Priorities in Croatian School Building Maintenance: A Comparison of the Main Stakeholders’ Views
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Previous Research
2. Materials and Methods
- 1 = not urgent at all;
- 2 = not urgent;
- 3 = fair;
- 4 = urgent;
- 5 = very urgent.
3. Results and Discussion
Testing of Statistical Hypotheses
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xaba, M.I. A qualitative analysis of facilities maintenance—A school governance function in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Educ. 2012, 32, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, C.Y.; Sulieman, M.Z. Assessment of building maintenance management practice and occupant satisfaction of school buildings in Perak, Malaysia. J. Teknol. 2015, 75, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, J.; Amoroso, J.; Gresham, J. Why Education Infrastructure Matters for Learning. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/why-education-infrastructure-matters-learning (accessed on 5 June 2023).
- Tijanić Štrok, K. Development of the Model for Efficient Maintenance Management of Public Educational Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek, Osijek, Croatia, October 2021. (In Croatian). [Google Scholar]
- Fertika, D.Y.; Sowiyah, S.; Hariri, H. Procurement and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure in inclusive schools. Int. J. Educ. Stud. Soc. Sci. 2022, 2, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herath, N.; Duffield, C.; Zhang, L. Public-school infrastructure ageing and current challenges in maintenance. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 2023, 29, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izobo-Martins, O.O.; Ekhaese, E.N.; Ayo-Vaghan, E.O.; Olotuah, A.O. Assessing Users’ Perceptions of the Current Maintenance Disorder of Public Secondary School in Ogun, Nigeria. J. Build. Constr. Plan. Res. 2018, 6, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olanrewaju, A.L.; Abdul-Aziz, A.R. Building Maintenance Processes and Practices: The Case of a Fast Developing Country; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Besiktepe, D.; Ozbek, M.E.; Atadero, R.A. Identification of the criteria for building maintenance decisions in facility management: First step to developing a multi-criteria decision-making approach. Buildings 2020, 10, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tijanić Štrok, K.; Marenjak, S.; Car-Pušić, D. Analysis of the Current Maintenance Management Process in School Buildings: Study Area of Primorje-Gorski Kotar County, Republic of Croatia. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 84, 912326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ElSamadony, A.; Hossny, O.; ElHakeem, A.; Hussein, D. An Asset Management System for Maintenance and Repair of Educational Buildings. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2013, 4, 2053–2064. [Google Scholar]
- Izobo-Martins, O.O. Maintenance Strategies and Condition of Public Secondary School Buildings in Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area Ogun State, Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria, November 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alzaben, H. Development of a Maintenance Management Framework to Facilitate the Delivery of Healthcare Provisions in the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia. Ph.D. Thesis, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mong, S.G.; Mohamed, S.F.; Misnan, M.S. Maintenance management model: An identification of key elements for value-based maintenance management by local authority. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olanrewaju, A.L.; Fang, W.W.; Tan, Y.S. Hospital building maintenance management model. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 2, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, A.T.H.; Domingo, N.; Rasheed, E.; Park, K. Maturity model of building maintenance management for New Zealand’s state schools. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 50, 438–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.C.; Almassy, R.; Wei, H.H.; Shohet, I.M. Integrated Building Maintenance and Safety Framework: Educational and Public Facilities Case Study. Buildings 2022, 12, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saraiva, T.; De Almeida, M.; Bragança, L.; Barbosa, M. Environmental Comfort Indicators for School Buildings in Sustainability Assessment Tools. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Katić, D.; Krstić, H.; Marenjak, S. Energy performance of school buildings by construction periods in federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Buildings 2021, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandiver, B. The Impact of School Facilities on the Learning Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, January 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, P.; Davies, F.; Zhang, Y.; Barrett, L. The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Build. Environ. 2015, 89, 118–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cerić, A.; Katavić, M. Building maintenance management. Građevinar 2000, 53, 83–89. (In Croatian) [Google Scholar]
