondents were requested to provide additional causes, based on
their experiences with the buildings. However, they did not include any. The results found
that the 15 causes were able to be structured or organised into 5 meaningful factors to
facilitate systemic decision making. The 5 factors explained 57% of the total variance
(Table 13). Table 14 contains the distribution of the causes for each of the factors.
4.1.5 Results on the remedial actions for the defects. The results of the one-sample t-tests
confirmed that all the remedies were significant (Table 15). However, symptoms of
disagreements amongst the respondents were found with respect to their measurements on
“repaint every 4 years for external walls” and to “enforce penalties on vandalism acts”.
The descriptive statistics on the prioritisation of the remedies are presented in Table 16. The
results illustrated that 56% of the respondents agreed or highly agreed that defects in the

Defects Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

1 3.914126 2.010859 0.1864 0.1864

2 1.903267 0.338601 0.0906 0.277
3 1.564666 0.141575 0.0745 0.3515
4 1.423091 0.087979 0.0678 0.4193
5 1.335112 0.088827 0.0636 0.4829
6 1.246285 0.194082 0.0593 0.5422
7 1.052203 0.017258 0.0501 0.5923
8 1.034945 0.096309 0.0493 0.6416
9 0.938636 0.078059 0.0447 0.6863
10 0.860577 0.023377 0.041 0.7273
11 0.8372 0.077349 0.0399 0.7671
12 0.759851 0.068716 0.0362 0.8033
13 0.691135 0.033634 0.0329 0.8362
14 0.657501 0.064637 0.0313 0.8676
15 0.592864 0.073455 0.0282 0.8958
16 0.51941 0.035014 0.0247 0.9205
17 0.484396 0.06397 0.0231 0.9436
18 0.420426 0.096813 0.02 0.9636 Table 9.
19 0.323613 0.099478 0.0154 0.979 Eigenvalues of the
20 0.224135 0.007575 0.0107 0.9897 correlation matrix for
21 0.216561 0.0103 1 type of defects
IJBPA Defect Dampness Electrical Finishes Structure Crack Plumbing
40,4
Broken roof gutters 0.8770
Fungi attack on wall 0.7563
Bad plumbing 0.7541
Peeling paint 0.6341
Roof leakage 0.5112
552 Wall cracks 0.4825
Electrical defects 0.9032
Damaged ceiling fan 0.8685
Termites attacks 0.7501
Broken toilet wall tiles 0.5901
Poor drainage 0.5136
Beam cracks 0.6247
Damaged doors 0.5603
Column cracks 0.4898
Floor cracks 0.3968
Ceiling cracks 0.6820
Damaged kitchen basin 0.5557
Staircase defects 0.5524
Table 10. Damaged water closet 0.5688
Rotated factor pattern Damaged wash hand basin 0.5005
for type of defects Broken kitchen wall tiles 0.5445

95%
Confidence
interval mean Std. Error
Cause t DF Pr > jtj Lower Upper mean

Faulty design of the building 15.284 104 0.001 2.1389 2.4515 0.079
Climate condition 2.016 104 0.0463 2.1389 2.4515 0.092
Lack of maintenance 1.188 104 0.2377 3.4394 3.7416 0.076
Neglect house condition 6.234 104 0.001 3.7825 4.0461 0.066
Building age 22.071 104 0.001 1.7614 2.0481 0.072
Number of people living in your unit 31.537 104 0.001 1.4198 1.6659 0.062
Lack of inspection during maintenance 8.129 104 0.001 2.8306 3.0932 0.066
process
Vandalism 6.29 104 0.001 2.6795 3.0728 0.099
Table 11. Shortage of materials during maintenance 8.368 104 0.001 2.8226 3.0821 0.065
One–Sample test for Overloading during usage 14.809 104 0.001 2.3391 2.6133 0.069
causes of defects (test Poor quality of materials 6.77 104 0.001 3.8199 4.0849 0.067
value 5 3.5) Defective materials 7.192 104 0.001 3.8414 4.1014 0.066

buildings would reduce if preventive or rectification measures were implemented at various

stages of the housing development of operations. Around 30% of the respondents somewhat
agreed with the proposed measures regarding reducing defects, but the remaining 17% of the
respondents considered that the measures had lesser implications on defect reduction
measures. The ARI scores for all the remedial actions ranged between 38% and 91%, and the
cumulative ARI was 66.89% and the cumulative standard deviation (SD) was 14.14%. The
pooled reliability and validity were 0.502 and 0.581, respectively. The results revealed that the
remedial actions were classifiable into four levels. Arranged in order of impact, level one
comprised of six remedies with an ARI that ranged from 81.52% to 90.67%. Level two also
 Least Less Slightly Very Std.
Defect
Cause agree agree agree Agree agree Reliability Validity Deviation ARI characterisations
in affordable
Defective 0 0 25 58 22 0.41 0.74 13.43 79.43
materials housing
Poor quality of 0 1 24 59 21 0.41 0.53 13.69 79.05
materials
Shortage of 0 0 26 58 21 0.36 0.40 13.41 79.04 553
materials
during
maintenance
Neglect house 0 0 29 56 20 0.37 0.68 13.62 78.29
condition by
users
Climate 1 10 32 40 22 0.35 0.78 18.88 73.71
condition
Lack of 0 5 47 39 14 0.41 0.66 15.61 71.81
maintenance
Number of 0 0 56 41 8 0.37 0.57 12.72 70.86
people living
in your unit
Lack of 0 24 63 16 2 0.38 0.68 13.57 59.24
inspection
during
maintenance
process
Vandalism 8 31 38 22 6 0.39 0.71 20.32 57.52
Overloading 7 47 45 6 0 0.40 0.60 14.17 49.52
during usage Table 12.
Faulty design 16 49 33 7 0 0.33 0.67 16.15 45.90 Descriptive statistics
of the building for the causes of
Building age 33 50 21 1 0 0.37 0.67 14.81 38.10 defects

comprised six remedies with an ARI that ranged between 68.38% and 77.714%. Level three
had three remedies, whilst level four had three (53.14%, 48.19% and 46.67%) remedial actions
(with an ARI of 38.29%).
4.1.6 Results of the factor analysis of the remedies for the defects. The statistical
determinants for the measures were 4.13E-008. The commonalities were all above 0.5.
Kaiser’s MSA was approximately 0.490, which meant that additional remedies should have
been included. It was found that the remedies were able to be structured or organised into 6
meaningful factors for decisions to be made. The 6 factors explained 66% of the total variance
(Table 17). Table 18 contains the distribution of the remedies for each of the factors.

