Analyzing the Health and Well-being of Occupants in Dormitory

A N A LY Z I N G T H E H E A LT H A N D W E L L B E I N G
O F O C C U PA N T S I N E M U - 3 D O R M I TO RY
A N D G I V E S O L U T I O N S B A S E D O N
B I O P H I L I C D E S I G N PAT T E R N S
Ass. 4
Ala'a Alkhayyat
19500104

Outline
1. Introduction
• Background to study
• Aim of the study
• Research methodology
• Scope and limitation
2. Literature review
• Background to Biophilic design
• Principle of biophilic design “Nature in the
space”
3. Case study- EMU-3 Dormitory
• A short overview
• Procedure of the study
• Evaluation criteria
• Methodology of evaluation
4. Results and discussion
5. Conclusion
6. References

BACKGROUND TO
STUDY
Since people spend 90% of their time
indoors, creating an enjoyable, healthy,
and productive working environment
can have a positive impact on their
health, performance, and well-being
(Haghlesan 2013; WGBC 2014). It was
Edward O. Wilson who coined the term
"biophilia" in 1984 as a metaphor for
engaging with the environment and
enhancing mental and physical health.
INTRODUCTION
Therefore, some subjects have risen to call
attention to this issue, including SBS "Sick
Building Syndrome" and BRI "Building-
Related Illnesses". According to the
researcher (Edwards, 1999), there are
several causes of SBS, which fall into two
categories:
1- First may involve a desire for natural
elements such as natural temperature, sound,
and nature viewing, while
2- Second may be caused by air pollution
and dirt.

Problem
Definition
Considering the design of the dormitory rooms as an
extension to the student’s lifestyle, thus the built
environment should be adapted to fulfill the
psychological and physiological needs of the occupants.
However, nowadays there is a lot of discussion about the
design's impact on the student's health and welling.
Students spend a lot of time in their own space;
therefore, it is important that the dormitory provides
proper conditions for them.
• Accordingly, the main research question will be: What
are the different ways to design and care about
students’ health using Biophilic Strategies?
• Whereas, for the sub-research question will be: what
are the particular factors that affect the occupant’s
health and wellbeing in their temporary living spaces?

AIM
OF
THE
STUDY
This presentation attempts to understand and
emphasize the concept of biophilic design patterns as a
sustainable approach to solve the dormitory design
issues related to health and well-being and that needed
to be generated in the living space of the students. As
well, the presentation will analyze how biophilic design is
also performed in dormitory interior spaces, supported
by the study problem described above, which highlights
the research gap in incorporating biophilic design into
dorms interior spaces. Its two goals are to;
1- To present a theoretical foundation for 'biophilic design'
with the help of various methods and specialty fields.
2-The study looks at how biophilic design can be implemented
in different Dormitory environment as an example; EMU-3
dormitory.

Research Methodology
A mixed research –qualitative and quantitative research method- is the methodology used for this
study as in the following stages;
First, a literature
review would be
conducted,
which will take
into account
articles, theses,
books, websites,
and valuable
materials so as to
clarify the topic of
the study.
A case study will
also be conducted
using Google
Reviews to analyze
health and
wellbeing issues of
dormitories at
EMU, through
examining reviews
for key metaphors
that are used to
describe the
spaces.
Add some
suggestions to
improve their
own spaces
related to 14-
biophilic design
patterns.
Exploring and
analyzing their
own personal
spaces through the
use of the photos
and the AutoCAD
drawings provided
by EMU dormitory
site.

Scope and Limitations
1- Research will be dealing with the health and wellbeing issues
limited by the perception of the concept of biophilia and biophilic
design to create and mimic the student’s lifestyle in EMU-3
dormitory in North Cyprus.
2- The research will be held only by using the reviews from
Google on EMU dormitories as a kind of exploring user experience
in their dorm rooms.