- Cavalcante, C.A.V.; Alencar, M.H.; Lopes, R.S. Multicriteria model to support maintenance planning in residential complexes under warranty. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nik-Mat, N.E.M.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Pitt, M. Assessing the maintenance aspect of facilities management through a performance measurement system: A Malaysian case study. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olanrewaju, A.L. Revealing the service gaps in building maintenance service delivery: Balancing providers’ perspectives with users’ perspectives. Int. J. Built Environ. Asset Manag. 2013, 1, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abisuga, A.O.; Oshodi, S. Stakeholders’ Participation in University Campus Facilities Maintenance: An e-Maintenance Approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 IAJCISAM International Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 25–27 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lavy, S.; Bilbo, D.L. Facilities maintenance management practices in large public schools, Texas. Facilities 2009, 27, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, V.W.; Fung, I.W.; Choi, R.C. Maintenance priority setting for private residential buildings in Hong Kong. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04016115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wing, A.C.K.; bin Mohammed, A.H.; bin Abdullah, M.N. A literature review on maintenance priority-conceptual framework and directions. MATEC Web Conf. 2016, 66, 00004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osaro, N.G.; Wokekoro, E. Stakeholders roles in improving the current state of public secondary schools infrastructure in Rivers State, Nigeria. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Invent. 2018, 5, 4503–4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ampofo, J.A.; Nassè, T.B.; Amoah, S.T.; Peprah, K. Stakeholders responsibilities in public SHS buildings maintenance practices in the Wa Municipality. Int. J. Manag. Entrep. Res. 2020, 2, 109–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olanrewaju, A.L.; Tan, W.X. An artificial neural network analysis of the satisfaction of hospital building maintenance services. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Budapest, Hungary, 28–30 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Lavy, S.; Garcia, J.A.; Dixit, M.K. KPIs for facility’s performance assessment, Part I: Identification and categorization of core indicators. Facilities 2014, 32, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusof, N.A.; Abdullah, S.; Zubedy, S.; Najib, N.U.M. Residents’ maintenance priorities preference: The case of public housing in Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 62, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Au-Yong, C.P.; Chua, S.J.L.; Ali, A.S.; Tucker, M. Optimising maintenance cost by prioritising maintenance of facilities services in residential buildings. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1593–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noaman, M.A.A.A.A.; Mohammed, S.R. Application Innovation Strategy for Digital Maintenance Management of School Building in Iraq. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 2023–2035. [Google Scholar]
- Preiser, W.F.E.; Vischer, J.C. Assessing Building Performance; Edition Butterworth-Heinemann: Great Britain, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mossel, H.J.V.; Jansen, S.J.T. Maintenance services in social housing: What do residents find important? Struct. Surv. 2010, 28, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Primorsko-Goranska Županija. Decision on the Criteria, Benchmarks and Method of Financing the Minimum Financial Standard for Decentralized Functions of Elementary and Secondary Education in 2022. 2022. Available online: http://www.sn.pgz.hr/default.asp?Link=odluke&id=44623 (accessed on 29 May 2023). (In Croatian).
