Author:
Fahed A. Khasawneh Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Al al-Bayt University, Mafraq, Jordan

Search for other papers by Fahed A. Khasawneh in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8856-2152
Open access

Abstract

The Jordan Museum is the most important modern archeological museum in Jordan. This paper assesses the quality of design and the visitors' satisfaction with the Jordan Museum. Also, it investigates which of the selected performance elements contribute most to visitors' satisfaction. Investigative Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) was used within a mixed methodology approach. A questionnaire was used for the quantitative part, complemented by other qualitative methods. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the design quality and visitors' satisfaction. Stepwise regression was used to detect which performance elements predict overall visitors' satisfaction. The design quality of the museum was rated as good, and its permanent galleries were exceptionally rated as excellent. The visitors were generally satisfied with the museum. Visitors were satisfied with the interior and exterior finish but were not impressed with the heavy use of stone in the façade. The simplicity of the museum layout made navigation easy, and visitors were satisfied with wayfinding. This paper is the first to use POE to assess the Jordan Museum. The findings can be used to enhance the management and operation of the Jordan Museum. Also, important performance elements can be developed into guidelines to guarantee effective museum designs in the future.

Abstract

The Jordan Museum is the most important modern archeological museum in Jordan. This paper assesses the quality of design and the visitors' satisfaction with the Jordan Museum. Also, it investigates which of the selected performance elements contribute most to visitors' satisfaction. Investigative Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) was used within a mixed methodology approach. A questionnaire was used for the quantitative part, complemented by other qualitative methods. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the design quality and visitors' satisfaction. Stepwise regression was used to detect which performance elements predict overall visitors' satisfaction. The design quality of the museum was rated as good, and its permanent galleries were exceptionally rated as excellent. The visitors were generally satisfied with the museum. Visitors were satisfied with the interior and exterior finish but were not impressed with the heavy use of stone in the façade. The simplicity of the museum layout made navigation easy, and visitors were satisfied with wayfinding. This paper is the first to use POE to assess the Jordan Museum. The findings can be used to enhance the management and operation of the Jordan Museum. Also, important performance elements can be developed into guidelines to guarantee effective museum designs in the future.

1 Introduction

The Jordan Museum is Jordan's most important modern archeological museum [1]. The Jordan Museum concept emerged in the 1960s [2]. However, it was recently turned into a reality benefiting from generous financial support from the Japanese government [3]. The Jordan Museum was inaugurated in 2013. The Jordan Museum's performance as a specialized building was never studied before. POE is a method that can be used to study a pre-occupied building in a systematic way to find how well it meets intended goals and declared objectives [4, 5]. POE can reveal the pros and cons of a building [6]. Moreover, data collected by POE studies can provide recommendations and valuable feedback to enhance the design quality and building performance [7, 8]. This paper assesses the design quality of the Jordan Museum and investigates its visitors' satisfaction using POE.

1.1 Research focus and main questions

POE research is scarce in Jordan. Few studies were found [9–11]; none were conducted in museums. This research is the first to use POE to study the Jordan Museum. This study's objectives are to:

  • Assess the design quality of the museum and its spaces.

  • Investigate the visitors' satisfaction levels based on their experience.

  • Promote the use of POE in the building industry in Jordan.

This paper tries to fill a gap in the body of knowledge regarding POE studies in Jordan, especially the POE of museum buildings. The current investigation tackles the following questions:

Q1

What is the museum's design quality, and what are its visitors' overall satisfaction levels?

Q2

How satisfied are the museum visitors with the chosen performance elements?

Q3

Which performance elements predict the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors?

The results of this research can detect the studied building's weaknesses and strengths. Also, it enables the development of guidelines that may be used to create better museums in the future.

2 Related literature

2.1 About POE

The design quality of a building can be determined by measuring the satisfaction of its users [12]. POE is the most frequent tool used to capture users' opinions regarding the design quality of a building [13]. The systematic evaluation of buildings, later termed POE, began with the work of Manning in England in 1965 [14]. Since then, POE has been used to evaluate different building typologies worldwide [15–17]. POE is an orderly, precise study of a building to investigate its performance during actual usage conditions [5]. A well-designed building should perform its intended function effectively, ensuring user satisfaction [18]. POE can narrow the gap between the building facilities and services and the users' needs [13]. Satisfaction studies are more common in POE than studies on the attitudes and preferences of users [19–21].

There are three levels of POE: indicative, investigative, and diagnostic, based on time, resources, and workforce needed [22]. POE is a valuable tool, especially in complex buildings like museums. Inferior building performance may increase running costs and negatively affect users' well-being and building efficiency [23]. Researchers developed various methodologies to conduct POE in buildings, including questionnaires, walkthroughs, focus groups, interviews, and observations [5, 24]. POE studies focus on three categories of performance elements: technical, functional, and behavioral [5]. Each performance element consists of indicators that measure quality and differ according to the building type and the study's purpose [25, 26].

2.2 Previous studies on museums

Today, museums are not functioning only as warehouses of artifacts; they changed to be outward-oriented, focusing on the visitors' expectations and experiences and aiming to educate and entertain [27]. A museum is a civic space to share ideas and socialize with others of all ages and cultures [28]. People usually visit a museum to see its collections and enjoy experiences and events [29]. Other motivations include edification, recreation, socializing, business, available services, and breaking routine [30, 31].

Museums are becoming market-oriented, considering the wishes and needs of their visitors to create a physical environment that provides sensual and emotional visitor experiences leading to better satisfaction levels [32, 33]. Salama et al. [34] postulate that a well-designed museum should fulfill some architectural attributes; ease of accessibility, well-designed outdoor spaces around the building, clear entrance definition, seamless transition between indoors and outdoors, joyful indoor spaces, and interiors that encourage interaction with the artifacts and among visitors.

2.3 Technical performance elements in museums

Technical performance elements refer to characteristics of the building environment that usually appear in building codes, such as structure, sanitation, ventilation, illumination, acoustics, heating, and cooling [5]. Rahim et al. [35] claim that the technical elements of performance in a museum are temperature, relative humidity, lighting, acoustics, indoor air quality, mechanical ventilation and air conditioning, security, plumbing, sanitation, electrical service, fire safety, building finishes, structure, energy consumption, water consumption, pest control, and adaptability. Artifacts, visitors, and museum staff are three categories within the museum with different indoor environment quality requirements [36]. Comfort aspects of people refer to thermal conditions, lighting, acoustics, and air quality, while for artifacts, the aspects of safety focus on hygrothermal quality, light, and quantity of air pollutants [37].

Museum temperatures are kept constant with minimum fluctuations, but many visitors have differing thermal sensations; many feel discomfort [38]. Hatchfield [39] considers a relative humidity of 50% and a temperature of 21 degrees Celsius suitable in a museum without considering the building context. In contrast, Elkadi et al. [40] call for adopting contextualized climate specifications to lower energy usage in light of the evolving cultural roles of museums. A museum building must be climate responsive, using a skeleton that merges active and passive ventilation [41].