5. Discussion on types, causes and remedies

The impacts of defects on the buildings and the occupants are severe. A number of studies
have been conducted on this topic, but the findings have been constrained in terms of
applications. The number of defects investigated in the previous studies was limited. Also,
the causes and remedies of the defects have not been investigated empirically. In addition, the
previous studies were concentrated in one geographic location, Kuala Lumpur. However
good this may be, buildings and users are unique. Local weather would also have impacts on
the defects in the buildings. However, the findings of this research are similar in some cases
and deviate from the previous studies in Malaysia (Hashim et al., 2012; Hashim et al., 2015;
 40,4

554
IJBPA

Table 13.

causes of defects
Eigenvalues of the
correlation matrix for
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Component Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 1.753 14.608 14.608 1.753 14.608 14.608 1.704 14.200 14.200

2 1.443 12.028 26.636 1.443 12.028 26.636 1.386 11.547 25.747
3 1.328 11.069 37.705 1.328 11.069 37.705 1.298 10.819 36.566
4 1.234 10.284 47.988 1.234 10.284 47.988 1.286 10.716 47.281
5 1.168 9.737 57.725 1.168 9.737 57.725 1.253 10.444 57.725
6 0.979 8.161 65.886
7 0.884 7.368 73.254
8 0.787 6.555 79.809
9 0.769 6.412 86.221
10 0.658 5.482 91.703
11 0.589 4.912 96.615
12 0.406 3.385 100.000
Cause Design Maintenance Schedule Cost Behaviour
Defect
characterisations
Climate condition 0.859 in affordable
Faulty design of the building 0.835
Shortage of materials 0.427 housing
Lack of inspection during maintenance process 0.683
Number of people living in your unit 0.663
Poor quality of materials 0.612 555
Building age 0.759
Vandalism 0.686
Defective materials 0.778
Lack of maintenance 0.679 Table 14.
Neglect house condition 0.727 Rotated factor pattern
Overloading during usage 0.669 for causes of defects

95%
Confidence
interval of
mean Std. Error
Remedy t DF Pr > jtj Lower Upper mean

Provide site supervision during maintenance 16.254 104 0.001 4.407 4.659 0.064
process
Provide training to maintenance workers 4.434 104 0.001 3.713 4.058 0.087
Engage experienced maintenance workers 10.506 104 0.001 4.091 4.366 0.069
Engage qualified designer 8.746 104 0.001 3.946 4.207 0.066
Follow instructions during maintenance 4.666 104 0.001 3.946 4.207 0.083
Provide good quality materials for 7.813 104 0.001 3.930 4.222 0.074
maintenance
Chemical treatment for termites attacks 13.355 104 0.001 2.160 2.507 0.087
Provide proper electrical and mechanical 15.896 104 0.001 2.274 2.546 0.069
services
Repaint every 4 years for external wall 1.156 104 0.250 3.442 3.720 0.070
Repaint every 5 years for internal wall 11.217 104 0.001 2.508 2.806 0.075
Provide maintenance immediately when 13.540 104 0.001 4.236 4.488 0.064
defect is found Table 15.
Reduce load stress during usage 21.715 104 0.001 1.770 2.059 0.073 One-sample test for the
Replace defective materials 7.887 104 0.001 3.938 4.233 0.074 remedies to defects
Enforce penalty on vandalism act 1.029 104 0.3058 3.263 3.575 0.079 (test value 5 3.5)

Husin et al., 2015; Ismail et al., 2015; Abdul-Rahman et al., 2014; Abdul-Rahman et al., 1999,
and Olanrewaju, 2012). In the following, the findings of the research are discussed separately.

5.1 Types of defects

Due to space constraints, only the first five common defects will be explained further. Overtly,
it is important to note that the findings of this study contradict previous studies on the nature
and extent of the defects in Malaysian affordable housing. Previous studies (Abdul-Rahman
et al., 2014 and Fauzi and Abidin, 2012) found that defects in affordable housing were minor or
infrequent. However, consistent with the literature in most other countries, 12 or 50% of the
IJBPA Least Less Slightly Very
40,4 Remedy agree agree agree Agree agree Reliability Validity ARI SD

Provide site 0 0 9 31 65 0.489 0.618 90.67 13.029

supervision
during
maintenance
556 process
Provide 0 0 10 47 48 0.481 0.624 87.24 13.046
maintenance
immediately
when defect is
found
Engage 0 1 14 50 40 0.47 0.521 84.57 14.212
experienced
maintenance
workers
Replace 0 3 17 53 32 0.496 0.616 81.71 15.22
defective
materials
Engage qualified 0 0 20 57 28 0.482 0.668 81.52 13.501
designer
Provide good 0 3 17 54 31 0.504 0.514 81.52 15.114
quality materials
for maintenance
Follow 0 4 32 41 28 0.473 0.615 77.71 16.942
instructions
during
maintenance
Repaint every 4 0 3 49 42 11 0.49 0.612 71.62 14.353
years for
external wall
Enforce penalty 0 13 43 41 8 0.511 0.618 68.38 16.12
on vandalism act
Repaint every 5 5 40 46 14 0 0.486 0.7 53.14 15.400
years for internal
wall
Provide proper 9 48 44 4 0 0.476 0.606 48.19 14.059
electrical and
mechanical
services
Chemical 18 45 32 9 1 0.498 0.586 46.66 17.903
treatment for
termites attacks
Table 16. Reduce load 31 55 16 3 0.476 0.645 38.29 14.965
Descriptive statistics of stress during
remedies to defects usage

defects were common and, in fact, 4 were very common. However, in terms of ranking of the
defects, the findings were close to Abdul-Rahman et al.’s (2014) study. For instance, Abdul-
Rahman et al. (2014) found that faulty doorknob was a common defect in affordable housing
which contradicted Fauzi et al.’s findings. The room’s doors and door frames are usually
made from timber. For the low-cost housing in Malaysia, the doors are usually hollow (flush
doors). The quality of the material for doors is usually lower and prone to termite attacks.
Total variance explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Component Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 1.855 14.266 14.266 1.855 14.266 14.266 1.560 12.001 12.001