- Bakri, N.N.O.; Mydin, M.A.O. General building defects: Causes, symptoms and remedial work. Eur. J. Technol. Des. 2014, 3, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
- Mydin, M.O.; Salim, N.A.; Tan, S.W.; Tawil, N.M.; Ulang, N.M. Assessment of significant causes to school building defects. E3S Web Conf. 2014, 3, 01002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ismail, I.; Ani, A.I.C.; Razak, M.Z.A.; Tawil, N.M.; Johar, S. Common building defects in new terrace houses. J. Teknol. 2015, 75, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bedru, M.A. Study of Construction Defects in Public Building Projects in Addis Ababa (A Case study of Federal Government Office Building Projects). Master’s Thesis, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Linggar, S.; Aminullah, A.; Triwiyono, A. Analysis of building and its components condition assessment case study of dormitory buildings. MATEC Web Conf. 2019, 258, 03003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paton-Cole, V.P.; Aibinu, A.A. Construction defects and disputes in low-rise residential buildings. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2021, 13, 05020016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasho, T.T.; Alemu, S.K. Assessment of public building defects and maintenance practices: Cases in Mettu town, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adebayo, O.O.; Osmond, I.C. A search for an acceptable margin of valuation error: A case study of valuers and their clients in Nigeria. Sri Lankan J. Estate 2010, 4, 54–73. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, A.S.; Chua, S.J.L.; Ali, D.B.A. Issues and challenges faced by government office buildings in performing maintenance work. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kušljić, D. Determination of Criteria for Evaluating the Success of Public-Private Partnership Construction Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Civil Engineering Osijek, Osijek, Croatia, July 2012. (In Croatian). [Google Scholar]
- Wackerly, D.D.; Mendenhall, W.; Scheaffer, R.L. Mathematical Statistics with Applications, 7th ed.; Cengage Learning: Belmont, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Šopić, M.; Car-Pušić, D. Statistical Data Analysis of Weather Conditions Aiming at Determining the Mathematical Expectation of Construction Site Delays in Rijeka Within a Monthly Period. Zb. Rad. 2018, 21, 67–85. (In Croatian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krstić, H.; Marenjak, S. Analysis of buildings operation and maintenance costs. Građevinar 2012, 64, 293–303. [Google Scholar]
- Krstić, H.; Marenjak, S. Maintenance and operation costs model for university buildings. Teh. Vjesn. 2017, 24 (Suppl. S1), 193–200. [Google Scholar]
- Tijanić Štrok, K.; Car-Pušić, D.; Marenjak, S. Elementary School Buildings Condition Assessment: Case of Primorje-Gorski Kotar County (Croatia). Adv. Civ. Archit. Eng. 2023, 14, 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Group Number | Building Element Group (Building Elements) | Defect Number | Defect | References that Support the Choice of a Particular Defect |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Structural (bearing walls, pillars, beams, floor and mezzanine panels, roof construction, stairs) | 1.1. | Deep cracks | [41,43,45] |
1.2. | Surface cracks | [40,41,43,45,46] | ||
1.3. | Peeling/chipping | [43,46] | ||