Muller [42] contends that light in museums has three tasks; visibility of objects, conservation of objects, and the illumination of rooms. The users prefer daylight in museums [43]. Collection items should not be exposed to direct sunlight because ultra-violet and ultra-red radiations cause the deterioration of artifacts [36, 42]. Muller [42] asserts that energy efficiency can be induced in museums using advanced passive and active temperature and light control, utilizing geothermal energy and daylight. D'Orazio et al. [44] affirm that high-attendance exhibitions are often uncomfortable due to loud background noise mainly caused by the human voices of visitors. They believe a museum should establish a maximum number of visitors and visit times to guarantee acoustic comfort.

2.4 Functional performance elements in museums

Functional performance elements directly relate to a building type's activities and users' needs, such as circulation, security, parking, adequate space area, and utilities [5]. The physical environment of a museum includes the building itself and the surrounding land, formal design, lighting, wayfinding, crowd control, emergency management, safety, experience, and methods used to involve users and create chances for interaction [45]. The indoor design features in a museum contribute to shaping visitors' satisfaction [46]. Furthermore, Zhang et al. [47] identified six essential factors in the physical environment influencing visitor satisfaction: architectural planning, exhibition and marketing, external environment and accessibility, entrance and ticketing, site planning, and shops and cafes.

The visitors' experience in a museum is formed by its physical environment elements [48]. Also, general environment cleanliness and museum maintenance positively affected visitor satisfaction [49]. Chang and Wu-Haw [50] considered the digital guide system a genuine part of modern museums. Digital technology guide devices could provide a better visual effect, help visitors get a vivid experience, and improve interest in museums [51].

2.5 Behavioral performance elements in museums

Behavioral performance elements link occupants' activities and satisfaction with the physical environment, such as privacy and interaction, environmental perception, image and meaning, and environmental cognition and orientation [5]. Negative emotions could be caused by a lack of direction, crowded, chaotic displays causing unease, and a sense of not being situated in space [34]. Villani [52] stresses the need to implement a wayfinding strategy in museums that uses materials to convey messages. Edutainment, comfort, escape, and aesthetics are the important dimensions of the museum experience and are related to visitors' overall satisfaction [53]. A powerful experience in a museum through its studied architecture and design can transform, affect or change human understanding [54].

3 The Jordan Museum case study

The Jordan Museum was selected as a case study. The idea of creating this museum begins in the 1960s. The museum was inaugurated in 2013 with a cost of 25 million U.S. dollars [3]. It has an area of 10,000 m2 and has a collection of 3,500 items. It is located in Ras al-Ayen, in a rich urban strip near downtown Amman [2] (Fig. 1). Jordan Museum was designed by the late Jafar Tukan, a famous Jordanian architect and recipient of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture in 2001 [55]. In the design of the Jordan Museum, simple masses of stone and glass were used to symbolize the historical eras that have passed in Jordan. The stone represents the past and present, while the glass represents the future [55].

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

The Jordan Museum building and urban surroundings

Source: CCG – Consolidated Consultants Group

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 2; 10.1556/1848.2023.00717

The museum comprises two masses that define an outdoor plaza and are connected by a bridge. The main mass of the building contains the entrance hall, the main gallery, a temporary gallery, modern warehouses, a center for maintenance and restoration, research laboratories, a production room, and a library [2]. The second mass of the building contains a shop, a restaurant, and a seminar room. The main gallery on the ground floor (Fig. 2), has an area of 1,500 m2; a circular route guides the visitors' flow through three main sections; archeology, folklore, and modern Jordan history. It also includes interactive areas [55]. The main gallery on the second floor (Fig. 3), has an area of 1,300 m2 and showcases an interactive scientific exhibition about the Muslim civilization [55]. The building has been used for 10 years but was never studied before.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Ground floor plan of the Jordan Museum

Source: CCG – Consolidated Consultants Group, modified by the author

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 2; 10.1556/1848.2023.00717

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Second floor plan of the Jordan Museum

Source: CCG – Consolidated Consultants Group, modified by the author

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 2; 10.1556/1848.2023.00717

4 Materials and methods

The investigative level of POE was used to assess the design quality and the visitors' satisfaction with the Jordan Museum. A mixed-method approach was used to gain a more complete picture of the topic studied [56, 57]. The main part of the research was quantitative, using a questionnaire. The secondary part was qualitative, using an extensive literature review and building walkthrough. The museum performance elements were selected based on the results of the conducted literature review and the work of Preiser et al. [5]. This research chose only the performance elements that align with its objectives.

The developed questionnaire had three parts. The first part aimed to collect demographic information about the museum visitors, including gender, nationality, frequency of visits, and source of knowledge about the museum. In the second part, statements covering the selected performance elements were prepared. The sample used a four-point scale to express agreement or disagreement with the statements. The Likert scale categories were; 3: strongly agree, 2: agree, 1: disagree, and 0: strongly disagree. The technical elements included thermal comfort, visual comfort, acoustic comfort, indoor quality, and cleaning services. The functional elements included interior and exterior finishes, furniture, layout (spatial design), and parking, and the behavioral elements included senses (emotions) and wayfinding. The third part asked the sample to rate the design quality of the museum spaces. Visitors' most frequently used spaces were selected. The design quality was rated using a four-point Likert scale with the following categories; 4: excellent, 3: good, 2: fair, and 1: poor.

The main survey was conducted over four days between the 6th and 9th of May 2022. A walkthrough visit of the museum preceded the survey. This study focuses on museum visitors, including locals and foreigners, as the main sample. Four hundred questionnaires were distributed to the visitors. Three hundred sixty-four forms were collected back with a return rate of 91%. The data obtained through the survey were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. Cronback's Alpha values for all scales were calculated; the combined scale was 0.741, the technical elements were 0.682, the functional elements were 0.634, and the behavioral elements were 0.712. All scales were reliable because all values of Cronback's Alpha exceeded the acceptable value of 0.6 [5859]. Furthermore, the normality test showed that the collected data was not normally distributed.

Descriptive statistics mean, frequency and standard deviation were used to extract the design quality of the museum, the overall satisfaction levels of its visitors, and satisfaction with the selected museum performance elements. The calibration used to quantify the satisfaction and quality levels was adopted from previous research [60]. The quality level used of the weighted mean was as follows; excellent: 3.5–4.0, good: 2.5–3.49, fair: 1.5–2.49, and poor: 0–1.49. The satisfaction level used of the weighted mean was as follows; strongly satisfied: 2.5–3.0, satisfied: 1.5–2.49, dissatisfied: 0.5–1.49, and strongly dissatisfied: 0–0.49. In addition, inferential statistics were used. After Preiser et al. [5], stepwise multiple linear regression was used to determine which performance elements among the technical, functional, and behavioral elements contribute the most to predicting the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors.