2 1.462 11.249 25.515 1.462 11.249 25.515 1.482 11.400 23.402
3 1.421 10.927 36.442 1.421 10.927 36.442 1.407 10.826 34.228
4 1.185 9.112 45.555 1.185 9.112 45.555 1.372 10.554 44.783
5 1.133 8.712 54.267 1.133 8.712 54.267 1.233 9.484 54.267
6 0.995 7.654 61.921
7 0.931 7.160 69.080
8 0.854 6.568 75.649
9 0.777 5.976 81.625
10 0.697 5.360 86.985
11 0.686 5.276 92.261
12 0.584 4.493 96.754
13 0.422 3.246 100.000
557
in affordable

correlation matrix for

housing
characterisations
Defect

Eigenvalues of the

remedies
Table 17.
IJBPA Component
40,4 Paint Competency Policy Material Manual

Repaint every 5 years for internal wall 0.816

Repaint every 4 years for external wall 0.773
Engage qualified designer 0.792
Engage experienced maintenance workers 0.673
558 Follow instructions during maintenance 0.703
Replace defective materials 0.639
Enforce penalty on vandalism act 0.462
Provide maintenance immediately when defect is 0.630
found
Provide good quality materials for maintenance 0.586
Provide proper electrical and mechanical services 0.493
Table 18. Chemical treatment for termites attacks 0.410
Rotated factor pattern Reduce load stress during usage 0.706
for remedies Provide site supervision during maintenance process 0.632

