Post occupancy evaluation of the relocatable modular construction method for temporary educational facilities

Nguyen, T D H N; Park, S; Jeong, J and Ahn, Y (2026) Post occupancy evaluation of the relocatable modular construction method for temporary educational facilities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(1), pp. 785-809. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to evaluate user satisfaction and perceptions of the relocatable modular school (RMS) system in South Korea. It seeks to identify key factors for improvement to enhance the performance of this innovative construction method, particularly in the temporary educational sector. Design/methodology/approach – A comprehensive post occupancy evaluation (POE) was conducted, considering functional spaces, aesthetics, indoor environmental quality and technical aspects. This study also includes a comparative analysis with conventional school buildings to provide insights into the efficiency and potential of RMS. Findings – Relocatable modular schools can achieve the equivalent quality of building performance and user satisfaction as those built using traditional construction methods. The satisfaction performance of both methods falls within the "satisfied" level, with mean scores ranging from 3.35 to 3.90. Notably, when compared to ES, RMS exhibits a marginally lower satisfaction level in functional performance but a higher satisfaction level in the areas of aesthetics, IEQ and technical performance. Key factors identified for enhancement include optimizing classroom shape, balancing the window-to-wall ratio, enhancing natural ventilation and addressing floor noise and vibration concerns. Originality/value – This research is pioneering in evaluating user satisfaction and perceptions of RMS in South Korea, a relatively unexplored area. By taking a holistic approach and incorporating comparative analysis with traditional school buildings, the study provides valuable insights into the practical application and potential of modular construction in educational facilities. The results contribute significantly to the advancement of high-performance modular educational buildings, informing practitioners and stakeholders of user demands and guiding future developments in the field.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building performance; modular construction; poe; relocatable modular building; temporary educational facilities; user satisfaction
Index terms: vibration, educational facility, practitioner, natural ventilation, methodology, classroom, modular construction, user satisfaction, school building, comparative analysis, building performance, educational building, innovative construction method, holistic approach, window-to-wall ratio, indoor environmental quality, falls, South Korea, post-occupancy evaluation, aesthetic, traditional construction, satisfaction, efficiency, modular building
Subjects: construction type, client relations, practitioner, factor and component analysis, research methods, Geography, building construction, heritage and conservation, quality assurance, business, mechanical systems, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, evaluation methods, energy efficiency, health risk and incident analysis, performance management, environmental health, environmental engineering
Topics: Design Practice, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Sustainability
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here