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Sample's demographics

The visitors to the museum formed the main sample (Table 1). Males formed 51.9% of the sample, while females formed 48.1%. The museum was designed to welcome local and foreign visitors. Europeans formed the majority of the museum visitors forming, 53.8%, followed by Jordanians, with 32.7%. Then Arabian visitors formed 9.6%, and last came Americans with 3.8%.

Table 1.

Sample demographics

VariablesCountPercentage (%)
1. GenderMale18951.9
Female17548.1
2. NationalityJordanian11932.7
Arabian359.6
American143.8
European19653.8
Other00
3. Is this your first visit to the museum, or have used visited it before?This is my first time23163.5
I have visited it before12634.6
I don't know/I don't remember71.9
4. How did you find out about the museum?Newspapers/Magazines143.8
Television287.7
Brochure215.8
Internet19653.8
From acquaintance5615.4
Other4913.5

Source: The author-own source.

Regarding museum visit frequency, most of the sample claimed that it was their first visit to the museum forming 63.5%, while those who visited it before formed 34.6% of the sample. As for the sources of knowledge about the museum, the internet was the most popular source of information, forming 53.8% of the sample. Acquaintances came second with 15.4%, and last came brochures as the least source of knowledge about the museum forming only 5.8% of the sample. The museum curators must focus on modern technology tools because it is the most effective.

5.2 The museum's design quality

The design quality of the museum spaces was rated by visitors (Table 2). The overall design quality of the museum was good, with a mean of 3.30. Looking at the rated spaces, the visitors rated the permanent galleries as excellent, with a mean of 3.62. The visitors were impressed with the experience in the permanent galleries, the seamless, easy movement, and the well-organized artifacts. All other spaces in the museum were rated as good. Nevertheless, the entrance hall had a mean of 3.46, while the toilets had a mean of 2.79. The visitors were relatively less satisfied with the toilets. The number of toilet units is limited, and in the case of many visitors, as in holidays or when school student groups are found, toilets become very crowded, and problems arise. As for the entrance hall, the visitors were satisfied with it, because it has a reasonable open waiting area. Furthermore, the entrance hall has a pleasant atmosphere due to daylighting through the skylight.

Table 2.

Design quality rating of museum spaces

Museum spacesPoorFairGoodExcellentMeanStandard deviationQuality level
1. Permanent ShowroomsN0141122383.620.561Excellent
%03.830.865.4
2. Temporary ShowroomN0141821683.420.567Good
%03.850.046.2
3. Entrance HallN0351262033.460.665Good
%09.634.655.8
4. Gift ShopN7491541543.250.757Good
%1.913.542.342.3
5. ToiletsN0147147702.790.744Good
%040.440.419.2
Overall Design QualityWeighted Mean3.30Good
Standard Deviation0.360

Source: The author-own source.

5.3 Visitors' overall satisfaction with the museum and its performance elements

Regarding the overall satisfaction levels of the visitors with the museum, visitors were generally satisfied with the museum's performance, with a mean value of 2.04.

5.3.1 Satisfaction with technical performance elements

Visitors were satisfied with the technical performance elements in the museum with a mean of 2.19 (Fig. 4). Visitors were satisfied with the cleaning services of the museum, with a mean of 2.38. The cleanliness of the museum and its facilities can increase the visitors' satisfaction levels, corroborating previous research results [49]. Moreover, visitors were satisfied with thermal comfort, with a mean of 1.9. Not all visitors were satisfied with the temperature inside the building, as thermal sensation and preference differ among people, which is confirmed in previous studies [38]. Also, visitors were satisfied with acoustical comfort, with a mean of only 2.02. This satisfaction level may be due to the human noise in the background, especially in crowded conditions. Previous research refers to the annoying effect of the voices of visitors and recommends controlling the number of visitors and visit time to control noise levels [44].

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Satisfaction with technical elements of building performance

Source: The author-own source

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 2; 10.1556/1848.2023.00717

5.3.2 Satisfaction with functional performance elements

Visitors were satisfied with the functional elements of performance in the museum with a mean of 2.01 (Fig. 5). Visitors were satisfied with the interior and exterior finish, with a low mean of 1.77. The extensive use of stone with minimal openings made the building look dull to many visitors, which lowered their satisfaction. This result aligns with previous research, which pointed out the importance of exterior features such as the museum façade in shaping the visitors' satisfaction levels [46]. In addition, the visitors were satisfied with the provided parking area with a mean of 2.02, despite the museum's crowded urban location sometimes making it hard to find a space to park a car.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Satisfaction with functional elements of building performance

Source: The author-own source

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 2; 10.1556/1848.2023.00717

Regarding the museum layout (spatial design), visitors were satisfied with this item, with a mean of 2.05. In agreement with previous research [46], many positive internal physical environment attributes contributed to the visitors' satisfaction, such as the appropriate height of the ceiling in the galleries, the suitability of the movement spines, and the clear entrance definition. Nevertheless, some negative attributes lowered the satisfaction levels of visitors, such as the small size of elevators, the inappropriate placement of stairs and elevators, and the limited number of toilets. Also, another positive aspect of the layout was the freedom given to visitors to discover artifacts in a self-paced pattern and participate in interactive activities. Goulding [45] stressed the positive effect of experience and methods involving users on visitor satisfaction.

5.3.3 Satisfaction with behavioral performance elements

Visitors were satisfied with the behavioral elements of performance in the museum, with a mean of 1.97 (Fig. 6). Visitors were satisfied with wayfinding, with a mean of 1.66, because the simplicity of the layout made being lost difficult. However, the visitors were divided in opinion regarding using signage systems to find their way inside, which lowered satisfaction. Many researchers [34, 52] emphasized the importance of wayfinding and that lack of direction can cause negative feelings and lower satisfaction. Visitors were satisfied with the senses (emotions) in the museum, with a mean of 2.13. Most visitors expressed that visiting the museum was satisfying and fun. The Jordan Museum's positive experience can greatly impact its visitors and change their understanding of Jordan's culture and heritage, corroborating previous research [54].

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Satisfaction with behavioral elements of building performance

Source: The author-own source

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 2; 10.1556/1848.2023.00717

5.4 Performance elements as predictors of overall satisfaction levels

A multiple linear regression (stepwise method) was conducted to determine the independent variables of performance elements (technical, functional, and behavioral) that would best predict the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. First, a multiple linear regression (stepwise method) was conducted to determine the independent variables of technical performance elements (thermal comfort, visual comfort, acoustical comfort, indoor air quality, and cleaning services) that would best predict the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Based on the model's results in (Table 3), the independent variables of acoustical comfort, indoor air quality comfort, and cleaning services were entered into the regression equation of the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Other independent variables, including thermal and visual comfort, were removed by stepwise regression because P > 0.100.

Table 3.

Regression of visitors' satisfaction with technical elements

Dependent variableIndependent variableUnstandardized coefficients

B
t – valuet – sig.Collinearity statistics VIFRR2f – valuef – sig.
Overall Level of Satisfaction(Constant)1.49724.2530.0000.4290.18427.0030.000
Thermal ComfortThose Variables were Excluded from The Model0.3080.7581.226
Visual Comfort1.5500.1221.380
Acoustical Comfort0.1357.7260.0001.013Adjusted R20.177
Indoor Air Quality Comfort0.0614.0630.0001.009
Sum of Squaresdf
Cleaning services0.0352.5830.0101.010Regression2.5723
Residual11.428360

Source: The author-own source.