Ismail et al. (2015) found that the occupants of the Malaysian public housing were not
satisfied with the performance of their housing doors. Most of the toilet door frames are
normally made of metal. However, most affordable housing bathroom doors are plastic.
Although they are water-resistant and durable, they are easily damaged by metal objects.
Room doors are very important to home occupants because of safety and security
requirements.
Damaged roof gutters were found to be the second most common defect in the affordable
housing units. Abdul-Rahman et al. (2014) found that roof defects rarely occurred, and Fauzi
and Abidin (2012) found it to be a minor defect. However, roof defects in residential buildings
are a serious problem in Malaysia. An Australian study also showed that roof leakage is one
of the most frequent defects in a residential building (Mills et al., 2009). This is further
exacerbated by heavy rainfall in Malaysia. Thus, it is not surprising that broken roof gutters
were found to be very common. In fact, roof leakage was also very common (rated #6). The
impact of damaged roof gutters and other roof components is extremely severe. For instance,
when it rains, the damaged roof gutter could damage occupants’ properties, ceilings and
walls. Damaged roofs are expensive to repair because they require special equipment and
skilled workers to carry out the repairs. Bad or poor plumbing installations were found to be
the third most common defect. This finding is interesting because according to Abdul-
Rahman et al.’s (2014) findings, pipe leakage is a frequent defect in affordable housing in
Malaysia. Hashim et al. (2012) also found that home occupants are not satisfied with the pipes
in the PPR buildings. Fungi attacks on walls were found to be the fourth most common defect.
Previous studies did not identify this. Fungi attacks on the walls could occur due to dampness
in the walls. The attack often manifests in the growth of algae/mould on walls. Poor finishes
and poor ventilation may also be responsible for the growth of mould/algae. Therefore, it does
not come as a surprise that peeling paint was found to be the next most common defect.
According to Ismail et al. (2015), the majority of the public housing occupants were not
satisfied with the quality of the painting on the walls and ceilings. This was probably due to
the poor-quality materials and poor workmanship used. In fact, previous studies in Malaysia
revealed that poor quality of materials and workmanship often led to defects (Husin et al.,
2015 and Ismail et al., 2015). The quality of workmanship was also found to account for 42%
of the defects in the post-handover of buildings in Spain (Forcada et al., 2013). It was
interesting to find that roof leakage was rated next, considering that the housing studied were
multistoried buildings. The fact that it was highly rated shows that it is indeed a serious Defect
problem. This is because rainfall in Malaysia is heavy and the roof slates are poorly installed. characterisations
The factor analysis found that” dampness’ had six defects. The six defects were related
and could be caused or accelerated due to the velocity of the water content. Pipe leakage due
in affordable
to poor plumbing could lead to wall cracks, peeling off paint and the growth of mould or algae housing
on parts of the buildings. Fans may not be operable due to various types of poor electrical
installations. Moreover, finishes have three defects. Whilst poor drainage seems not related to
termite attacks and broken drainage covers, termites can attack toilet tiles or may loosen 559
the adhesives. Termites can also affect drainage covers or drain outlets. For instance, the
bathrooms are frequently the location for moisture problems due to pipe leakage and the
together with humid showers and poor ventilation that are common in affordable housing. As
if these moisture problems were not repaired, they also can create conditions conducive to
termite infiltrations. Instances have been recorded of complete roofing being infected by
termite. The types and quality of materials for drainage systems impact the performance of
the system. Metal cover to manholes and other chambers may rust subject to chemical attack
(Watt, 1999). Damaged concrete chamber covers are often replaced with timber cover.
Concrete and timber cover may be attacked by termites considering the conducive weather in
Malaysia. For instance, the annual relative humidity value ranges from 74% to 86%. The
annual average rainfall is 2,420 mm for Peninsular Malaysia, 2,630 mm for Sabah and
3,830 mm for Sarawak Malaysian Meteorological Department (2017, 2019). This is especially
the case if the inspections of the manholes and other chambers are not inspected periodically
to check if they are acceptable conditions (Marsh, 2003). Cracks on floors can easily lead to
wall and beam cracks, most especially to the member below it, due to force. Non-structural
cracks are generally due to internal forces developed in the building. This will affect the
structural stability and performance of the buildings. When cracks occur in walls and floors,
door and window frames can also be damaged due to the forces or loads that will be
transmitted to the door and window frames. Buildings are subjected to regular movement due
to ground movement, foundation failure, defects and other reasons. However, if the building
member cannot accommodate such movement, it will lead to a crack in the member itself and
adjoining members like beams, frames, doors and windows. The window and door openings
may shrink as a result of the forces (Williams, 1993). Additionally, doors may not open or
close properly. “Cracks” comprised of ceiling cracks, damaged kitchen basins and defective
staircases. Although there are lifts in buildings, the staircases are sometimes not attractive to
the users, especially to those on the first, second and third floors. It is interesting that the
staircase is grouped under this cluster. In order words, cracks can also appear on all parts of
the staircase. In fact, this is obvious from the findings. None of the respondents measured that
defect in the staircase is not common at all, and more than 60% respondents measured defect
in staircases as common or very common. Plumbing has three related defects. Toilets are
often located close to kitchens. Faulty water closets and wash hand basin in toilets may lead
to dampness on walls, which may affect wall finishes. The extent of the damage of the wash
hand basin may depend on whether it is a pedestal basin or wall-mounted basin. In affordable
housing, the bathrooms are small, and often the piping for water closet and wash hand basin
is poor connected. The wash hand basin in affordable housing is mounted. A faulty water
closet and wash hand basin may lead to mould or mildew. A wall with blistering paint or
wallpaper is a common sign of leakage in a bathroom because it tends to separate the bonding
between the wall and painting or wallpaper. Similarly, the water/seepage tends to separate
the screeded or backing from the tiles. The leakage in the basin often leads to a stain, buckling
or cracking on the floor or walls. Overtly, based on Porteous’ (1992) classification, the
majority of the defects are “minor” because they are often caused by poor workmanship and
defective materials and do not render the building unsafe/unusable.
IJBPA 5.2 Causes of defects
40,4 It was not unanticipated that poor workmanship would be cited as the main cause of defects,
considering the results of types of defects discussed in Section 5.1. However, the findings
were consistent with findings elsewhere, including in Australia (Craig, 2008), the UK
(Sommerville and McCosh, 2006) and New Zealand (Rotimi et al., 2015). Poor workmanship is
a major problem in the construction industry and is exacerbated by the peculiar nature of
affordable housing construction. Defective materials, a shortage of materials and poor-
560 quality materials were found to be second, third and fourth of the major causes of defects in
buildings. According to Hashim et al. (2015), poor quality is a major cause of defects in the
PPR housing development. As Olanrewaju and Woon (2017) explained, because affordable
housing is wrongly defined to mean inexpensive or low-quality housing, there is a very high
tendency that low-quality materials would be used because the affordable housings are
“design to cost”. Moving forward, it does not come as a big surprise to find that the occupants’
behaviours, that is, neglecting the condition of the buildings, were highly rated as the major
cause of the defects. Previous studies have also revealed that occupant behaviours are major
causes of maintenance and defects in Malaysia (Olanrewaju, 2012 and Husin et al., 2015). Due
to the low quality of the affordable housing schemes, occupants tend to overlook repairs due
to psychological impacts. For instance, occupants believe that low housing cost is
synonymous with poor quality. Moreover, a number of “bad” or frustrated occupants even
vandalise the buildings as a reaction to defects and lack of maintenance. Supporting this
finding, Hashim et al. (2015) opined that apart from vandalism, littering is a common problem
in public housing development in Malaysia. Explicitly, this finding is exciting, as it has
confirmed the impacts of defects on the psychological instinct of the buildings’ occupants.
Occupants vandalise the buildings if their needs or complaints are not addressed on time or
correctly rectified (Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz, 2015). Poor financial allocation by the
government for the maintenance of affordable housing provisions is rampant (Hashim et al.,
2015). Hence, it was highly expected that low budgets would turn out to be a major cause of
defects in the buildings. As a result of low budgets, low-quality materials were selected and
unqualified skilled labourers will be engaged to perform the repair works. Moving forward, it
was not surprising that climatic conditions were a major cause of defects. Malaysia’s weather
is occasioned by heavy rainfalls, flash floods and heavy thunderstorms which are violent and
unpredictable. These are worsened due to the impact of climate change. The study also found
that a lack of maintenance was a major cause of defects. This was expected. Generally, the
maintenance of affordable housing is poor. The maintenance of the PPR housing is under the
purview of the government. However, according to the occupants, even when complaints are
lodged and reminders are sent, responses from maintenance organisations are poor which
could be due to a lack of funds to procure necessary materials and engage the labour needed
to conduct the repair of the buildings.
The factor analysis structured the 12 causes into five factors. The first factor, design, has
three related causes. The impact of climate change dictated that the buildings must be
designed to withstand the impacts of climate change, including mudslides, landslides,
earthquakes, floods and heavy rainfalls. At the moment, there is no evidence to demonstrate
that the impact of climate change has been considered in the design, selection of sites and
materials for affordable housing. “Maintenance” has four causes. It is not surprising that the
poor quality of the materials, poor workmanship, a lack of inspections and the number of
occupants are lumped together as potential causes for the defects. To illustrate, poor quality
of materials during construction/maintenance, poor workmanship, a lack of inspections
during maintenance and a high number of occupants will lead to high maintenance demands.
Husin et al. (2015) and Olanrewaju (2010) opined that lack of maintenance is a primary cause
of defective Malaysian public housing. Due to the negative perception of the low prices of
affordable housing, the quality of the materials that are selected is low, and low-skilled
workers are engaged. The factor “schedule” entails three related causes. However, it may not Defect
be surprising to find that if construction time is reduced, the quality and performance of the characterisations
building may be compromised. A poorly completed building may increase vandalism (Seeley,
1997 and Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz, 2015). However, it is difficult to explain that if
in affordable
construction time is reduced, the age of the building will increase or that the building will not housing
be durable. This is because the time allocated to complete projects will influence the durability
and stability of the buildings. If buildings are completed under a short period of time, except
with a high degree of innovation, this will lead to many defects and will often increase 561
vandalism and arson (Seeley, 1987a, b; Watt, 1999). Moving forward, a low budget will
influence the material selection and will also lead to a lack or poor maintenance practice.
Therefore, it was not unexpected that these three causes are attributes of the “cost” factor.
The “behaviour” factor has two related causes. It was clear that the occupants’ behaviours
towards the buildings caused defects or aggravated them or both. Neglect of the condition of
a building is actually the reason why occupants have used a building excessively for various
types of purposes other than what it was intended for. Poorly maintained buildings are
irritating and unsightly and attract vandals and arsons. According to Seeley (1987a, b), the
annual cost of vandalism in building I was £30 million. Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz (2015)
also found that when buildings are in poor condition and performance, users/occupants react
by paying less attention to the buildings. Apart from avoiding features that attract vandalism
and arson during design, vandalism can be prevented by effective repair and replacement to
damaged and defaced parts and components. Some owners rent their units to organisations/
companies that turn the units into hostels for their factories or construction site workers,
students and farm workers.