LITERATURE REVIEW:
UNDERSTAND THE INTEGRATION
OF NATURE INTO PLACES AS A
SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO
INTERIOR DESIGN

According to (Edward O.
Wilson, 1984)Biophilia and
Biophilic Design are terms
deriving from the prefix "bio",
meaning "relating to living
animals," and therefore the
suffix "philia", meaning "love
for something".
BACKGROUND
TO
THE
BIOPHILIC
DESIGN
Over the last 35 years, various studies by
(Oliver Heath Design, 2019), has been
conducted on increasing one's
relationship with nature to the built
environment, as the following:
1. Office design can increase productivity by
8%, boost wellbeing by 13%, boost creativity
and reduce absenteeism and presenteeism.
2. Education spaces improve learning rates
by 20% to 25%, improve test results, focus
levels, and attendance, as well as reduce ADHD
symptoms - It is one of the most common
childhood neurological disorders-.
3. The recovery period after surgery was
shortened by 8.5%, and pain medication was
lowered by 22%.

This approach centers on the coexistence
of nature within the interior environment,
such as physical, transitory, and direct.
Interaction with nature involves multisensory
stimulation and coordinated contact with its
components.
The natural elements of plants, water, animals,
wind, sounds, scent, and vertical gardens are all
featured, as well as green roofs.
PRINCIPLE OF
BIOPHILIC
DESIGN
“NATURE IN
THE SPACE”

In terms of nature within the
space, the following biophilic
plan patterns are included,
according to (Browning et al.,
2014):

P 1. V ISUA L -
CONNECTION -WITH -
NATURE (VCN ):
A view of nature, living
systems, and natural
processes.
TH E NEW YORK TIMES B UILDING MOSS AND B IRCH
GARDEN, B Y RENZO PIANO, ACTS AS AN OASIS OF
CALM.
https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/05/17/biophilic-urban-acupuncture-
the-importance-of-biophilia-in-urban-places/

P2. Non-Visual-Connection-
with-Nature
Stimuli such as auditory,
haptic, olfactory, or gustatory
that are deliberately related to
nature, living systems, or
natural processes.

P 3, Non-Rhythmic-Sensory
Stimuli
A stochastic, ephemeral link
between man and nature that
can be analyzed statistically,
but is unpredictable.

P4. Thermal & Airflow
Variability
The air temperature, humidity,
airflow over the skin, and the
surface temperature mimic
natural environments.

P 5. PRESENCE OF
W ATER
The use of water to
enhance the
experience of a place.
WATER INTER - WAY.
https://www.architectureartdesigns.com/17-brilliant-indoor-water-
features-that-everyone-will-love/

P 6. DYNAMIC &
DIFFUSE LIGHT
Utilizes varying
intensities of light and
shadow that change
over time in order to
mimic the natural
world.
I N T HE K I T C HEN, A S K Y L IGHT PRO V I DE S NA T URAL L I G HT
T H RO U GH OU T T H E DA Y , C RE A TI NG A U N I QU E PA T TERN O F
S H A DOWS A S T H E S U N M O V E S A C RO S S T H E S K Y .
https://velacreative.com/journal/2019/3/26/biophilic-design-and-wellness-dynamic-
amp-diffuse-light-and-connection-with-natural-systems

P7. Connection with natural
systems
An understanding of natural
processes, especially the
seasonal and temporal
variations characteristic of
healthy ecosystems.

• Eastern Mediterranean University manages
and owns a dormitory consisting of eight
blocks over a total area of 6810 m2.
• A total of 378 students can be accommodated in
the dormitory, which has 126 double rooms and 63
double corner rooms in separate blocks for males
and females.
• The dormitory blocks are oriented to N 33º and E
56º, so half the rooms face the east and half the
west, making the students on the west side
uncomfortable in the cold months.
A SHORT
OVERVIEW OF THE
CASE STUDY AND
OF ITS
OCCUPANTS