The acoustical comfort, indoor air quality comfort, and cleaning services variables statistically significantly predicted the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors with [F (3,360) = 27.003, P < 0.05], R2 = 0.184. Furthermore, this model explains 18% of the variance in the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Therefore, the prediction equation would be:

The overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors = 1.497 + 0.135 (acoustical comfort)+0.061 (indoor air quality comfort)+0.035 (cleaning services).

Multicollinearity is not a problem because all variance inflation factor (VIF) values are below 10. In addition, to check if multivariate outliers exist, Mahalanobis distance = 15.202 less than the critical value of Chai square (20.52) for df = 5; therefore, no extreme values were found, confirming the multiple linear regression conditions. Regression was significant.

Second, a multiple linear regression (stepwise method) was conducted to determine the independent variables of functional performance elements (interior and exterior finish, furniture, layout (spatial design), and parking) that would best predict the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Based on the model's results in (Table 4), all the independent variables of interior and exterior finish, furniture, layout (spatial design), and parking were entered into the regression equation of the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors.

Table 4.

Regression of visitors' satisfaction with functional elements

Dependent variableIndependent variableUnstandardized coefficients

B
t – valuet – sig.Collinearity statistics VIFRR2f – valuef – sig.
Overall Satisfaction Level(Constant)1.18314.6290.0000.4730.22425.9160.000
Interior and Exterior Finish0.0613.9540.0001.036
Furniture0.0522.3850.0181.135
Adjusted R20.215
Layout0.2637.5460.0001.095
Sum of Squaresdf
Parking0.0312.3850.0181.052Regression3.1374
Residual10.863359

Source: The author-own source.

The interior and exterior finish, furniture, layout (spatial design), and parking variables statistically significantly predicted the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors with [F (4,359) = 25.916, P < 0.05], R2 = 0.224. Furthermore, this model explains 22% of the variance in the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Therefore, the prediction equation would be:

The overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors = 1.183 + 0.061 (interior and exterior finish)+0.052 (furniture)+0.263 (layout (spatial design))+0.031 (parking).

Multicollinearity is not a problem because all variance inflation factor (VIF) values are below 10. In addition, to check if multivariate outliers exist, Mahalanobis distance = 14.589 less than the critical value of Chai square (18.64) for df = 4; therefore, no extreme values were found, confirming the multiple linear regression conditions. Regression was significant.

Third, a multiple linear regression (stepwise method) was conducted to determine the independent variables of behavioral performance elements (senses, wayfinding) that would best predict the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Based on the model's results in (Table 5), the independent variables of senses and wayfinding were entered into the regression equation of the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors.

Table 5.

Regression of visitors'satisfaction with behavioral elements

Dependent variableIndependent variableUnstandardized coefficients

B
t – valuet – sig.Collinearity statistics VIFRR2f – valuef – sig.
Overall Satisfaction Level(Constant)1.77142.8980.0000.3160.10020.0000.000
Senses Satisfaction0.1526.1320.0001.735
Adjusted R20.095
Wayfinding Satisfaction−0.057−2.8140.0051.735Sum of Squaresdf
Regression1.3972
Residual12.603361

Source: The author-own source.

The senses, wayfinding variables statistically significantly predicted the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors with [F (2,361) = 20.000, P < 0.05], R2 = 0.100. Furthermore, this model explains 10% of the variance in the overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors. Therefore, the prediction equation would be:

The overall satisfaction levels of museum visitors = 1.771 + 0.152(senses)–0.057(wayfinding).

Multicollinearity is not a problem because all variance inflation factor (VIF) values are below 10. In addition, to check if multivariate outliers exist, Mahalanobis distance = 7.308 less than the critical value of Chai square (13.82) for df = 2; therefore, no extreme values were found, confirming the multiple linear regression conditions. Regression was significant.

6 Conclusions

The Jordan Museum was a distant dream that was realized recently. This paper used POE to assess the design quality and the visitors' satisfaction with the Jordan Museum. The results revealed that the design quality of the museum was rated as good. The permanent galleries were rated excellent due to the ease of movement and good organization of artifacts. All other spaces were rated as good. Visitors were generally satisfied with the museum's performance. They were also satisfied with the selected performance elements. As for technical performance, visitors were satisfied with the cleaning service, which gave them a good impression. Despite being satisfied with thermal comfort, not all visitors were satisfied with the temperature in the museum because of the difference in thermal sensation.

Regarding the functional elements, visitors were satisfied with the exterior and interior finishes. However, many were not impressed with the museum façade. In addition, visitors were satisfied with the museum layout. Many positive internal physical environment attributes contributed to visitors' satisfaction, including the appropriate height of the gallery ceiling, the suitability of movement spines for the number of visitors, and the clear entrance definition. Also, the behavioral performance elements were evaluated. Visitors were satisfied with the wayfinding in the museum because the simplicity of the layout made navigation easy. Most visitors expressed their satisfaction with the senses in the museum. Visitors were satisfied with their experience in the museum and had much fun.

Stepwise regression was used to study the contribution of the performance elements in predicting the overall satisfaction of museum visitors. The acoustical comfort contributed most of the technical elements, followed by indoor air quality comfort and cleaning services. The layout contributed most of the functional elements, followed by interior and exterior finish, furniture, and parking. As for behavioral elements, senses contributed the most, followed by wayfinding.

Regarding limitations, this study focused only on museum visitors' satisfaction, but museum staff satisfaction was not considered. Also, only one museum was taken as a case study, limiting the generalization of results. Finally, this study proved that the Jordan Museum was successful. The museum facility managers can use the results to enhance the building, and it can further be developed into design guidelines that can be used to design effective future museums in Joran and the surrounding region.

Disclosure statement

The author reports that there are no competing interests to declare.

Acknowledgements

None.

References

  • [1]

    M. M. Ibrahim, “One hundred years of archaeological work in Jordan,” Jordan J. Hist. Archaeol., vol. 16, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Oct. 2022. https://doi.org/10.54134/jjha.v16i3.659.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    The Jordan Museum,” 2010. https://www.jordanmuseum.jo/en. Accessed: Jul. 05, 2023.

  • [3]

    J. Kafafi and Y. Alamri, “The Jordan Museum: storyteller of land and people,” in Museums and the Ancient Middle East, Routledge, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    Ş. Eryürük, F. Kürüm Varolgüneş, and S. Varolgüneş, “Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach,” J. Hous. Built Environ., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 505528, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    W. F. E. Preiser, H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White, Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.