5.3 Remedies for building defects

Proper supervision during maintenance was ranked as the main remedial measure. This is
not surprising because the projects are owned by the government, and maintenance is
outsourced to private maintenance organisations. However, most often, the repairs are
poorly supervised. As explained earlier, poor workmanship is a major cause of poor-quality
work in the construction industry. Therefore, in Malaysia, to improve the quality of
workmanship, the Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) was produced in
2016 (CIDB, 2018). Furthermore, it is not surprising that the second remedy is related to the
lack of immediate action when service requests were made by the occupants. It is very
interesting that the prompt response from the maintenance team is highly rated. This is not
surprising, because the response time to the service request is slow (Hashim et al., 2015).
According to Husin et al. (2015), defects may become severe if left unattended to. This is
because defects are contagious. Repair needs can happen at any time in a building, and
when they do happen, the occupants require immediate assurance from the maintenance
organisation (Wordsworth, 2001). All that the occupants desire, especially from the
maintenance organisation, is to assure the occupants that there is “no problem and they will
be there soon”. This thesis can be clarified by imaging a scenario where the roof is leaking
during rain or if part of the walls suddenly cracks or fall down. Even simple pipe leakage in
the toilet may generate fear and tension in some occupants. Expectedly, roof leakage,
cracks and bad plumbing systems were some of the main types of defects in the buildings
(Table 5). In most of public housing, lack of funds, poor communication and poor
coordination often delay responses to service requests. A lack of funding would affect the
quality of materials procured for maintenance. Collectively, it does not come as a surprise
that engaging competent maintenance workers, replacing of defective components of
buildings and using high-quality materials for maintenance were measured as the third,
IJBPA fourth and fifth remedies, respectively. These findings are consistent with findings
40,4 elsewhere. For instance, studies revealed that defects in buildings can be significantly
reduced if the construction operatives are adequately trained (Josephson et al., 2002).
Improving the methods of communication and specifying high-quality materials are also
some strategic measures to increase the quality of the repair work.
Although building defects can usually be ascribed to poor construction practices, defects
can, in fact, be heightened by poor maintenance practices and usage. The research found that
562 in order to reduce the defects in the housing development, it is necessary for the maintenance
operatives to follow the standard operating procedure (SOP). This is important because,
according to Hashim et al. (2012), complaints have been high because the reporting
procedures in Malaysia are ineffective and inefficient. Whilst the experience of the operatives
is critical, it is always necessary to follow the manufacturers’ manual to conduct maintenance.
The government should provide guidelines for maintenance organisations, the failure of
which might lead to poor maintenance service delivery. The government should impose
penalties on those that do not adhere to the guidelines in conducting construction and
maintenance activities. In fact, this research shows that enforcement of the penalty on
vandals should also be imposed. Buildings and the associated components are increasingly
becoming more complex and sophisticated. Therefore, operatives need to attend refresher
courses to continue to sharpen their skills and competencies. Malaysia’s weather is hot and
humid, and the rainfall is heavy. This calls for proper ventilation to keep the interiors of the
buildings dry and fresh. The ventilation systems in affordable housing are not well designed.
Poor ventilation will lead to the growth of algae and peeling of paint in the buildings and to
decay. In fact, one of the main types of defects is fungus attacks on the walls, which may be
attributed to poor ventilation (Table 5). Due to this, it is conceivable that occupants
considered that improving ventilation would reduce the defects in the buildings.
From the factor analysis, the remedies can be grouped into five factors. Painting of
internal and external walls should be carefully planned and conducted regularly. However,
this should not preclude corrective painting when the need arises. The “competency” of
design teams and maintenance organisations formed one group. This combination is quite
interesting because decisions made during the design stage have a great impact on the
maintenance work whilst the housing is in operation. Poor designs and lack of accurate
information on the design criteria will increase maintenance costs which cause disruptions to
the users’ activities. There are three remedies under “policy”. All the three involve the
formulation and adherence to maintenance guidelines for the replacement of defective
components and parts of the building. It is very important that enforcement on vandalism is
invested and reported, and that vandals are penalised. Defect rectification or maintenance is
often delayed due to material-related problems. The occupants should not have to wait for too
long for the maintenance organisations to conduct a repair. Contractors should ensure that
quality materials are available to prevent a delay when maintenance demands arise. A low
quality of materials will cause many defects in new buildings. Overtly, it is significant that
construction managers, engineers, architects, project managers and other stakeholders
involved in the housing design and construction should provide proper supervision and
inspection. Third parties and experts will have more knowledge and experience.

