Pandemic resiliency and flexibility assessment of dormitory buildings in the post-Covid-19 era

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic affected the education system, causing distance learning in most parts of the world. Thanks to the rapid vaccination, face-to-face instruction started again, university students returned to colleges, and dormitories were again used. To respond to the changing living conditions and ensure a healthy indoor environment, strategies for pandemic-resistant and flexible design of dormitories have been discussed, which is the focus of this article. To achieve this goal, state dormitories in Turkey, their current condition, and functional/ technical solutions were studied in detail using a four-stage methodology developed with this study, and their adaptation potential for new flexible and pandemic-resistant designs in the post-pandemic world was discussed. The research results showed that the case dormitory is unlikely to adapt to pandemic conditions in terms of pandemic resilience, flexibility, and Turkey Covid-19 Guidelines and that the methodology has the potential to be applicable to the evaluation of similar buildings.

Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic outbreak in late 2019 caused a series of changes in people's living conditions and imposed some restrictive measures such as quarantine, lockdown, and social distancing (Shamaileh, 2021). Especially in the initial stages of the outbreak, distance learning, remote access, virtual working, and partial/periodic closures, part-time/minimal/hybrid working contributed to creating limited human interaction with maximum social distancing. There are some studies have been made in this area (Dulay Yangın et al., 2021; Tleuken et al., 2022). Alternative arrangements and proposals for day and night, multiple and infrequent, and flexible and fixed use options have been developed. However, due to the right to education and for economic reasons, it is no longer possible to maintain full-distance education in schools or offices. To ensure continuity in these areas and meet social needs without interruption, the spaces used collectively after the pandemic were reopened with several new regulations and studies. These studies were primarily concerned with the re-organization/adaptation of spaces to the conditions of the pandemic and with flexible design criteria that focused mainly on the urban, architectural, construction, and technological contexts and aimed to find solutions for the new living conditions under the pressure of the pandemic. New developments in non-contact technology, new interior layouts, flexible space layouts, and alternatives, new material choices that enable healthy environments, natural lighting and ventilation alternatives (Billur & Billur, 2020), new material choices that enable healthy environments, natural lighting, and ventilation alternatives, and other HVAC solutions (Santos et al., 2020) were the most popular study areas in the search for pandemic-resistant design solutions. In addition, houses, residential areas, and their interior redesign were among the most studied topics during the pandemic (Megahed & Ghoneim, 2020; Tokazhanov et al., 2020; Zaher, 2020). In the early stages of the pandemic, countries developed their standards/guidelines for public spaces to adapt them to Covid-19 conditions. In Turkey, the Covid-19 Pandemic Management and Study Guide was also published in early 2020, and the case study dormitory complex was also assessed according to these guidelines. In addition, given the importance of social distance and density of use of spaces under pandemic conditions, a space syntax analysis is used to determine the degree of congestion.

There have also been studies on flexible design and use, the importance of which has increased rapidly with the onset of the pandemic. It has been shown that flexible design should be discussed from a completely different perspective, especially in public spaces. Therefore, new studies have been conducted on the post-pandemic transformation of public spaces such as education, health, housing, and work/office (Ak, 2020; Billur & Billur, 2020; Chayka, 2020; Giacobbe, 2020). In addition, there are few studies on the post-pandemic use of student housing, which are important public spaces with high user capacity (Ortner and Tya, 2021). Studies on the flexible and pandemic-resistant design of dormitories are also almost non-existent in Turkey. However, with the reopening of universities, the need for student housing has become a serious problem again, especially in the last quarter of 2021, and it had to be reorganized according to the pandemic conditions. It is important and necessary to provide users with the highest level of healthy environmental conditions in the dormitories that house a large number of students. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the current condition of government student dormitories in Turkey, which are designed as a typical project to accommodate a large number of students, using the method developed in this research. It also aims to evaluate their compatibility with post-pandemic conditions. The method has several evaluation parameters, including pandemic-resistant design conditions, Covid-19 guidelines, flexible design, and use approaches, and space syntax analysis to determine user density areas, all of which are explained in detail in the following sections.

Conceptual framework

Flexible design, flexible use, and pandemic-resilient space arrangements are important in achieving healthy public spaces, especially after the pandemic outbreak. Hence, these terms are defined in detail, and related literature is explained in subsequent headings.