  • [6]

    A. O. Abisuga, C. C. Wang, and R. Y. Sunindijo, “Facility managers' responses to user post-occupancy feedback: a conceptual framework,” Facilities, vol. 38, no. 7/8, pp. 481499, Jan. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-10-2018-0119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    G. Baird, J. Gray, N. Isaacs, D. Kernohan, and G. McIndoe, Building Evaluation Techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

  • [8]

    W. F. E. Preiser, “Continuous quality improvement through post‐occupancy evaluation feedback,” J. Corp. Real Estate, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 4256, Jan. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010310811993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    H. Ali and A. Rjoub, “Post occupancy evaluation of building system # 5 as sustainable structural system in Jordan,” in SB05 Tokyo: Action for Sustainability, Rotterdam (Netherlands): in-house publishing, 2005, pp. 37383745. [Online]. Available: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB4168.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    R. Alshawabkeh, M. Alhaddad, and F. Gandah, “Post-occupancy evaluation for ceremonial and public buildings: a case study of Amman city Hall, Jordan,” J. Civ. Eng. Archit., vol. 10, no. 12, Dec. 2016. https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2016.12.008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    H. Alzoubi, S. Al-Rqaibat, and R. F. Bataineh, “Pre-versus post-occupancy evaluation of daylight quality in hospitals,” Build. Environ., vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 26522665, Dec. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.027.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    M. A. Hassanain, M. O. Sanni-Anibire, and A. S. Mahmoud, “Design quality assessment of campus facilities through post occupancy evaluation,” Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt., vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-04-2021-0057.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    F. A. Mustafa, “Performance assessment of buildings via post-occupancy evaluation: a case study of the building of the architecture and software engineering departments in Salahaddin University-Erbil, Iraq,” Front. Archit. Res., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 412429, Sep. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    W. F. E. Preiser and U. Schramm, “Intelligent office building performance evaluation,” Facilities, vol. 20, pp. 279287, Jul. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770210435198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    J. Vischer, “Post-occupancy evaluation: a multifaceted tool for building improvement,” in Learning from Our Buildings: A State of the Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation by Federal Facilities Council (Author), 1st ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press., 2002, pp. 2334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    C. Watson, “Review of Building Quality Using Post Occupancy Evaluation,” PEB Exchange, Program on Educational Building, No. 2003/03, OECD Publishing, Paris, Paris, Feb. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1787/715204518780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    C. M. Zimring and J. E. Reizenstein, “Post-occupancy evaluation: an overview,” Environ. Behav., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 429450, Dec. 1980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916580124002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    A. H. Nawawi and N. Khalil, “Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants' satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings,” J. Build. Apprais., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 5969, Jun. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008.22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [19]

    S. I. Nwankwo, J. O. Diogu, C. V. Nwankwo, and M. M. Okonkwo, “Post-occupancy evaluation of modification of residential buildings for effective and efficient mass housing delivery: case study of Owerri Urban, South-Eastern Nigeria,” J. Eng. Res. Appl., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 526, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [20]

    A. A. Olatunji, “Post-occupancy evaluation of Lagos state polytechnic facilities: a user-based system,” J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 229236, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [21]

    D. P. Varady, “Predicting satisfaction in public housing,” J. Archit. Plan. Res., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 181192, 2004.

  • [22]

    W. F. E. Preiser and J. Vischer, Eds. Assessing Building Performance, 1st ed. Amsterdam; New York: Routledge, 2004.

  • [23]

    C. J. Roberts, D. J. Edwards, M. R. Hosseini, M. Mateo-Garcia, and D.-G. Owusu-Manu, “Post-occupancy evaluation: a review of literature,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 20842106, Sep. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2018-0390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [24]

    H. Sanoff, “School Building Assessment Methods,” National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 1090 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC, 005904, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448588. Accessed: Jul. 09, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [25]

    S.-S. Kim, I.-H. Yang, M.-S. Yeo, and K.-W. Kim, “Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in Korea,” Build. Environ., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 11031116, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.09.014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [26]

    M. O. Sanni-Anibire, M. A. Hassanain, and A.-M. Al-Hammad, “Post-occupancy evaluation of housing facilities: overview and summary of methods,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 30, no. 5, p. 04016009, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [27]

    Ö. Özer, S. Sop, and U. Avci, “A comparison of museum visitors’ expectations within the context of faith tourism,” in Proceedings of the international conference on religious tourism and tolerance, Konya, Turkey, May 2013, pp. 5765.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [28]

    G. Manolopoulou and I. Mavrommati, “Museum takes a walk: an outlook on new trends,” in DeMuCiV – Thales Research Program – University of Thessaly, 2011-2015. “DeMuCiV: Designing the Museum of the City of Volos: Historical Research and Development of Innovative Interactive Content for the Dissemination of Knowledge, Volos, Greece: the Laboratory of Environmental Communication and Audiovisual Documentation (EPEOT-LECAD), Jan. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/42683437/MUSEUM_TAKES_A_WALK_AN_OUTLOOK_ON_NEW_TRENDS. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [29]

    N. H. Phu, L. A. Tuan, L. D. Toan, and H. T. P. Yen, “Assessment of tourist satisfaction in Da Nang museum, Vietnam,” Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 115, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [30]

    J. G. Brida, M. Disegna, and R. Scuderi, “Visitors of two types of museums: a segmentation study,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 22242232, May 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.10.039.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [31]

    C.-W. Sheng and M.-C. Chen, “A study of experience expectations of museum visitors,” Tour. Manag., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5360, Feb. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [32]

    M. E. Cho and M. J. Kim, “Measurement of user emotion and experience in interaction with space,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 99106, Jan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.16.99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [33]

    G. Del Chiappa, L. Andreu, and M. G. Gallarza, “Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum,” Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 420431, Sep. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2014-0024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [34]

    A. M. Salama, N. A. Salingaros, and L. MacLean, “A multimodal appraisal of Zaha Hadid's Glasgow Riverside museum—criticism, performance evaluation, and habitability,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 173, Jan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [35]

    S. H. Rahim, A. H. Nawawi, K. Sahray, and S. Mustafar, “A review on the technical performance criteria of post occupancy evaluation (POE) of refurbished heritage museum buildings,” J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 12, pp. 43494355, Jan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3923/jeasci.2017.4349.4355.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [36]

    H. Sharif-Askari and B. Abu-Hijleh, “Review of museums’ indoor environment conditions studies and guidelines and their impact on the museums’ artifacts and energy consumption,” Build. Environ., vol. 143, pp. 186195, Oct. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [37]

    G. Litti, A. Audenaert, and K. Fabbri, “Indoor Microclimate Quality (IMQ) certification in heritage and museum buildings: the case study of Vleeshuis museum in Antwerp,” Build. Environ., vol. 124, pp. 478491, Nov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [38]

    A. Martinez-Molina, P. Boarin, I. Tort-Ausina, and J.-L. Vivancos, “Assessing visitors’ thermal comfort in historic museum buildings: results from a Post-Occupancy Evaluation on a case study,” Build. Environ., vol. 132, pp. 291302, Mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [39]

    P. Hatchfield, “Crack, warp, shrink, flake—a new look at conservation standards,” Mus. January—February Am. Alliance Mus. Wash. DC USA, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [40]

    H. Elkadi, S. Al-Maiyah, K. Fielder, I. Kenawy, and D. B. Martinson, “The regulations and reality of indoor environmental standards for objects and visitors in museums,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 152, p. 111653, Dec. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111653.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [41]

    R. Hyde and J. Davidson, “A post occupancy evaluation (POE) of lark quarry trackways building and shelter, Winton, Queensland,” in The Proceedings of ANZAScA Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, 2007. Deakin University, Geelong: The Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), 2007. [Online]. Available: https://archscience.org/paper/a-post-occupancy-evaluation-poe-of-lark-quarry-trackways-building-and-shelter-winton-queensland/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [42]

    H. Müller, “Energy efficient museum buildings,” Renew. Energy, vol. 49, Jan. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.025.