EMU-3 DORMITORY HAS
TW O TYPES OF ROOMS AS
SHOW N IN THE TABLE,
W HICH SHOW S THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
ROOMS IN TERMS OF SIZE
AND EXISTING FEATURES:
Type of the room Room photos Size of the room
Standard double room
Room photo provided by (dormitories.emu.edu.tr)
12m2
Corner Double Room
Room photo provided by (dormitories.emu.edu.tr)
10m2
The outside view
The exterior view photo provided by (dormitories.emu.edu.tr)
-
The top view
The top view photo provided by (https://earth.google.com)
-

This table investigates the biophilic design
approach in relation to the concept of "nature in
the space."
Case study: EMU-3 dormitory
Location:
Famagusta, North Cyprus
Area:
6810 m2
Student Capacity:
378, 126 double normal, 63
double corner room
Ground floorGround floorGround floor
Ground floor
Ground floor
P1. Visual-connection with nature
P2. Non-visual connection with nature
Naturally occurring like:
• Fragrant herbs
• Song birds
• Sun Patches (specifically in the East, East south side)
P3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli
• Cloud movement
• Breezes
• Plant life rustling
• Brides chirping
• Fragrant flowers, trees and herbs
P4. Thermal and Airflow Variability –specifically in the East,
East south direction that is 148.55° SSE↑-
• Solar heat gain
• Shadow and shade
• Space/place orientation
Note: in all rooms they have HVAC delivery strategy –
Stimulated or constructed example-
P1 P2 P3 P4
P3
P2
P1
P1 P2 P3 P4
P3
P2
P1

PROCEDURE OF THE
STUDY
• THE PAPER POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY THAT A LITERATURE
REVIEW IS A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHOD THAT
PROVIDES A THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE EVALUATION
CRITERIA IN THE FIELD STUDY.
• To gain a clearer understanding of the built environment and the level of satisfaction
they have been receiving, 50 Google reviews have been collected from the
participants living in DAU-3 dormitory.

EVALUATION CRITERIA
TO DEVELOP AN EVALUATION IN RELATION TO THE FIELD OF
STUDY AND SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE LITERATURE
REVIEW AND GOOGLE REVIEWS, THE STUDY TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWI NG CRITERIA;
Criteria 1: find a sense of identity in the dorm space, reflecting the student's
lifestyle and wellbeing.
Criteria 2: Designing the rooms in a way to satisfy the students' health and
wellbeing needs.

METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE THE
GOOGLE REVIEWS
• Reviewing the reviews with 5 stars that represent a method of ranking the
user satisfaction of their experience in the dormitory, and sharing reviews
with less than 5 stars may result in some problems and dissatisfaction.
• The following equation will be used to analyze the rating scale data:
• Percentage = (Received review*100) /Total number of reviews
• We will then use the “Sentiment Analysis” provided by the MonkeyLearn
website as a powerful machine learning algorithm to classify opinions into
3 polarities (positive, negative, neutral), based on the feelings and
emotions of the review writer.
• We will use the “Text Extraction” provided by the MonkeyLearn website to
extract the keywords from the Google Reviews that define and predict the
amount of user satisfaction in the environment.

For the first evaluation:
the results show that three-star ratings are the
most common rating (38%), while five-star
ratings get (26%), two-star ratings get (8%), and
four-star ratings get (16%) from the reviews
shared by residents. As a result, the rating scale
has an average of 3.3 stars. As we can see, there is
a discomfort of occupants from their dorm
rooms that are expressed in the star rank.