6. Conclusion
The present article has analysed and explained the defects in affordable buildings. The
defects in the buildings were in all parts of the buildings. The five main types of defects in
terms of the extent of severity are damaged doors, broken roof gutters, bad plumbing, fungi
attack on the wall and peeling off paints on the walls. The defects are categorised as
dampness, electrical, finishes, structure, crack and plumbing. The defects were not limited Defect
to functional defects, but also included technical and aesthetic defects. The defects had characterisations
implications on the daily operations of the occupants and the safety of the buildings. A low
budget was not necessarily the problem, per se, but rather the way a project was financed. It
in affordable
is imperative that the maintenance organisations have the required skilled workers and housing
have quality materials to make the necessary repairs when they receive service requests.
The main causes of defects in affordable housing are defective materials, poor quality of
materials, shortage of materials during maintenance, neglect of house condition by users 563
and climate condition. The factor analysis clustered the causes of the defects into
components which are design, maintenance, schedule, cost and behaviours. The actions to
take in order to reduce or prevent defects in affordable housing include proper supervision
of maintenance services, proactive maintenance practice, engage competent maintenance
workers, replace defective materials and engage a qualified designer. In addition, the
formulation of clear reporting processes is required to enable easy access to lodge
complaints. The problems of structural or functional deterioration and decay can be
avoided or minimised by introducing preventive maintenance before a building fabric fails.
Figure 3 proposed a simplified framework to enhance the decisions of a maintenance
management process. The framework commences with the observations by occupants or
maintenance organisations through the maintenance or repair of the defects. After the
repair is completed, feedback should be given or information should be feedforwarded to
the person or unit that made the initial maintenance demand. The framework is a useful
model of a systemic maintenance management system for building and engineering
services. The generalisation of this study is, however, constrained to low-cost housing.
Research on the defects in medium-priced housing is required. Furthermore, it seems
imperative that studies that focus on developers and contractors be conducted.
Furthermore, future research may also involve the development of a performance index
for defects in buildings. It would be good if further research is conducted to identify
“significant” causes and remedial measures of housing defects, using quantitative
inferential statistics such as regression. This study is estimated to contribute towards
improving communication for all issues related to defects in affordable buildings. The
framework is theoretical, and future research is required to empirically validate the
framework.

Types of defects

Defect remedies

Causes of defects
Figure 3.
Defect management
framework for building
during operation
Note(s): process
1. Exchange rate: USD1 = RM4.11
IJBPA Note
40,4 1. Exchange rate: USD1 5 RM4.11