1.4. | Moisture in elements | [40,41,42,43] | ||
1.5. | Exposed reinforcement | [43] | ||
1.6. | Buckling/twisting | [4] | ||
2. | Architectural (flooring, wall and ceiling coverings, roof coverings, partition walls, gutters, façade, windows and doors, furniture and equipment, external environment) | 2.1. | Damaged floor coverings | [8,34,41,43,44,45,46] |
2.2. | Damaged wall and ceiling coverings | [8,34,41,42,43,46] | ||
2.3. | Damaged roof coverings | [38,39,41,43,45,46] | ||
2.4. | Damaged partition walls | [8,42,43,44,45] | ||
2.5. | Damaged gutters | [8,38,41,43,46] | ||
2.6. | Damaged facade | [38,43,44] | ||
2.7. | Broken windows and doors | [8,34,38,39,43,44,45,46] | ||
2.8. | Damaged sashes, frames, or locks on doors and windows | [8,34,38,39,43,46] | ||
2.9. | Damaged furniture or equipment | [8] | ||
2.10. | Damage to the external environment | [24,35,38] | ||
3. | Electrical (electric wires, switchboard, lighting fixtures, switches, sockets, lightning rod) | 3.1. | Faulty electrical wiring | [8,24,34,39,43,44,46] |
3.2. | Faulty switchboard | [8,24,34,39,43,44,46] | ||
3.3. | Faulty lighting fixtures | [8,24,44] | ||
3.4. | Faulty switches | [8,34,43,44] | ||
3.5. | Faulty sockets | [8,34,43,44] | ||
3.6. | Faulty lightning rod | [4,44] | ||
4. | Mechanical (sanitary equipment, plumbing and sewage installations, space heating system, space cooling system, hot water heating system, chimney, fire protection system, elevator) | 4.1. | Faulty toilets | [8,34,38,43] |
4.2. | Faulty sinks | [8,34,43,46] | ||
4.3. | Faulty plumbing installations | [8,34,35,38,39,44,46] | ||
4.4. | Faulty sewage installations | [8,34,39,44,46] | ||
4.5. | Faulty space cooling system | [8,24,43] | ||
4.6. | Faulty space heating system | [38,39,43] | ||
4.7. | Faulty hot water heating system | [8,38] | ||
4.8. | Damaged chimney | [4] | ||
4.9. | Faulty fire protection system | [8,35,43,44,46] | ||
4.10. | Malfunctioning elevator | [8,24,35,43] |
Examined Stakeholders | Examined Population Number | Response Number | Margin of Error (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Experts | 147 | 76 | 7.86 |
School staff | 87,346 | 338 | 5.32 |
Students | 27,621 | 297 | 5.66 |
Defect Number | Experts | Schools Staff | Students | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | St. Dev. | Rank | Mean | St. Dev. | Rank | Mean | St. Dev. | Rank | |
1. Structural elements | |||||||||
1.1. | 4.6579 | 0.7221 | 5 | 4.4408 | 1.1048 | 7 | 3.7980 | 1.2891 | 20 |
1.2. | 3.7368 | 0.8850 | 25 | 3.5917 | 1.0917 | 28 | 2.8923 | 1.1037 | 31 |
1.3. | 4.1711 | 0.8701 | 17 | 4.0740 | 1.1152 | 19 | 3.5017 | 1.1972 | 26 |
1.4. | 4.2763 | 0.6653 | 15 | 4.3254 | 1.0165 | 15 | 3.9798 | 1.1938 | 12 |
1.5. | 4.5526 | 0.7553 | 7 | 4.2160 | 1.2484 | 17 | 3.7643 | 1.3846 | 21 |
1.6. | 4.7763 | 0.6450 | 2 | 4.3787 | 1.2077 | 12 | 3.9495 | 1.3384 | 13 |
Average | 4.3618 | 0.7571 | 3 | 4.1711 | 1.1307 | 3 | 3.6476 | 1.2511 | 3 |
2. Architectural elements | |||||||||
2.1. | 3.8816 | 0.8939 | 23 | 3.9615 | 1.0343 | 23 | 3.6566 | 1.0951 | 25 |
2.2. | 3.9342 | 0.8056 | 22 | 4.0000 | 1.0619 | 21 | 3.6768 | 1.1726 | 23 |
2.3. | 4.5000 | 0.8246 | 9 | 4.4911 | 1.0110 | 5 | 4.1414 | 1.2814 | 8 |
2.4. | 3.4605 | 0.8237 | 27 | 3.7604 | 1.1132 | 26 | 3.3636 | 1.2175 | 27 |
2.5. | 4.0000 | 1.0583 | 20 | 3.9734 | 1.1436 | 22 | 3.0909 | 1.3107 | 28 |
2.6. | 3.6053 | 0.9944 | 26 | 3.3018 | 1.1259 | 31 | 2.7609 | 1.2137 | 32 |