SECOND
EVALUATION:
AN
EXTRACT
OF
GOOGLE
REVIEWS
ON
THE
DAU-3
DORMITORY.
Date Text Sentiment Keywords Indicators
2017 Rooms very small Positive 55.2%  Room
 small
Week involvement of health and wellbeing
in the rooms.
The space seems uninviting and uninspiring.
2017
The internet is constantly going and giving hot water according to their heads is not
good to stay
Negative 96.1%
 Internet
 Not good
 Stay
There are functional and usability issues
with the space.
2017
The registrant here has no serious mind.
Negative 86.1%
 Registrant
 serious mind
2017 Nice atmosphere and low price Positive 95.1%
 nice atmosphere
 low price
An environment that is highly conducive to
well-being and satisfaction.
2018
Koğuş gibi odalar
Positive 54.3%
 Ward
 Like room
There are functional and usability issues
with the space.
2018
I say never get into your really paying situation, mouse, ant, endless powders.
Disgusting sinks and showers. Not to mention being small. Very small
Negative 88.2%
 Situation
 Mouse
 disgusting sink
 Very small
Week involvement of health and wellbeing
in the rooms.
2018
Here is a nice good here.
Positive 96.7%
 nice good An environment that is highly conducive to
2018
The term "student job" is the description of this dormitory. The rooms are small
(10-15m2 or not). Bathrooms and toilets are shared. It also has a common kitchen.
The internet is really fast when it receives it (it reaches 10mb per second) but there
are also situations where it does not, and you have nothing to do for it. The
dormitory's external appearance is beautiful. The prices are affordable (of course,
the reward is based on the price). Apart from that, the cleaning staff clean the
rooms every week (they wipe the room; don't expect such a great understanding of
cleaning). There is no laundry. You can have your laundries washed in the laundries
located in the surrounding dormitories. It should be around 15₺ per wash.
Positive 95.1%
 Dormitory
 Room
 common kitchen
 external appearance
 price is good
 rooms are small
 toilets are shared
An environment that is highly conducive to
2018
In fact, if a cleaning like daü2 is done, there may not be a problem in cleaning. It is
actually a nice dormitory in general, but the items are gradually old
Negative 87.7%
 Cleaning
 Problem
 nice dormitory
 items
 old

SECOND
EVALUATION:
AN
EXTRACT
OF
GOOGLE
REVIEWS
ON
THE
DAU-3
DORMITORY.
2018
Everything ıs too small. ı dıd not lıke dorm. not good to stay in campus.
Better rent flat ın Magus wıth friends.
Negative 75.6%
 too small
 not good to stay
The space seems uninviting and
uninspiring.
2018
This dorm is for the new student so the maximum time to stay here is one
year rooms are sharing by tow STD and for every corner there's 3 rooms
and tow bathroom's , the outside views is nice and the place is quite and
all services are available.
Positive 95.3%
 new students
 maximum time
 year room
 3rooms and tow bathroom's
 Services are available.
There are functional and usability
issues with the space.
2019
Yangınlar çıkıyor
Neutral 82.3%  fire
There are functional and usability
issues with the space.
2019 Quiet, peaceful Positive 99.1%
 Quiet
 peaceful
An environment that is highly
conducive to well-being and
satisfaction.
2019
Home type dorm is very beautiful
Positive 98%
 home type dorm An environment that is highly
satisfaction.
2019 Lovely architecture Positive 96.1%
 lovely architecture An environment that is highly
satisfaction.
2019
One of the worst dormitories. Dirty and so noisy
Negative 99.9%
 Dirty
 noisy
Week involvement of health and
wellbeing in the rooms.
The space seems uninviting and
uninspiring.
2019 Very interesting place and good looking Positive 99.7%
 interesting place
 good looking
satisfaction.
2020
I was amazed to do business here, I saw it, I was amazed ...
Positive 97.8%
 Amazed
 business
satisfaction.