References
Abdul-Aziz, A.R., Tah, J.H.M., Olanrewaju, A.L. and Ahmed, A.U. (2017), “The nexus between
government and private developers in Malaysia’s housing sector”, in Trends and Issues in
564 Housing in Asia: Coming of an Age, p. 111.
Abdul-Rahman, H., Kwan, C.L. and Woods, P.C. (1999), “Quality function deployment in construction
design: application in low-cost housing design”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 591-605.
Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C., Wood, L.C. and Khoo, Y.M. (2014), “Defects in affordable housing
projects in Klang Valley, Malaysia”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 272-285.
Ahmad, A. (2004), Understanding Common Building Defect: The Dilapidation Survey Report, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Penang.
Ahzahar, N., Karim, N., Hassan, S. and Eman, J. (2011), “A study of contribution factors to building
failures and defects in construction industry”, Procedia Engineering, pp. 249-255.
Alencastro, J., Fuertes, A. and de Wilde, P. (2018), “The relationship between quality defects and the
thermal performance of buildings”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 81,
pp. 883-894.
Ali, A. and Wen, K.H. (2011), “Building defects: possible solutions for poor construction”, Journal of
Building Workmanship, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 59-69.
Anthony, L.T. (2013), “New buildings could also have structural defects”, [Online] available at: http://
www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/new-buildings-could-also-have-structural-.
Arditi, D. and Nawakorawit, M. (1999), “Designing buildings for maintenance: designers’ perspective”,
Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 107-116.
Assaf, S., Al-Hammad, A. and Al-Shihah, M. (1995), “The effect of faulty construction on building
maintenance: the results of a survey of 90 contractors, 30 architectural/engineering firms and
20 owners from the eastern province of Saudi Arabia identified 35 defect factors during the
construction stage”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 175-181.
Auchterlounie, T. and Craig, N. (2010), “January). Improved quality in the UK house building sector
since surveys began in 2000?”, in Smyth, H. (Ed.), Proc., COBRA RICS Annual Conf.,
RICS, Paris.
Bakri, N.N.O. and Mydin, M.A.O. (2014), “General building defects: causes, symptoms and remedial
work”, European Journal of Technology and Design No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Butcher, S. (2017), “J.P.Morgan’s massive guide to machine learning and big data jobs in finance”,
available at: https://news.efinancialcareers.com/my-en/285249/machine-learning-and-big-data-j-
p-morgan (accessed 08 September 2020).
Chang, K.L. (2013), “New doesn’t mean perfect (Saturday, 29 Jun 2013)”, available at: https://www.
thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2013/06/29/new-doesnt-mean-perfect-visavis-purchase-
from-housing-developers/.
Chang, K.L. (2015), “Rectifying a leak in strata living (Saturday, 26 Sep 2015)”, available at: https://
www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2015/09/26/rectifying-a-leak-in-strata-living/.
Chew, M.Y.L., Das, S., De Silva, N. and Yee, F.F. (2008), Grading Maintainability Parameters for
Sanitary-Plumbing System for High-Rise Residential Buildings, Women’s career advancement
and training and development in the, p. 887.
Chong, W.K. and Low, S.P. (2005), “Assessment of defects at construction and occupancy stages”, J. of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 283-289.
Chong, W.K. and Low, S.P. (2006), “Latent building defects: causes and design strategies to prevent Defect
them”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 213-221.
characterisations
Christudason, A. (2007), “Defects in common property of strata developments in Singapore:
representative actions against developers”, Structural Survey, Vol. 25 Nos 3/4, pp. 306-318.
in affordable
CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board, Malaysia), “Construction industry review and
housing
prospect 2016/2017”, ISBN: 978-967-0997-18-6, available at: www.cidb.gov.my.
CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia 2018), “QLASSIC report 2016”, available 565
at: www.qlassic.cidb.gov.my.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2017), Research Methods in Education, Routledge, London.
Craig, N. (2008), The Prevailing Trends of Defects and Snagging in New Homes in the UK, PhD thesis,
Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Cited Georgiou, J. (2010), “Verification of a building
defect classification system for housing”, Structural Survey, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 370-383.
Demographia (2017), “13th annual Demographia international housing affordability survey”, Rating
Middle-Income Housing Affordability, available at: http://www.demographia.com/db-dhi-index.
htm/ (accessed 25 December 2019).
Fauzi, S.N.F.M. and Abidin, N.Z. (2012), “The relationship of housing defects, occupants’ satisfaction
and loyalty behaviour in build-then-sell houses”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 62, pp. 75-86.
Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., Fuertes, A., Casals, M., Gangolells, M. and Roca, X. (2012), “Influence of
building type on post-handover defects in housing”, Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 433-440.
Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., Fuertes, A., Casals, M., Gangolells, M. and Roca, X. (2013), “Posthand over
housing defects: sources and origins”, J Perform Construction Facilities, Vol. 27, pp. 756-762.
Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., Gangolells, M. and Casals, M. (2014), “Assessment of construction defects
in residential buildings in Spain”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 629-640.
Fores, J.S. (2017), “Dengarden”, Retrieved from 15 Causes of Peeling Paint on Walls, Ceilings, and
Other Surfaces: available at: https://dengarden.com/home-improvement/Why-do-I-have-Paint-
Peeling-Off-in-my-Bathroom-Walls-and-Ceiling (accessed 30 August 2018).
Georgiou, J., Love, P.E.D. and Smith, J. (1999), “A comparison of defects in houses constructed by
owners and registered builders in the Australian State of Victoria”, Structural Survey, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 160-169.
Goh, A.T. and Yahaya, A. (2011), “Public low-cost housing in Malaysia: case studies on PPR low-cost
flats in Kuala Lumpur”, Journal of Design and Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Government of Malaysia (2016), Eleventh Malaysian Plan2016-2020: Anchoring Growth on People,
Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya.
Hashim, A.E., Samikon, S.A., Nasir, N.M. and Ismail, N. (2012), “Assessing factors influencing
performance of Malaysian low-cost public housing in sustainable environment”, Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 50, pp. 920-927.
Hashim, A.E., Samikon, S.A., Ismail, F. and Ismail, Z. (2015), “Managing facilities on Malaysian low-
cost public residential for sustainable adaptation”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 168, pp. 52-60.
Hassanain, M.A., Al-Hammad, A.M. and Fatayer, F. (2014), “Assessment of architectural defects
attributed to lack of maintenance feedback to the design team”, Architectural Science Review,
Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 132-138.
Hinton, P.R. (2014), Statistics Explained, Routledge, London.
HomeOwners Alliance (2019), “The HomeOwner Survey: 7th annual report”, available at: https://hoa.
org.uk/2019/08/homeowner-survey-2019/ (accessed 25 February 2020).
IJBPA Hong, C.H. (2016), Investigation of Defects in New Buildings in Malaysia, Unpublished BSc, Universiti
Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar.
40,4
Hopkin, T., Lu, S.L., Rogers, P. and Sexton, M. (2016), “Detecting defects in the UK new-build housing
sector: a learning perspective”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 35-45.
Husin, H.N., Nawawi, A.H., Ismail, F. and Khalil, N. (2015), “Correlation analysis of occupants’
satisfaction and safety performance level in low cost housing”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
566 Sciences, Vol. 168, pp. 238-248.
Hwang, B.-G. and Yang, S. (2014), “Rework and schedule performance: a profile of incidence, impact,
causes and solutions”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21.2
No. 2014, pp. 190-205.
Ilozor, B.D., Okoroh, M.I. and Egbu, C.E. (2004), “Understanding residential house defects in Australia
from the State of Victoria”, Building and Environment, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 327-337.