2.7. | 4.5789 | 0.7876 | 6 | 4.3757 | 1.2461 | 13 | 4.1448 | 1.3491 | 7 |
2.8. | 4.0789 | 0.9628 | 18 | 4.1361 | 1.0782 | 18 | 3.8855 | 1.1799 | 16 |
2.9. | 3.2763 | 0.9605 | 28 | 3.6893 | 1.0512 | 27 | 3.6734 | 1.1048 | 24 |
2.10. | 3.1842 | 1.0919 | 29 | 3.4645 | 1.1505 | 30 | 2.9798 | 1.1652 | 30 |
Average | 3.8500 | 0,9203 | 4 | 3.9154 | 1.1016 | 4 | 3.5374 | 1.2090 | 4 |
3. Electrical elements | |||||||||
3.1. | 4.7895 | 0.6179 | 1 | 4.5621 | 1.0965 | 2 | 4.2896 | 1.3063 | 4 |
3.2. | 4.7895 | 0.6179 | 1 | 4.5503 | 1.1132 | 3 | 4.0808 | 1.3432 | 10 |
3.3. | 3.9605 | 0.9157 | 21 | 4.0503 | 1.0537 | 20 | 3.8283 | 1.2000 | 17 |
3.4. | 4.3816 | 0.8636 | 14 | 4.3491 | 1.0933 | 14 | 4.0000 | 1.2628 | 11 |
3.5. | 4.4605 | 0.9010 | 10 | 4.4112 | 1.0672 | 9 | 4.1044 | 1.1965 | 9 |
3.6. | 4.3947 | 0.8339 | 13 | 4.2544 | 1.2206 | 16 | 3.8081 | 1.4143 | 19 |
Average | 4.4627 | 0.7916 | 1 | 4.3629 | 1.1074 | 1 | 4.0185 | 1.2872 | 1 |
4. Mechanical elements | |||||||||
4.1. | 4.5263 | 0.8079 | 8 | 4.4911 | 0.9812 | 5 | 4.4848 | 1.0720 | 1 |
4.2. | 4.4079 | 0.8821 | 12 | 4.3935 | 0.9815 | 10 | 4.2189 | 1.1636 | 6 |
4.3. | 4.7368 | 0.6999 | 3 | 4.5207 | 1.0455 | 4 | 4.2694 | 1.2336 | 5 |
4.4. | 4.7105 | 0.7083 | 4 | 4.5680 | 1.0688 | 1 | 4.3266 | 1.2805 | 3 |
4.5. | 3.8421 | 0.9100 | 24 | 3.8225 | 1.1340 | 25 | 3.8215 | 1.2018 | 18 |
4.6. | 4.4474 | 0.7375 | 11 | 4.4201 | 1.0455 | 8 | 4.3906 | 1.0977 | 2 |
4.7. | 4.1842 | 0.8280 | 16 | 3.9083 | 1.1532 | 24 | 3.9158 | 1.1133 | 15 |
4.8. | 4.7105 | 0.6494 | 4 | 4.3905 | 1.2331 | 11 | 3.7037 | 1.3997 | 22 |
4.9. | 4.7105 | 0.6696 | 4 | 4.4527 | 1.1527 | 6 | 3.9428 | 1.3853 | 14 |
4.10. | 4.0263 | 1.1072 | 19 | 3.5799 | 1.3698 | 29 | 3.0370 | 1.4244 | 29 |
Average | 4.4303 | 0.8000 | 2 | 4.2547 | 1.1165 | 2 | 4.0111 | 1.2372 | 2 |
Indicator | Experts | School Staff | Students | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
median | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
rank sum | 29,686.5 | 126,516 | 96,913.5 | |
count | 76 | 338 | 297 | 711 |
r2/n | 11,595,898 | 47,355,912 | 31,623,658.19 | 90,575,469 |
H-stat | 11.05041 | |||
H-ties | 20.26941 | |||
df | 2 | |||
p-value | 3.97 × 10−5 | |||
alpha | 0.05 | |||
sig | yes |
Indicator | Experts | School Staff | Experts | Students | School Staff | Students |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
count | 76 | 338 | 76 | 297 | 338 | 297 |
median | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
rank sum | 16,322.5 | 69,582.5 | 16,290 | 53,461 | 114,224.5 | 87,705.5 |
U | 12,291.5 | 13,396.5 | 9208 | 13,364 | 43,452.5 | 56,933.5 |
one tail | two tail | one tail | two tail | one tail | two tail | |
U | 12,291.5 | 9208 | 43,452.5 | |||
mean | 12,844 | 11,286 | 50,193 | |||
std dev | 618.5474 | ties | 662.952 | ties | 1731.068 | ties |
z-score | 0.893222 | 3.134465 | 3.893839 | |||
effect r | 0.043899 | 0.162296 | 0.154522 | |||
p-value | 0.185869 | 0.371738 | 0.000861 | 0.001722 | 4.93 × 10−5 | 9.87 × 10−5 |
sig | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Defect Number | Kruskal–Wallis Test | Mann–Whitney Test | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experts—School Staff | Experts—Students | School Staff—Students | ||||||
p-Value (p < 0.05) | H0 Is Rejected (Yes/No) | p-Value (p < 0.017) | H0 Is Rejected (Yes/No) | p-Value (p < 0.017) | H0 is Rejected (Yes/No) | p-Value (p < 0.017) | H0 Is Rejected (Yes/No) | |