  • [43]

    P. Aderonmu, A. Adesipo, E. Erebor, R. Adeniji, and O. Ediae, “Assessment of daylighting designs in the selected museums of South-West Nigeria: a focus on the integrated relevant energy efficiency features,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 640, p. 012034, Nov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/640/1/012034.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [44]

    D. D'Orazio, F. Montoschi, and M. Garai, “Acoustic comfort in highly attended museums: a dynamical model,” Build. Environ., vol. 183, p. 107176, Oct. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [45]

    C. Goulding, “The museum environment and the visitor experience,” Eur. J. Mark., vol. 34, no. 3/4, pp. 261278, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010311849.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [46]

    M. Alshamaileh, A. Aburumman, T. Kumail, and A. Abu Rumman, “Physical environment of museums and visitors' satisfaction: a case study of five museums in Sharjah,” PalArchs J. Archaeol. Egypt Egyptol., vol. 17, p. 712, Nov. 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [47]

    H. Zhang, P.-C. Chang, and M.-F. Tsai, “How physical environment impacts visitors’ behavior in learning-based tourism—the example of technology museum,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 11, Art. no. 11, Nov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113880.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [48]

    J.-H. Jeong and K.-H. Lee, “The physical environment in museums and its effects on visitors’ satisfaction,” Build. Environ., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 963969, Jul. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [49]

    C. Chen and H. Shi, “A study of service quality and satisfaction for museums: taking the national museum of prehistory as an example,” J. Hum. Resour. Adult Learn., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 159170, 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [50]

    Y.-S. Chang and J. Wu-Haw, “The assessment factors for museum digital guide system design - from user experience and perception,” Int. J. Commun. Media Stud. IJCMS, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 724, Apr. 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [51]

    M. Hirose and T. Tanikawa, “Overview of the digital museum project,” in Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry, in VRCAI’10. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2010, pp. 1116. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900179.1900181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [52]

    T. Villani, “Materials and technical solutions for wayfinding in museums,” TECHNE – J. Technol. Archit. Environ., pp. 289298, Apr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-23000.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [53]

    M. Bideci and T. Albayrak, “An investigation of the domestic and foreign tourists’ museum visit experiences,” Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 366377, Oct. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-02-2018-0029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [54]

    J. Bermudez and B. Ro, “The Experience of President Lincoln’s Cottage: Results of a Museum Focused Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey,” President Lincoln’s Cottage, Washington, DC, Executive Summary and Visitor Impact Study Report, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjf4Jf3u4SAAxUNTKQEHYOuCNUQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lincolncottage.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2FExec-Summary-and-Visitor-Impact-Study-Report_2018.pdf&usg=AOvVaw08FNQU1BeS-OE8JCyesl8b&opi=89978449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [55]

    CCG – Consolidated Consultants Group,” 2021. https://www.group-cc.com/pages/Project_details.aspx?ProjectId=131. Accessed: Jun. 22, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [56]

    F. Almeida, “Strategies to perform a mixed methods study,” Eur. J. Educ. Stud., vol. 5, no. 1, Art. no. 0, Aug. 2018. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1902.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [57]

    A. O’Cathain, E. Murphy, and J. Nicholl, “Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies,” BMJ, vol. 341, p. c4587, Sep. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [58]

    L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297334, Sep. 1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [59]

    J. A. Gliem and R. R. Gliem, “Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-type Scales,” Presented at the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus: Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 2003, pp. 8288. [Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [60]

    M. A. Hassanain and A. Iftikhar, “Framework model for post-occupancy evaluation of school facilities,” Struct. Surv., vol. 33, no. 4/5, pp. 322336, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-06-2015-0029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    M. M. Ibrahim, “One hundred years of archaeological work in Jordan,” Jordan J. Hist. Archaeol., vol. 16, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Oct. 2022. https://doi.org/10.54134/jjha.v16i3.659.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    The Jordan Museum,” 2010. https://www.jordanmuseum.jo/en. Accessed: Jul. 05, 2023.

  • [3]

    J. Kafafi and Y. Alamri, “The Jordan Museum: storyteller of land and people,” in Museums and the Ancient Middle East, Routledge, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    Ş. Eryürük, F. Kürüm Varolgüneş, and S. Varolgüneş, “Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach,” J. Hous. Built Environ., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 505528, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    W. F. E. Preiser, H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White, Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.

  • [6]

    A. O. Abisuga, C. C. Wang, and R. Y. Sunindijo, “Facility managers' responses to user post-occupancy feedback: a conceptual framework,” Facilities, vol. 38, no. 7/8, pp. 481499, Jan. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-10-2018-0119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    G. Baird, J. Gray, N. Isaacs, D. Kernohan, and G. McIndoe, Building Evaluation Techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

  • [8]

    W. F. E. Preiser, “Continuous quality improvement through post‐occupancy evaluation feedback,” J. Corp. Real Estate, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 4256, Jan. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010310811993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    H. Ali and A. Rjoub, “Post occupancy evaluation of building system # 5 as sustainable structural system in Jordan,” in SB05 Tokyo: Action for Sustainability, Rotterdam (Netherlands): in-house publishing, 2005, pp. 37383745. [Online]. Available: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB4168.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    R. Alshawabkeh, M. Alhaddad, and F. Gandah, “Post-occupancy evaluation for ceremonial and public buildings: a case study of Amman city Hall, Jordan,” J. Civ. Eng. Archit., vol. 10, no. 12, Dec. 2016. https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7359/2016.12.008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    H. Alzoubi, S. Al-Rqaibat, and R. F. Bataineh, “Pre-versus post-occupancy evaluation of daylight quality in hospitals,” Build. Environ., vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 26522665, Dec. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.027.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    M. A. Hassanain, M. O. Sanni-Anibire, and A. S. Mahmoud, “Design quality assessment of campus facilities through post occupancy evaluation,” Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt., vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-04-2021-0057.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    F. A. Mustafa, “Performance assessment of buildings via post-occupancy evaluation: a case study of the building of the architecture and software engineering departments in Salahaddin University-Erbil, Iraq,” Front. Archit. Res., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 412429, Sep. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    W. F. E. Preiser and U. Schramm, “Intelligent office building performance evaluation,” Facilities, vol. 20, pp. 279287, Jul. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770210435198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    J. Vischer, “Post-occupancy evaluation: a multifaceted tool for building improvement,” in Learning from Our Buildings: A State of the Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation by Federal Facilities Council (Author), 1st ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press., 2002, pp. 2334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    C. Watson, “Review of Building Quality Using Post Occupancy Evaluation,” PEB Exchange, Program on Educational Building, No. 2003/03, OECD Publishing, Paris, Paris, Feb. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1787/715204518780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    C. M. Zimring and J. E. Reizenstein, “Post-occupancy evaluation: an overview,” Environ. Behav., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 429450, Dec. 1980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916580124002.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    A. H. Nawawi and N. Khalil, “Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants' satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings,” J. Build. Apprais., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 5969, Jun. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2008.22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [19]