SECOND
EVALUATION:
AN
EXTRACT
OF
GOOGLE
REVIEWS
ON
THE
DAU-3
DORMITORY.
2020
EMU 3 dormitories consists of 8 blocks, normal rooms for two and corner
rooms for two. In the normal double rooms, there are a bed with a study unit,
a wardrobe, a minibar and a refrigerator.
Positive 66.7%
 normal room
 normal double room
 bed
 study unit
 wardrobe
satisfaction.
2020
Nice scenery
Positive 98.3%
 nice scenery An environment that is highly
satisfaction.
2020
Cheap and a place to live for people who think their parents financial stability
is more important than their own luxury
Negative 80.3%
 Place
 People
 financial stability
The space seems uninviting
and uninspiring.
2020
I was put into the free room just for 2 days to select my dorm I want to live in.
The room was dirty with rat's poop inside and the terrible smell.
The other room they give me was EVEN MORE DERTIER from the previous
tenant. There was trash, litter all around. Cleaners cleaned the room, but the
other problem was ants and even cockroaches!
NOT RECOMMEND AT ALL!!!
Negative 99.9%
 free room
 rat
 terrible smell
 cockroach
 not recommend
Week involvement of health
and wellbeing in the rooms.
and uninspiring.
2020
Its nice place and area but it has some problem with rat. Also this place is the
best compering with the other emu dormitory (emu1-emu2*&for boys)
Positive 55.7%
 nice place
 problem
 rat
 best emu dormitory
Week involvement of health
and wellbeing in the rooms.
and uninspiring.
2021 Good Positive 98.3%  Good
satisfaction.

• Based on the analysis of text provided by the users of the dormitory,
the evaluation of the second section illustrates that space's
involvement in health and wellbeing varies in relation to individual
experiences.
• Dorm room users also talked about how functional and usable the rooms were,
due to two main factors, the room size and hygienic standards.
• The other factor is the duration of living in the dorm rooms: a significant
percentage of the extracted texts refer to living in the dorm rooms for a
maximum of one year, which is indicative of the level of satisfaction among the
users.
• Based on the results of the sentiment analysis, there are variations in the
percentages of negativity and positivity for the texts submitted by the users.

Conclusion
In terms of the dormitory organizing environment functionally and spatially; the results of the Google
Reviews that used to understand the related issues of health and wellbeing inside student living
environment (Analyzing reviews to find key metaphors that describe space), I have found that there
are variations in people's acceptance of the space as a home. Moreover, the results of the study
indicate a noticeable dissatisfaction among the occupants from the dwelling design efficiency in terms
of usability since rooms are referred to as being small in size. This factor can play a huge role in the
amount of satisfaction and wellbeing the user gain from the space.
By analyzing the use of Biophilic design patterns in EMU-3 dormitory; we can see a lack in the use of
elements that promote the innate human-nature connection in the interior design of the building. The
occupants mainly complain about issues within the dorm living space that is related to the health and
wellbeing of the occupants. However, Biophilic design in this dorm and that used to boost the
occupant's satisfaction and connection in nature, concentrated completely in the exterior design of
the building, meaning there is a need to be introduced into the interior design of this building, or any
dormitory building designed to improve the health and well-being of the occupants.

References
• Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. CA: Monterey.
• Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students’ housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29, 76–85.
• Alan, K. (2019), “How Your Office Space Impacts Employee Well-Being”, (6/19/2021),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alankohll/2019/01/24/how-your-office-space-impacts-employee-
wellbeing/?sh=133877d464f3.
• Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2010). What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-
study analysis. Environmental science & technology, 44(10), 3947-3955.
• Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological science,
19(12), 1207-1212
• Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. New York: Terrapin Bright Green llc.
• Edwards, B. (1999). Sustainable architecture: European directives and building design. Butterworth Architecture.
• Frumkin, H. (2008). Nature Contact and Human Health: Building the Evidence Base. In: S.F. Kellert, J.H. Heerwagen, &
M.L. Mador (Eds.). Biophilic Design (115-116). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Greenleaf, A. T., Bryant, R. M., & Pollock, J. B. (2014). Nature-based counseling: Integrating the healing benefits of nature
into practice. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 36(2), 162-174.
• Heerwagen, J.H. & B. Hase (2001). Building Biophilia: Connecting People to Nature in Building Design. US Green Building
Council.
• Heerwagen, J. H. (2006). Investing in people: The social benefits of sustainable design. Rethinking Sustainable
Construction. Sarasota, FL, 50.

Analyzing the Health and Well-being of Occupants in Dormitory

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Analyzing the Health and Well-being of Occupants in Dormitory

Ähnlich wie Analyzing the Health and Well-being of Occupants in Dormitory (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Analyzing the Health and Well-being of Occupants in Dormitory