Pandemic-resilient space design

Pandemic-resilient space design, meeting various needs of users under emergency and changing conditions, became of vital importance in the post-Covid-19 era. Researchers suggested various solutions to cope with Covid-19 infection, especially in public spaces. Among them which come first are; the development and prevalence of touchless technology, increasing use of antibacterial fabrics and finishes, creation of self-cleaning spaces (restrooms, bathrooms), introducing of smaller modular spaces, reducing the number of flat surfaces to prevent germ reproduction, and installation of ventilation systems to increase indoor air quality (Giacobbe, 2020). Open/semi-open space (garden, courtyard, terrace, balcony, veranda, flat roof, roof garden, green roof/facade) alternatives allowing natural ventilation/lighting and food production, flexible and hygienic design suggestions allowing space adjustments, conversions, alternate use possibilities, social distancing/isolation, new interior divisions, and the choice of less equipment and furniture are among the other considerations in pandemic-resilient space designs (Alter, 2020). In addition, user density, material selection, location/dimensions/ glazing type of windows, lighting spectrum, and density, as well as air circulation, natural lighting, and ventilation are to be given great importance in post-pandemic designs (Billur & Billur, 2020). Kiss and Nejati (HMC Architects, 2020) point out the importance of flexible and adaptable design in civic spaces and suggest controllable mechanical air systems such as air purge settings accompanied with temporary dividers and UV filters added to air ducts to remove stale air during the pandemic events. UV-C lamps, air renewal, proper filtration, adequate exhaust toilets, and relative humidity control are the other HVAC solutions to prevent infection in indoor spaces (Santos et al., 2020).

Megahed and Ghoneim (2020) in their research, use the term “antivirus-built environment” for the new, healthy, sustainable designs that should be created in the post-pandemic world, and examined it under four different headings including urban, architectural, construction, and digital transformations. According to them, post-pandemic housing might introduce an open space plan ensuring flexible and adaptable spaces for all users, wider corridors/doorways, and more staircases, with a reasonable amount of open space, even indoor gardens, and touchless technology. Natural ventilation, smart technologies, humidity, and light control, healthy options, suitable material selections, and cleaning technologies are the other suggestions, especially for post-pandemic office spaces ; (Alter, 2020; Ak, 2020; Muggah and Ermacora, 2020). Green spaces, low-rise, lightweight, and easily applicable building systems, adaptable, modular, and standardized constructions with hygienic building materials, artificial intelligence, decentralized, low-density urban areas with more farming opportunities, cycling, and walking facilities are the other suggestions for the creation of “antivirus-built environment” (Güneş, 2021; Megahed & Ghoneim, 2020). Smolova and Smolova (2021) point out the importance of rapid design solutions in pandemic outbreaks and similarly, suggest flexible, prefabricated modular constructions for healthcare spaces in such circumstances. Disinfection and sterilization necessities also required changes in interior space arrangements and material selections in house designs (Aşkın, 2020).

Similarly, Zaher (2020) suggests some design solutions for existing built interiors to create functionally and environmentally healthy spaces in pandemic conditions. Utilizing more partitions between the departments, Flexi-glass hood, individual greenhouse use in restaurants, easy access to open space, biophilic design, flexible space, and furniture design, increased indoor air quality, increased use of automation systems, smart and sanitize entryways, smart cleansing, hygienic building materials, and acoustically isolated room arrangements are the primary recommendations of the author to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic in the existing built environment.

Flexible design

The concept of flexibility in architecture is a universal design criterion and an indispensable part of the design process. In history, the concept of flexibility in design started with the first settlements with the need for shelter, and then because of the changing user needs it became a necessity and diversified after the twentieth century (Gök 1993; Schneider & Till, 2007). Similarly, with the pandemic outbreak by the end of 2019, the concept of flexibility has gained importance in the re-organization of existing spaces under pandemic conditions. Oxman (1975) defines flexibility as adapting to changing conditions and considers the concepts of changeability and expansion among its various design strategies. Forty (2000), on the other hand, defines flexibility as a kind of illusion that provides architects the future control of their buildings and the wealth provided against the dilemmas encountered during their use. In general, flexibility can be defined as a design approach that includes spatial and structural strategies enabling the buildings to meet the changes during any possible variations in the process. In their research on various approaches to flexibility in architectural design, İslamoğlu and Usta (2018) determined “mobility, multi-purpose use, modularity, adding/removing, neutral areas, combining/dividing, and different plan types” as the primary flexible design and use strategies. In addition, they identified that depending on the technologies and requirements developed during the process, designers might use flexibility in structural or spatial dimensions. While the approaches to provide flexibility in the structural dimension depend on the decisions made during the design process, the flexibility approaches in the spatial dimension depend on the decisions made during the use phase. Hence, in the research, flexible design and use strategies are both considered primary approaches to provide flexibility (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Flexible design and use strategies (İslamoğlu & Usta, 2018)

“Design flexibility” means that the decisions made by the designer during the planning and construction phase are available to the user. Thanks to the choices made during the design phase, the user can have different uses in terms of building, space, and equipment within the space offered to him. “Modularity” is a flexibility strategy that encompasses the design phase. Modularity is a way of grid organization in the design and allows a flexible design because, in this modular structure, different changes such as additions and removals are possible. The "neutral areas" strategy refers to vague, undefined spaces, and facilities. The "strategy of different floor plan types" means that flexibility in a spatial organization can be achieved with the help of different floor plan types. Thanks to this strategy, it becomes possible to offer a variety of suitable spaces in different sizes and shapes within one type of building, depending on the event. Similarly, the strategy of "adding/removing" means the possibility of horizontal or vertical expansions/subtractions of a building, space, and equipment depending on their design to meet changing needs.