Ismail, F., Jabar, I.L., Janipha, N.A.I. and Razali, R. (2015), “Measuring the quality of life in low cost
residential environment”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 168, pp. 270-279.
Josephson, P.E., Larsson, B. and Li, H. (2002), “Illustrative benchmarking rework and rework costs in
Swedish construction industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 76-83.
Kamal, E.M., Hassan, H. and Osmadi, A. (2016), “Factors influencing the housing price: developers’
perspective”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 5,
pp. 1676-1682.
Kazaz, A., Birgonul, M.T. and Ulubeyli, S. (2005), “Cost-based analysis of quality in developing
countries: a case study of building projects”, Building and Environment, Vol. 40 No. 10,
pp. 1356-1365.
Khazanah (2017), “Building true value”, available at: www.khazanah.com.my.
Kian, P.S. (2004), “A review of factors affecting building defects in Singapore”, Civil Eng. Dimension,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 64-68.
Lee, S., Lee, S. and Kim, J. (2018), “Evaluating the impact of defect risks in residential buildings at the
occupancy phase”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 12, p. 4466.
Lim, X.Y., Olanrewaju, A.L. and Tan, S.Y. (2015), “Strategies for affordable housing delivery”,
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 25, pp. 118-124.
Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D.J. and Smith, J. (2005), “A forensic examination of the causal mechanisms of
rework in a structural steel supply chain”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 187-197.
Malaysian Meteorological Department (2017), Research Publication No. 2/2017 Determination of Z-R
Relationship and Inundation Analysis for Kuantan River Basin, Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Petaling Jaya.
Malaysian Meteorological Department (2019), “Annual report 2019”, available at: www.met.gov.my.
Marsh, C. (2003), Building Services Procurement, Spon Press, Taylor and Francis Group, London and
New York.
MHLG (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) (2018), “People’s housing Program”, available at:
http://www.kpkt.gov.my/.
Million, N.R., Alves, C.L.T. and Paliari, C.J. (2017), “Impacts of residential Construction defects on
customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 218-232.
Mills, A., Love, P.E. and Williams, P. (2009), “Defect costs in residential construction”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 12-16.
Nasrabadi, N.M. (2007), “Pattern recognition and machine learning”, Journal of Electronic Imaging,
Vol. 16 No. 4, 049901.
Olanrewaju, A.L. and Abdul-Aziz, A.R. (2015), Building Maintenance Processes and Practices: The Case Defect
of a Fast Developing Country, Springer, Singapore.
characterisations
Olanrewaju, A.L. and Idrus, A. (2020), “What is determining affordable housing shortages in the
Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia?”, Property Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-81.
in affordable
Olanrewaju, A. and Wong, H.C. (2020), “Evaluation of the requirements of first time buyers in the
housing
purchase of affordable housing in Malaysia”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 309-333.
567
Olanrewaju, A. and Woon, T.C. (2017), “An exploration of determinants of affordable housing choice”,
International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 703-723.
Olanrewaju, A.L.A., Khamidi, M.F. and Idrus, A. (2010), “Quantitative analysis of defects in Malaysian
university buildings: providers’ perspective”, Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 137-149.
Olanrewaju, A., Idrus, A. and Khamidi, F.M. (2011), “Investigating building maintenance practices in
Malaysia: a case study”, Structural Survey, pp. 397-410.
Olanrewaju, A., Tan, S.Y., Tat, L.L. and Mine, N. (2017), “Analysis of homeowners’ behaviours in
housing maintenance”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 180, pp. 1622-1632.
Olanrewaju, A.A. (2010), “Quantitative analysis of criteria in university building maintenance in
Malaysia”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 51-61.
Olanrewaju, A. (2012), “Quantitative analysis of defects in university buildings: user’ perspective”,
Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 167-181.
Olubodun, F. and Mole, T. (1999), “Evaluation of defect influencing factors in public housing in the
UK”, Structural Survey, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 170-178.
Olubodun, F. (2000), “A factor approach to the analysis of components’ defects in housing stock”,
Structural Survey, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 46-58.
Pan, W. and Thomas, R. (2014), “Defects and their influencing factors of post-handover new-build
homes”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Porteous, W.A. (1992), Identification, Evaluation and Classification of Building Failures, PhD thesis,
Department of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington.
Ramli, A., Akasah, Z.A. and Masirin, M.I.M. (2013), “Factors contributing building safety and health
performance of low-cost housing in Malaysia”, Journal of Safety Engineering, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Rhodes, B. and Smallwood, J.J. (2003), “Defects and rework in South African construction projects”,
Proceedings of the First CIBD Post Graduate Conference, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 2003
Oct 12_14.
Rodzi, H.N. (2017), “Poor drainage cited as main cause of floods”, available at: https://www.
straitstimes.com/asia/poor-drainage-cited-as-main-cause-of-floods (accessed 30 August 2018).
Rotimi, F.E., Tookey, J. and Rotimi, J.O. (2015), “Evaluating defect reporting in new residential
buildings in New Zealand”, Buildings, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 39-55.
Schultz, C.S., Jørgensen, K., Bonke, S. and Rasmussen, G.M.G. (2015), “Building defects in Danish
construction: project characteristics influencing the occurrence of defects at handover”,
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 423-439.
Seeley, H.I. (1987a), Building Maintenance, 2nd ed., Macmillan Press, London.
Seeley, I.H. (1987b), Building Maintenance, 2nd ed., Macmillan Press, Houndmills.
Seeley, I.H. (1996), Building Economics: Appraisal and Control of Building Design and Efficiency,
4th ed., Palgrave, New York.
Seeley, I.H. (1997), Quantity Surveying Practice, Macmillan International Higher Education, London.
IJBPA Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2016), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, John
Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
40,4
Shirkavand, I., Lohne, J. and Lædre, O. (2016), “Defects at handover in Norwegian construction
projects”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 226, pp. 3-11.
Silva, A., Gaspar, P. and de Brito, J. (2015), “Evaluation of the service life of external painted surfaces
applying statistical tools”, in 1st International Symposium on Building Pathology (ISBP 2015).
Porto, Portugal.
568
Simpeh, E.K., Ndihokubwayo, R., Love, P.E. and Thwala, W.D. (2015), “A rework probability model: a
quantitative assessment of rework occurrence in construction projects”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 109-116.
Sommerville, J. and MoCosh, J. (2006), “Defects in homes: an analysis of data on 1,696 new UK houses”,
Structural Survey, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Suffian, A. (2013), “Some common maintenance problems and building defects: our experiences”,
Procedia Eng., Vol. 54, pp. 101-108.
Tiun, L.T. (2009), “Managing high-rise residential building in Malaysia: where are we”, Paper
Presented at 2nd Naprec Conference, Inspen, available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl5en&as_sdt50%2C5&q5ManagingþHigh-RiseþResidentialþBuildingþInþMalaysia%
3aþWhereþAreþWe%3F&btnG5 (accessed 08 January 2019).
Usama, M., Qadir, J., Raza, A., Arif, H., Yau, K.L.A., Elkhatib, Y. and Al-Fuqaha, A. (2019),
“Unsupervised machine learning for networking: techniques, applications and research
challenges”, IEEE Access, Vol. 7, pp. 65579-65615.
Watt, D.S. (1999), Building Pathology: Principle and Practice, Blackwell Science, London.
Williams, A.R. (1993), Domestic Building Survey, E & FN SPON, Oxford.
Wordsworth, P. (2001), Lee’s Building Maintenance Management, 4th ed, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Zalejska Jonsson, A. and Hungria Gunnelin, R. (2019), “Defects in newly constructed residential
buildings: owners’ perspective”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 163-185.

Corresponding author
AbdulLateef Olanrewaju can be contacted at: olanrewaju20002000@gmail.com

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