1. Structural elements | ||||||||
1.1. | <0.001 | yes | 0.342 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
1.2. | <0.001 | yes | 0.401 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
1.3. | <0.001 | yes | 0.988 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
1.4. | <0.001 | yes | 0.029 | no | 0.371 | no | <0.001 | yes |
1.5. | <0.001 | yes | 0.214 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
1.6. | <0.001 | yes | 0.008 | yes | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
2. Architectural elements | ||||||||
2.1. | 0.001 | yes | 0.285 | no | 0.173 | no | <0.001 | yes |
2.2. | 0.001 | yes | 0.188 | no | 0.259 | no | <0.001 | yes |
2.3. | <0.001 | yes | 0.324 | no | 0.072 | no | <0.001 | yes |
2.4. | <0.001 | yes | 0.002 | yes | 0.745 | no | <0.001 | yes |
2.5. | <0.001 | yes | 0.928 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
2.6. | <0.001 | yes | 0.043 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
2.7. | 0.004 | yes | 0.951 | no | 0.039 | no | 0.002 | yes |
2.8. | 0.012 | yes | 0.319 | no | 0.347 | no | 0.003 | yes |
2.9. | 0.002 | yes | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes | 0.919 | no |
2.10. | <0.001 | yes | 0.048 | no | 0.136 | no | <0.001 | yes |
3. Electrical elements | ||||||||
3.1. | <0.001 | yes | 0.372 | no | 0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
3.2. | <0.001 | yes | 0.386 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
3.3. | 0.058 | no | 0.181 | no | 0.822 | no | 0.023 | no |
3.4. | <0.001 | yes | 0.574 | no | 0.031 | no | <0.001 | yes |
3.5. | <0.001 | yes | 0.959 | no | 0.012 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
3.6. | <0.001 | yes | 0.720 | no | 0.006 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
4. Mechanical elements | ||||||||
4.1. | 0.539 | no | 0.522 | no | 0.269 | no | 0.523 | no |
4.2. | 0.177 | no | 0.636 | no | 0.479 | no | 0.064 | no |
4.3. | <0.001 | yes | 0.200 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
4.4. | 0.001 | yes | 0.850 | no | 0.050 | no | <0.001 | yes |
4.5. | 0.841 | no | 0.747 | no | 0.539 | no | 0.750 | no |
4.6. | 0.373 | no | 0.178 | no | 0.194 | no | 0.984 | no |
4.7. | 0.304 | no | 0.149 | no | 0.134 | no | 0.935 | no |
4.8. | <0.001 | yes | 0.347 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
4.9. | <0.001 | yes | 0.404 | no | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
4.10. | <0.001 | yes | 0.013 | yes | <0.001 | yes | <0.001 | yes |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tijanić Štrok, K.; Car-Pušić, D.; Marenjak, S. Priorities in Croatian School Building Maintenance: A Comparison of the Main Stakeholders’ Views. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511767
Tijanić Štrok K, Car-Pušić D, Marenjak S. Priorities in Croatian School Building Maintenance: A Comparison of the Main Stakeholders’ Views. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511767
Chicago/Turabian StyleTijanić Štrok, Ksenija, Diana Car-Pušić, and Saša Marenjak. 2023. "Priorities in Croatian School Building Maintenance: A Comparison of the Main Stakeholders’ Views" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511767
APA StyleTijanić Štrok, K., Car-Pušić, D., & Marenjak, S. (2023). Priorities in Croatian School Building Maintenance: A Comparison of the Main Stakeholders’ Views. Sustainability, 15(15), 11767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511767