"Use flexibility," on the other hand, means that the user does not interfere with the structural system during the use of a building. Therefore, users achieve this flexibility strategy through space and equipment. "Mobility", as one of the flexible use strategies, allows different arrangements and changeability of space and equipment according to mobility characteristics. "Combinability/divisibility" strategy means the possibility of being combined and shared. This strategy refers to the combinability of two or more units that are not large enough into one larger unit, or the divisibility of a unit that is too large into two or more units. It can be equipped with both the structural system and light partitioning elements, depending on the level to be used for flexibility. "Multipurpose use strategy" refers to multiple functions of a space that can be used by different users for different purposes, in different periods, or simultaneously. It also refers to equipment with a single function that can also perform another function.

Materials and methods

Materials: student housing (A, B, C Blocks) and social building (E Block) units in the dormitory complex

The selected case study is a dormitory complex that includes three different units/buildings with the same floor plan (I floor plan) for student housing (A, B, C Blocks) and a social building (E Block) located in the same courtyard (Fig. 2). Block C was selected as the dormitory building for the case study. All dormitory units and the social building have a separate entrance from the courtyard. The dormitory building has a rectangular main entrance hall with entrances in the center in the basement and first floor. Access to the building is from both levels due to its location on a slope. The building has six floors and the entrance hall/circulation loop is the most visited part and integrated/connected space in the design. The central entry areas on the upper floors are converted into either study spaces (second and third floors) or a masjid (fourth floor). Student rooms (Type-1, Type-2) are lined up on either side of the entrance/central hall on all floors except the basement (Fig. 3). On this floor, the student rooms are only in the south wing and two large shelters, a washroom, a cleaning room, a switchboard room, a central air conditioning room, and an office on the floor are located in the north wing. There are also emergency staircases on the east and west sides.

Fig. 2.

Exterior view of the dormitory complex

Fig. 3.

C Block ground floor plan Type-1 and Type-2 student rooms: two rooms form one module

The social building, the E Block, is entered from the first floor on the northwest side. The entrance hall has four elevators and stairs connecting all levels. The first floor consists of a large dining hall and canteen on the east wing and a kitchen with storage rooms on the west. It has a rectangular "I" floor plan. However, unlike the student apartments, the entrance hall and/or circulation loops protrude from the main building in the center of the north façade. The first basement level contains a large laundry room, storage, boiler room, and furnace room, while the second basement level is for housing. Administrative units are located in the west wing, workshops in the east wing with a large circulation in the center and, a large study room/youth office on the second floor. The conference hall and the masjid are on the second floor with a central hall (foyer). So in E Block, there are two separate but at the same time interconnected circuits. One is the hall where the stairs and elevators are located, and the other is a large foyer between the east and west wings of the building (Figs. 4, 5).

Fig. 4.

E Block ground floor plan

Fig. 5.

E Block second floor plan

Methods

In this study, a four-stage methodology is developed to first identify and analyze the current condition and then evaluate the suitability of student housing built by the state in Turkey for pandemic conditions. It is tested on a student dormitory complex in the Central Anatolian region of Turkey that opened in September 2021 to accommodate college students, and the results of the assessment have been detailed accordingly. The case study dormitory complex was completed during the pandemic. The objective of this research was also to investigate whether the pandemic changed the built environment of student housing, and if so, what kind of changes and new features are observed in this new post-pandemic era. Pandemic-resistant design assessments, flexible design assessments, space syntax analyzes, and assessments according to compatibility with Covid-19 guidelines are the basic parameters of the analysis methodology. In the first step, the criteria for pandemic-resistant space design were established, again based on a thorough literature review, and the assessments were made under four main headings: urban context, architectural context, built context, and digital transformation (Fig. 3). The Covid-19 guidelines and their specific section on dormitory buildings are adopted in the research as the second assessment step (Table 1). In the third step, a detailed literature review was used to identify flexible design criteria and the basic approaches to provide flexibility in dormitories. The case study building was evaluated for design flexibility (modularity, alternative spaces, different floor plan types/variety, ability to grow/shrink) and use flexibility (mobility, combination/division, multi-purpose use) (Fig. 3). Syntactic analysis was another method used during the study to determine the potential congestion in different spaces and the relationships between use capacity and space. The spatial syntax is a method that includes all the representation, measurement, and evaluation techniques to understand the relationship between social life and space, from building scale to settlement scale, to describe and analyze the relational and configurational characteristics of the built environment (Hillier & Hanson, 1984). Given the existing literature on the use of spatial syntax and flexibility analysis to study existing buildings, this step of the method aims to represent the spatial models concretely with graphical expressions on the floor plan diagrams (Dawes et al. 2021). The collected information is then analyzed through computerized measurements that focus on the characteristics of the spatial structures such as their positions in the whole and their relationships with all other spaces in the system (Sanlı, 2009). In the context of the study, the connectivity analysis is used to determine the spaces with high mobility and heavy congestion level in the spatial organization of the dormitory complex of the case study. The main factors that influenced the choice of these four different but interrelated methods in developing the proposed methodology for this study are explained below:

Table 1.