    S. I. Nwankwo, J. O. Diogu, C. V. Nwankwo, and M. M. Okonkwo, “Post-occupancy evaluation of modification of residential buildings for effective and efficient mass housing delivery: case study of Owerri Urban, South-Eastern Nigeria,” J. Eng. Res. Appl., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 526, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [20]

    A. A. Olatunji, “Post-occupancy evaluation of Lagos state polytechnic facilities: a user-based system,” J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 229236, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [21]

    D. P. Varady, “Predicting satisfaction in public housing,” J. Archit. Plan. Res., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 181192, 2004.

  • [22]

    W. F. E. Preiser and J. Vischer, Eds. Assessing Building Performance, 1st ed. Amsterdam; New York: Routledge, 2004.

  • [23]

    C. J. Roberts, D. J. Edwards, M. R. Hosseini, M. Mateo-Garcia, and D.-G. Owusu-Manu, “Post-occupancy evaluation: a review of literature,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 20842106, Sep. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2018-0390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [24]

    H. Sanoff, “School Building Assessment Methods,” National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 1090 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC, 005904, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448588. Accessed: Jul. 09, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [25]

    S.-S. Kim, I.-H. Yang, M.-S. Yeo, and K.-W. Kim, “Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in Korea,” Build. Environ., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 11031116, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.09.014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [26]

    M. O. Sanni-Anibire, M. A. Hassanain, and A.-M. Al-Hammad, “Post-occupancy evaluation of housing facilities: overview and summary of methods,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 30, no. 5, p. 04016009, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [27]

    Ö. Özer, S. Sop, and U. Avci, “A comparison of museum visitors’ expectations within the context of faith tourism,” in Proceedings of the international conference on religious tourism and tolerance, Konya, Turkey, May 2013, pp. 5765.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [28]

    G. Manolopoulou and I. Mavrommati, “Museum takes a walk: an outlook on new trends,” in DeMuCiV – Thales Research Program – University of Thessaly, 2011-2015. “DeMuCiV: Designing the Museum of the City of Volos: Historical Research and Development of Innovative Interactive Content for the Dissemination of Knowledge, Volos, Greece: the Laboratory of Environmental Communication and Audiovisual Documentation (EPEOT-LECAD), Jan. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/42683437/MUSEUM_TAKES_A_WALK_AN_OUTLOOK_ON_NEW_TRENDS. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [29]

    N. H. Phu, L. A. Tuan, L. D. Toan, and H. T. P. Yen, “Assessment of tourist satisfaction in Da Nang museum, Vietnam,” Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 115, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [30]

    J. G. Brida, M. Disegna, and R. Scuderi, “Visitors of two types of museums: a segmentation study,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 22242232, May 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.10.039.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [31]

    C.-W. Sheng and M.-C. Chen, “A study of experience expectations of museum visitors,” Tour. Manag., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5360, Feb. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [32]

    M. E. Cho and M. J. Kim, “Measurement of user emotion and experience in interaction with space,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 99106, Jan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.16.99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [33]

    G. Del Chiappa, L. Andreu, and M. G. Gallarza, “Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum,” Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 420431, Sep. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2014-0024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [34]

    A. M. Salama, N. A. Salingaros, and L. MacLean, “A multimodal appraisal of Zaha Hadid's Glasgow Riverside museum—criticism, performance evaluation, and habitability,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 173, Jan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [35]

    S. H. Rahim, A. H. Nawawi, K. Sahray, and S. Mustafar, “A review on the technical performance criteria of post occupancy evaluation (POE) of refurbished heritage museum buildings,” J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 12, pp. 43494355, Jan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3923/jeasci.2017.4349.4355.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [36]

    H. Sharif-Askari and B. Abu-Hijleh, “Review of museums’ indoor environment conditions studies and guidelines and their impact on the museums’ artifacts and energy consumption,” Build. Environ., vol. 143, pp. 186195, Oct. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [37]

    G. Litti, A. Audenaert, and K. Fabbri, “Indoor Microclimate Quality (IMQ) certification in heritage and museum buildings: the case study of Vleeshuis museum in Antwerp,” Build. Environ., vol. 124, pp. 478491, Nov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [38]

    A. Martinez-Molina, P. Boarin, I. Tort-Ausina, and J.-L. Vivancos, “Assessing visitors’ thermal comfort in historic museum buildings: results from a Post-Occupancy Evaluation on a case study,” Build. Environ., vol. 132, pp. 291302, Mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [39]

    P. Hatchfield, “Crack, warp, shrink, flake—a new look at conservation standards,” Mus. January—February Am. Alliance Mus. Wash. DC USA, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [40]

    H. Elkadi, S. Al-Maiyah, K. Fielder, I. Kenawy, and D. B. Martinson, “The regulations and reality of indoor environmental standards for objects and visitors in museums,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 152, p. 111653, Dec. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111653.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [41]

    R. Hyde and J. Davidson, “A post occupancy evaluation (POE) of lark quarry trackways building and shelter, Winton, Queensland,” in The Proceedings of ANZAScA Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, 2007. Deakin University, Geelong: The Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), 2007. [Online]. Available: https://archscience.org/paper/a-post-occupancy-evaluation-poe-of-lark-quarry-trackways-building-and-shelter-winton-queensland/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [42]

    H. Müller, “Energy efficient museum buildings,” Renew. Energy, vol. 49, Jan. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.025.