Space re-organization principles in student public dormitories under Covid-19 conditions (T.R. Ministry of Health, 2020)

• Compatibility with the requirements set forth in the Covid-19 guidelines is considered important in evaluating pandemic-safe space design,

• Given the importance of flexibility under pandemic conditions and since flexibility is also a part of pandemic-safe space design, it is assumed that both design and flexibility of use will be evaluated,

• Since reducing user density in rooms under pandemic conditions is one of the most important requirements for preventing/spreading infection, the areas where density and congestion are high could be identified thanks to the space syntax analysis.

Results and discussion

In this study, thanks to the extensive literature review, on-site observation, interviews, and computer modeling, data were compiled and assessments were made based on a four-step proposed methodology. The results of the four different stages are explained under different headings: pandemic-resilient design criteria, Covid-19 guidelines, flexible design criteria, and space syntax analysis.

Compatibility with the pandemic-resilient design criteria

In this part of the study, the example dormitory complex, which was just completed in 2021, was evaluated for its compatibility with the pandemic-resilient design criteria discussed in detail in the previous section. The dormitory complex, C Block, E Block, and their various spatial organizations were evaluated separately according to urban context, architectural context, building context, and digital transformation parameters and according to the criteria listed in Table 1:

• The Dormitory Complex—Urban Context the dormitory complex is located in the Central Anatolian region of Turkey. Although the city where the dormitory complex was built is mostly flat areas, the dormitory is located in a hilly region. The dormitories are located almost at the highest points of the campus. Public transportation/buses at certain intervals are the only way for students to reach the faculty buildings on the lower floors of the campus. Walking is another alternative, but given the sloping terrain, students do not prefer walking. Bicycling is not a possible transportation alternative, although it is a common mode of transportation in the city. Similarly, neither scooters nor electric bikes are safe to access the dormitory because the topography is very sloping. The dormitory complex is the only built-up area in the hilly region that is completely disconnected from the population density of the city due to its decentralized location. The capacity of the dormitory is 1500 students, and currently, there are ≈ 1300 students. Therefore, the students constitute the only density in the region. The dormitory complex consists of partially low buildings. Green spaces are rare in the complex, which is designed as part of the university campus; most of the open spaces are paved with stones, so there are no agricultural opportunities.

Assessment of the architectural context of C Block (student rooms; Type-1, Type-2):

• Architectural Context Type-1 student rooms have separate study areas that are isolated from the sleeping area, which could be considered a sign of adaptation to the work area. However, given the pandemic conditions, the study rooms are quite close to each other. The student rooms have natural ventilation facilities with a ceiling height of 3.17 m. In the Type-1 student room, there is a window in the sleeping area (for four students) and another one in the working area. In Type-2 student rooms (for two students), there are two windows to the sleeping area, which also includes the working area. Therefore, Type-2 provides better opportunities for natural ventilation and indoor air quality compared to Type-1, both in terms of the number of windows and the number of students using the rooms. In the rooms of both types, the toilets and bathrooms are open to a common shaft that runs through the six floors. The floors of the sleeping and working areas are covered with wood and the wet rooms are with ceramic tiles. Almost all the furniture is made of wood, a healthy material. There are no waiting rooms or quarantine areas near the entrance hall of the dormitories. Nevertheless, a limited number of empty rooms are provided for infected students during Covid-19 events. The dormitories do not have balconies, patios, porches, or similar semi-open areas, but are located in an open courtyard with limited landscaping. They have pitched roofs without any plantings.

Architectural context of E Block (dining hall, canteen, study room, masjid, activity hall, conference hall, exhibition room/foyer):

• Architectural Context E Block has two floors and a basement, so it is a low-rise building with reduced planar areas. Almost all units are naturally ventilated and have window openings on the wall surfaces. The masjid, study room, activity hall, exhibition hall/foyer, administrative units/rooms, and dining hall all have window openings. The dining hall and kitchen are 3.81 m high, the canteen is 4.27 m high, the study room is 3.31 m high, and the masjid, activity hall, and foyer are 3.93 m high. In terms of ceiling height and the number of windows, natural ventilation, and indoor air quality, improvement options are available in most of the units. The laundry room and none of the toilets have windows, but they are connected to ventilation shafts. There is a central hall on the ground and second floors (used as a conference hall foyer) that could be used as a waiting area. However, there are no waiting or quarantine areas near the entrance hall of the social building. There are also no balconies, terraces, porches, or similar semi-open spaces associated with the dining hall, foyer, or central waiting area. However, the basement dining hall is located on the ground level, but its connection to the courtyard is not present.

Assessment of the structural context and digital transformation conditions of Block C (student rooms) and Block E (dining hall, canteen, study room, masjid, activity hall, conference hall, exhibition room/foyer):

• Building Context no antibacterial fabrics or finishes are seen in either C Block or E Block. The rooms are not arranged in an acoustically isolated manner. In C Block, partitions separate the individual rooms, but the curtain walls between the sleeping area and the restroom area could also serve as an acoustical barrier. In Block E, there are curtain walls and dilatation between the conference hall (acoustically well isolated) and the foyer on the second floor. The same curtain walls and dilatations also isolate the administrative units and the main central hall on the second floor.

• Digital Transformation the dormitories and the social building (E Block) are rather poorly equipped in terms of digital transformation. There are no smart/touchless/artificial intelligence technology, UV disinfection systems, controllable mechanical air systems, air renewal systems, relative humidity, lighting control systems, or cleaning technologies in the rooms. There are fire watches and smoke detectors on the ceilings of student rooms, in the dining hall, canteen, and kitchen. Even the internet and cell phone networks are problematic.

Compatibility with Covid-19 guidelines

The floor plan characteristics of the sample dormitory complex and its various units were examined in detail using the Covid-19 Guide for Pandemic Management and Studies (hereafter referred to as the Covid-19 Guide) prepared by the T.R. Department of Health. In Block C, there are 24 rooms on each floor (ground, 1, 2, 3, and 4 floors) and there are 2 types of student rooms (Type-1 and Type-2) (see Fig. 3). The first type of student room (Type-1) consists of a sleeping area (15 m²), an entrance hall (6.5 m²), a separate working area (10.4 m²), a WC (1.55 m²), a separate toilet area (1.55 m²), and a bathroom (1.15 m²), and has a total area of 36.15 m². There are four beds in the sleeping area and four side-by-side desks with no space between them in the working area. The distance between the two beds is either 1.14 m or 1.00 m. The second room type (Type-2) has a large bedroom with two beds, including the working area with two desks (26 m²), an entrance hall (6.2 m²), and a WC /bath area (5.4 m²). The distance between the beds is 0.90 m, and that between the desks is 0.70 m.

When the first type of student room (Type-1) was studied according to the Covid-19 guidelines, the following results were obtained (Fig. 4);

• According to the Covid-19 Guide, 24 square meters are required for the sleeping area (6 square meters for each student). However, the sleeping area is 15 square feet and therefore does not meet the requirement.

• According to Covid-19 Guide, in shared living/sleeping areas, the social distance between students, beds, and other furniture should be at least 1 m. Since the distance between two beds is either 1.14 m or 1.00 m, this requirement is met in the sleeping area, but the 1.00 rule for social distance is not met in the working area because there is no space between desks.

• WC, bathroom, and toilet are located separately in each student room, which is a recommended situation, but the number of WC could be at least two for a four-person student room.

• There is one window in the sleeping area and another in the study area. They could be opened easily and were open during the field observations.

When the second type of student room (Type-2) was examined according to the Covid-19 Guide, the following results were obtained (Fig. 5);

• The second type of student room is designed for two students, and the total sleeping and working area is 26 m². According to the Covid-19 Guide, 12 square meters is required for the sleeping area for two people. Thus, it meets this requirement.

• Since the distance between the beds and the worktables is more than 1.00 m, the social distance rule is met.

• WC and bathroom share the same space, and there is only one. Since it is a two-person room, this could be satisfactory.

• There are two windows in the sleeping area, which can be easily opened, so natural ventilation in each room is satisfactory and easy.

The evaluation results of the different units (dining hall and canteen, the study room, the conference hall with its foyer, and the masjid) in E Block are shown below:

• Covid-19 Guide clearly states that the social distance between tables and chairs in the cafeteria should be at least 1 m (preferably 2 m) and that queuing distances should be established by markers/signs (at least 1 m). However, neither the tables nor the chairs are within 1 m of each other in the dining hall/cafeteria. In some cases, there are even two tables next to each other, and eight students are eating face-to-face and around the same table, without any social distance. Spacing between queues is marked on the floor. The total area of the dining hall is 611.43 m², the food service area is 103.83 m², and the canteen area is 35.18 m². According to Covid-19 Guide, the number of people should be limited to one person per four square feet. However, during breakfast and meal times, this rule is not applied, so overcrowding inevitably occurs. Similarly, there is no temporary separation between staff and students in the cafeteria (Fig. 6). In the dining hall/cafeteria, there is a TV unit in the upper part that is used for collective watching of sports/movies, which increases the risk of congestion and thus infections.

• The social distancing rule of "1 student per 4 square meters" seems to be applied in the study room located on the first floor. During on-site observations, there were few students in the study room, which has an area of 141.52 m². There were only a limited number of chairs and tables, but people were sitting face-to-face (Fig. 7).

• A large room (233.55 m²) is provided for the masjid on the second floor, so it is quite possible to provide social distancing during prayer times. On the north side of the masjid, there is an adjacent room called the activity hall (202.04 m²), and these two rooms are separated by an adjustable partition. Thus, it is also possible to enlarge the masjid/activity hall if necessary during periods of overcrowding. However, during ablution, the rule of social distance (at least 1 m) is not respected, considering the space between the ablution chairs (0.60 m) (Fig. 7).

• On the second floor, there is a conference hall with a capacity of 429 people (545.66 m²). It is entered through an exhibition/foyer area (232.49 m²). According to Covid-19 Guide, such rooms where collective events are held should not be used. As suggested, no events were held in the conference hall during the pandemic (Fig. 7).

Fig. 6.

Graphical abstraction of the methodology

Fig. 7.