  • [43]

    P. Aderonmu, A. Adesipo, E. Erebor, R. Adeniji, and O. Ediae, “Assessment of daylighting designs in the selected museums of South-West Nigeria: a focus on the integrated relevant energy efficiency features,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 640, p. 012034, Nov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/640/1/012034.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [44]

    D. D'Orazio, F. Montoschi, and M. Garai, “Acoustic comfort in highly attended museums: a dynamical model,” Build. Environ., vol. 183, p. 107176, Oct. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [45]

    C. Goulding, “The museum environment and the visitor experience,” Eur. J. Mark., vol. 34, no. 3/4, pp. 261278, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010311849.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [46]

    M. Alshamaileh, A. Aburumman, T. Kumail, and A. Abu Rumman, “Physical environment of museums and visitors' satisfaction: a case study of five museums in Sharjah,” PalArchs J. Archaeol. Egypt Egyptol., vol. 17, p. 712, Nov. 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [47]

    H. Zhang, P.-C. Chang, and M.-F. Tsai, “How physical environment impacts visitors’ behavior in learning-based tourism—the example of technology museum,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 11, Art. no. 11, Nov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113880.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [48]

    J.-H. Jeong and K.-H. Lee, “The physical environment in museums and its effects on visitors’ satisfaction,” Build. Environ., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 963969, Jul. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [49]

    C. Chen and H. Shi, “A study of service quality and satisfaction for museums: taking the national museum of prehistory as an example,” J. Hum. Resour. Adult Learn., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 159170, 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [50]

    Y.-S. Chang and J. Wu-Haw, “The assessment factors for museum digital guide system design - from user experience and perception,” Int. J. Commun. Media Stud. IJCMS, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 724, Apr. 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [51]

    M. Hirose and T. Tanikawa, “Overview of the digital museum project,” in Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry, in VRCAI’10. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2010, pp. 1116. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900179.1900181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [52]

    T. Villani, “Materials and technical solutions for wayfinding in museums,” TECHNE – J. Technol. Archit. Environ., pp. 289298, Apr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-23000.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [53]

    M. Bideci and T. Albayrak, “An investigation of the domestic and foreign tourists’ museum visit experiences,” Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 366377, Oct. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-02-2018-0029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [54]

    J. Bermudez and B. Ro, “The Experience of President Lincoln’s Cottage: Results of a Museum Focused Post-Occupancy Evaluation Survey,” President Lincoln’s Cottage, Washington, DC, Executive Summary and Visitor Impact Study Report, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjf4Jf3u4SAAxUNTKQEHYOuCNUQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lincolncottage.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2FExec-Summary-and-Visitor-Impact-Study-Report_2018.pdf&usg=AOvVaw08FNQU1BeS-OE8JCyesl8b&opi=89978449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [55]

    CCG – Consolidated Consultants Group,” 2021. https://www.group-cc.com/pages/Project_details.aspx?ProjectId=131. Accessed: Jun. 22, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [56]

    F. Almeida, “Strategies to perform a mixed methods study,” Eur. J. Educ. Stud., vol. 5, no. 1, Art. no. 0, Aug. 2018. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1902.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [57]

    A. O’Cathain, E. Murphy, and J. Nicholl, “Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies,” BMJ, vol. 341, p. c4587, Sep. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [58]

    L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297334, Sep. 1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [59]

    J. A. Gliem and R. R. Gliem, “Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-type Scales,” Presented at the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus: Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 2003, pp. 8288. [Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [60]

    M. A. Hassanain and A. Iftikhar, “Framework model for post-occupancy evaluation of school facilities,” Struct. Surv., vol. 33, no. 4/5, pp. 322336, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-06-2015-0029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor-in-Chief: Ákos, LakatosUniversity of Debrecen, Hungary

Founder, former Editor-in-Chief (2011-2020): Ferenc Kalmár, University of Debrecen, Hungary

Founding Editor: György Csomós, University of Debrecen, Hungary

Associate Editor: Derek Clements Croome, University of Reading, UK

Associate Editor: Dezső Beke, University of Debrecen, Hungary

Editorial Board

  • Mohammad Nazir AHMAD, Institute of Visual Informatics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

    Murat BAKIROV, Center for Materials and Lifetime Management Ltd., Moscow, Russia

    Nicolae BALC, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Umberto BERARDI, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada

    Ildikó BODNÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Sándor BODZÁS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Fatih Mehmet BOTSALI, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey

    Samuel BRUNNER, Empa Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    István BUDAI, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Constantin BUNGAU, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Shanshan CAI, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

    Michele De CARLI, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Robert CERNY, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Erdem CUCE, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

    György CSOMÓS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Tamás CSOKNYAI, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Anna FORMICA, IASI National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Alexandru GACSADI, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Eugen Ioan GERGELY, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Janez GRUM, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Géza HUSI, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Ghaleb A. HUSSEINI, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Nikolay IVANOV, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Antal JÁRAI, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

    Gudni JÓHANNESSON, The National Energy Authority of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

    László KAJTÁR, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Ferenc KALMÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Tünde KALMÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Milos KALOUSEK, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republik

    Jan KOCI, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Vaclav KOCI, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Imre KOCSIS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Imre KOVÁCS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Angela Daniela LA ROSA, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Éva LOVRA, Univeqrsity of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Elena LUCCHI, Eurac Research, Institute for Renewable Energy, Bolzano, Italy

    Tamás MANKOVITS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Igor MEDVED, Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Ligia MOGA, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Marco MOLINARI, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Henrieta MORAVCIKOVA, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Phalguni MUKHOPHADYAYA, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

    Balázs NAGY, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    Husam S. NAJM, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

    Jozsef NYERS, Subotica Tech College of Applied Sciences, Subotica, Serbia

    Bjarne W. OLESEN, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Stefan ONIGA, North University of Baia Mare, Baia Mare, Romania

    Joaquim Norberto PIRES, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    László POKORÁDI, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary

    Roman RABENSEIFER, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republik

    Mohammad H. A. SALAH, Hashemite University, Zarqua, Jordan

    Dietrich SCHMIDT, Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology IWES, Kassel, Germany

    Lorand SZABÓ, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Csaba SZÁSZ, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Ioan SZÁVA, Transylvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania

    Péter SZEMES, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Edit SZŰCS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Radu TARCA, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Zsolt TIBA, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    László TÓTH, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    László TÖRÖK, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Anton TRNIK, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia

    Ibrahim UZMAY, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Andrea VALLATI, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    Tibor VESSELÉNYI, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Nalinaksh S. VYAS, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India

    Deborah WHITE, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Address of the institute: Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen
H-4028 Debrecen, Ótemető u. 2-4. Hungary
Email: irase@eng.unideb.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • DOAJ
  • ERIH PLUS
  • Google Scholar
  • ProQuest
  • SCOPUS
  • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory

 

2023  
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.249
Scimago Quartile Score Architecture (Q2)
Engineering (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Environmental Engineering (Q3)
Information Systems (Q4)
Management Science and Operations Research (Q4)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2.3
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Architecture (Q1)
General Engineering (Q2)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Environmental Engineering (Q3)
Management Science and Operations Research (Q3)
Information Systems (Q3)
 
Scopus
SNIP
0.751


International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 1100 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Limited number of full waiver available. Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2010
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Debreceni Egyetem
Founder's
Address
H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary Egyetem tér 1
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-0810 (Print)
ISSN 2063-4269 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Feb 2024 0 778 62
Mar 2024 0 652 54
Apr 2024 0 296 40
May 2024 0 174 45
Jun 2024 0 136 28
Jul 2024 0 52 17
Aug 2024 0 0 0