C Block, Type-1 bedroom: a entrance, b, c sleeping area, d, e working area, f lavatory/wc

Flexible design criteria

The case study dormitory complex, which includes three different student housing buildings (Block A, B, C) and a social building (Block E), has an "I-Plan type" design. Design flexibility refers to different uses of the building, space, and amenities within the space that are provided to the user through the choices made in the design phase. In the C Block, there are two types of bedrooms, namely Type-1 and Type-2. In both types, there are two rooms next to each other, with an installation shaft in between, and this double group forms a module. Thus, there are 12 modules on the ground floor (see Fig. 8). Considering the design flexibility of the bedroom modules, it is concluded that they are not modular, since, from a structural point of view, there is no possibility to add or remove any space in these spaces. When evaluated in relation to the neutral space strategy, Type 1 student rooms, which are designed to accommodate four students, can be flexibly designed if the number of people is reduced. Dormitory blocks, which are generally designed on a single floor plan type, do not have alternative space arrangements for different functions. In addition, as mentioned in the modularity strategy evaluation, it is not possible to add or remove horizontal or vertical sections in the existing floor plan type. If the modular I-Plan type design is considered as a holistic plan module rather than a spatially segmented module, it allows growth and thus flexibility only from the outside.

Fig. 8.

C Block basement Type-2 bedroom: a, b bedroom and study area, c bathroom

In evaluating the Social Facilities Block (E Block) in terms of its design flexibility, it is noted that design flexibility is not possible in terms of modularity, different floor plan types, and add/remove strategies. However, in terms of neutral area strategy, both the dining hall/cafeteria and canteen and the conference/multi-purpose hall and the masjid allow for various flexible arrangements, thanks to their immediate adjoining spaces. In addition, the arrangement of the first floor, where the administrative units are located, has reserve areas that can serve different purposes if needed (see Figs. 9 and 10).

Fig. 9.

E Block: a dining hall, b queue waiting area, and c canteen

Fig. 10.

E Block: a study room, b masjid, c ablution space, d activity hall, e conference hall, f foyer

The flexibility of use is the arrangement that users can make with the interior space and equipment of floor plans without damaging the structural system during the use phase. Depending on the decrease in the number of students using the same space, both types of dormitories have the possibility of a mobility strategy in terms of redesign and changeability. In addition, for Type 1 student rooms, it is possible to rearrange and enlarge the space by removing the partition between the sleeping and working areas. Similarly, two rooms can be combined by removing the partition between them, which also allows for flexible use of these spaces when necessary. However, it should be noted that the bedrooms do not have to be used for different purposes. On the other hand, the rooms above the entrance on the first floor of Block C could be reconfigured and used for different purposes, such as study and ironing rooms. Similarly, because large rooms in the Social Services Block (E Block) serve different functions, different arrangements may be needed in terms of flexibility of use.

Space syntax analysis

The space syntax connectivity analysis data were studied to determine the user density of the ground floor and first floor spaces of C Block and the ground, first, and second floors of E Block. According to the connectivity analysis, the analyzed spaces with the highest mobility are represented by red color, the spaces with low mobility are represented by yellow, green, and blue colors, and the spaces with the lowest mobility are represented by dark blue color. The map of the connections on the ground floor of the C Block is shown in Fig. 11. Based on these data, the intersection of the vertical circulation loop on the horizontal circulation line on the ground floor plan of C Block and the spaces where the entrances to the bedrooms coincide are determined to be high-density locations. The second-degree user density is observed in the corridors where access to the bedrooms is provided as horizontal circulation. Third-degree user density was observed in the entrance area opposite to vertical circulation and entrances to Type 2 bedrooms. In the fourth degree are located the sleeping areas of Type 1 bedrooms and interior wet rooms.

Fig. 11.

C Block ground floor connectivity map

Due to the uniform bedroom solutions on both floors, space syntax analysis for the first floor of C Block is similar to those of the ground floor. As can be seen in Fig. 12, there is no change in the analysis results, with the exception of a monochromatic appearance in the bedroom entrance areas.

Fig. 12.

C Block first floor connectivity map

The analysis of the space syntax on the ground floor of E Block shows that there is a high density of users at the circulation loops of the entry and exit points of the catering, where the dining hall is connected to the kitchen area. In addition, there is a circulation-based density in the dining hall due to the dense arrangement of equipment (tables and chairs). In Fig. 13, the yellow–green color of these spaces identified in the space syntax analysis also confirms their user density. The kitchen area is also colored yellow, confirming the density and mobility of the staff. The map of connectivity on the ground floor of E Block also shows that the storage rooms in the kitchen, the wet areas at the entrance to the dining hall, and the depots, staff rooms, and fire escape are colored dark blue, meaning that there is no dense circulation and mobility in these spaces (Fig. 13).

Fig. 13.

E Block ground floor connectivity map

The analysis of the connectivity map of the E Block on the first floor shows that the corridor rooms, located on the vertical and horizontal circulation loops, are the rooms with the highest density of users (they are colored red). The study room has a yellow–green color and is the room with the second-highest user density (Fig. 14). The meeting room, on the other hand, has a green–blue color and belongs to the rooms with a high user density of the third degree. The technical rooms are shown in light blue color (area with a high user density of fourth degree) and finally the administrative units are dark blue and form the area with a high user density of fifth degree.

Fig. 14.

E Block first floor connectivity map

Thanks to the analysis of the space syntax, it is confirmed that there are spaces with a high density of users on the second floor of E Block. Among them, the conference/multi-purpose hall is the room with the highest user density. As can be seen in Fig. 15, the masjid has a yellow color in the analysis results and is a second-degree high user density space. Although they are almost the same size, the adjustable partition between the masjid and the activity hall allows them to increase/shrink in size compared to the conference hall. Vertical circulation areas and the foyer between the conference hall and the masjid are shown in green and yellow, respectively, and are interpreted as spaces with a third-degree user density. Spaces with a fourth-degree user density are the lowest density areas and are identified as wet rooms and vertical circulation spaces on the second floor of E Block.

Fig. 15.

E Block second floor connectivity map

Discussion

Over the past 2 years, from March 2020 to early 2022, strict quarantine regulations have had a lasting impact on students' academic lifestyles. Most universities have started to offer online education, and it has become an important issue that most academic facilities such as dormitories, conference, and seminar rooms are pandemic resilient. In addition, it has been found that flexibility of space use in the pandemic process is important for changing architectural conditions. In this context, the analysis of spaces in terms of pandemic conditions has become a significant and critical issue. Based on the results of this study, a four-step methodology was developed to identify and analyze the current condition and then evaluate the compatibility of spaces with pandemic and flexibility conditions of the student dormitories constructed by the state in Turkey under pandemic conditions. Although the four main themes are independent of each other, they provide some basic guidance on how dormitories should be designed in the event of a pandemic.

It is obvious that obtaining findings cannot reflect a sharp result for post-pandemic dormitory design due to some limitations. First, the main limitations of the study were that it was based on a field study that required prior interviews and permissions before fieldwork, and because it required visual observations and was conducted during the pandemic period, the situation became even more difficult. Second, the study used only one of the project types of the Turkish state prepared for the dormitory buildings, and the methodology developed in this research was tested only on this type of project and dormitory complex. This situation is also considered as a limitation because the methodology could not be tested on different dormitories with different floor plans, which were very difficult to access during the pandemic.

Considering the above findings and problems revealed by the on-site investigations and analyses, as well as the above-outlined study limitations, new perspectives for future environmental improvements of the dormitory's indoor and outdoor environments are discussed below.

• Given the absence or rarity of green space in the urban context, the most important items that could be considered and added to increase the pandemic resilience of the dormitory complex could be to increase the planting of the interior courtyard, which would also provide agricultural opportunities and could even lead to the reforestation of the bare land surrounding the dormitory complex. This will improve air quality and provide long-term physiological well-being for people. Therefore, it is recommended for new dormitory buildings to provide more open/semi-open spaces in the multi-purpose areas.

Given the architectural context, key suggestions for improving pandemic resilience could include the following:

Complete isolation of sleeping and working areas, thus providing the required size in the Type 1 student rooms in Block C. Given the limited number of windows in these rooms, the number of students housed together should be reduced. In this way, it might be possible to improve the air quality in the Type 1 student rooms. Since there are no quarantine areas near the entrance hall of the dormitories, one of the student rooms could be made available for this purpose if needed, and seating for people waiting can be provided in the circulation loops.

• In E Block, the central hall on the ground and second floors (which is used as the conference room foyer) could be appropriately arranged and used as a waiting area. The indirect connection between the dining hall and the courtyard on the ground floor, which is only possible from the circulation loop, could be strengthened by providing sitting arrangements before the entrance area. Thus, this area could be used as an open area in front of the dining hall.

• Since there are no/hardly any smart systems in the dormitories, it is proposed to install/equip smart/touchless/artificial intelligence technology, UV disinfection systems, controllable mechanical air systems, air renewal systems, relative humidity, lighting control systems, and cleaning technologies in the rooms and other spaces. This allows environmental aspects to be adjusted and optimized remotely (Zaher, 2020).

The T.R. Ministry of Health's Covid-19 guide clearly explains the optimal room layout in dormitories. But as stated in the results section, most of them were not met in the case study dormitory. Therefore, the main suggestions for adapting student rooms and other spaces to Covid-19 Guides are determined as follows:

• Considering the minimum space requirement for each person, Type- 1 student rooms (15 m²) should be provided for two students only (at least 6 m² for each student), and it is suggested that sleeping and studying activities in these rooms be completely separated by a separate work area.

• The social distance between tables and chairs in the dining hall should be at least 1 m, and the number of people eating at the same time should be rearranged by increasing the time between breakfast, lunch and dinner so that overcrowding can be avoided. A temporary separation should be established between the service staff and the students

• The dining hall should be used only for eating activities such as watching.

In this paper, the authors found that the flexible design of dormitories is a crucial parameter for the pandemic resistance of dormitories to be built in the coming years. In recent studies, Amistadi et al. (2022) also provided similar recommendations and guidelines as this study for a resilient urban college campus in the Covid-19 and post-Covid-19 era. Similar to this study, another study was also conducted in college dormitories in Poland under pandemic conditions. According to Amistadi et al. (2022), the pandemic resiliency is important in planning college buildings to be built in the future. Flexibility is an alternative for planning under pandemic conditions and in terms of flexible use proposals. It is interpreted here that, in the case study dormitory building, mobility and multi-purpose use can be achieved if the number of students housed in a room in Type 1 units is reduced. It is possible to obtain a larger space by removing the partition between the two rooms when needed, and/or to combine sleeping and working spaces by removing the partition in the Type 1 bedrooms. In this way, the bedrooms provide the opportunity to be reconfigured as space needs to grow. Since large spaces in the social amenities block (E Block) serve a variety of functions, mobility within the space boundaries, combination/division, and multi-purpose use can be enabled for flexibility of use. For example, in the dining hall/cafeteria and canteen, it is possible to change the equipment in terms of the mobility strategy. Thanks to the adjustable partition between the masjid and the activity hall, it is possible to combine and divide the space. In addition, the spare rooms can be arranged in the floor plans as rooms that serve different functions according to the multi-purpose use strategy.

In the first phase of the pandemic, there was no clear consensus on what kind of measures should be taken in buildings to protect against pandemics. This was highlighted by Mironowicz et al. (2021) and Tran and Marinova (2022) and Tran et al. (2022). However, in this study, which was conducted specifically for dormitories, a new method was used to demonstrate the rules to be considered for a safe and adequate dormitory structure under pandemic conditions. This study also showed that a spatial analysis method such as space syntax in dormitories allows testing whether the buildings are appropriate in terms of post-pandemic stage. In other post-pandemic studies using space syntax, Li and Psarra (2022) present museums, Garau and Annunziata (2022) present public spaces, and Khotbehsara et al. (2022) present suggestions and opinions on the spatial organization of public health centers. Similar to the studies in the literature, this article shows that the space syntax is a very powerful method for spatial analysis.

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to conduct a detailed condition assessment of the student dormitories built by the state to determine if they are suitable for housing a large number of students under pandemic conditions in terms of indoor conditions and space layout. Thanks to this study, a four-step proposed methodology for evaluating student housing in the context of pandemic resilience and flexibility was developed. T.R. Department of Health Covid-19 Guide and syntactic analyzes, as well as a rigorous literature review, supported the study to arrive at more concrete research findings.

Research findings on pandemic-resilient design revealed limited use of open and semi-open spaces in the case study dormitory complex. The dining hall, foyer, student rooms, and such multi-use spaces do not have open/semi-open space arrangements. As for the student rooms, the sleeping and working areas in room Type 1 are isolated but still located in the same room, which is a useless effort in terms of both pandemic resistance and flexibility. In addition, the number of students staying in the same rooms is so high that mobility is limited in terms of both pandemic and flexible use and design conditions. Regarding the urban, architectural, and building context, as well as digital transformation, there are a limited number of provisions, but they should be further developed in terms of adaptation to pandemic-resilient conditions. The Covid-19 Guide showed that Type 2 student rooms met the social distancing and natural ventilation requirements, while Type 1 student rooms did not meet the social distancing rules or the required room size and layout. In Block E, the dining hall, canteen, and WCs also did not meet the requirements of the guidelines.

The flexible design and use of C and E Blocks are evaluated as follows: in C Block, there is no design flexibility in the sleeping units (either Type 1 or Type 2 sleeping rooms). In the E Block, the dining hall, canteen, conference/multi-purpose hall, and the masjid/prayer room have various flexible design options that incorporate a neutral space strategy, and the presence of reserve space that can serve various purposes allows for design flexibility. The results of the analysis of the space syntax show that, in the C Block, there is a high density of users in the sleeping units and vertical and horizontal circulation loops. In the E Block social facility, common spaces such as the dining hall, conference hall, and prayer room were also shown to be high-density spaces.

Because dormitories are places with high student density and high infection levels during a pandemic, the methodology and evaluation method of this study are important for designing new dormitories and similar living environments that are resilient to pandemic conditions. The methodology proposal of this study was tested on a government-built dormitory complex in the Central Anatolian region in Turkey. However, further studies will develop and adapt it for other dormitories in other countries and regions using their Covid-19 guidelines so that it can be evaluated for compatibility with pandemic conditions. Thus, as a future study, it is recommended that this method be tested for different climate zones, regions, and dormitory buildings with different architectural layouts, as well as for different student/worker housing and elderly care homes in different cultures, and it can even be tested on different building types and plan typologies.

Author contributions

GD: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft. DA: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. All authors have participated in (a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of the data; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the final version. And also this manuscript has not been submitted to, nor is under review at, another journal or other publishing venue. The authors have no affiliation with any organization with a direct or indirect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.

Ethical approval

Since the study involves no human subjects and/or animals, and also the manuscript does not include case reports/case series, there is no ethical approval.