**1. Introduction**

Indoor environment quality indicators have been recognized as main features of sustainable design. Therefore, research on their influence is increasingly abundant [1–3]. However, an evident sustainability factor—the suitability or usefulness of the environment for the use of the building—has not received the same attention. It seems logical that if the relationship between built space and its function is consistent, the energy and resources required will be more efficient.

Previous studies have focused on the technical measurement of learning spaces through indoor environment quality indicators, which include lighting, ventilation, thermal levels, connection with nature, acoustics, etc. [4–9]. The validity of this approach is proven and of grea<sup>t</sup> relevance to understand to what extent and how the indoor environment can influence the users of the space. The IEQ has become a key factor in the design and construction of buildings, since internal conditions can significantly influence the wellbeing, productivity, health and safety of people [10]. Therefore, in recent decades, different certifications have been designed, such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design), the WELL Building Standard and Fitwel, for different types of buildings. However, these focus on low energy consumption or technical aspects of the building or on the health and comfort of the users. However, both the socio-psychological factors and those related to intended activities are significant in this field.

**Citation:** López-Chao, V.; López-Pena, V. Purpose Adequacy as a Basis for Sustainable Building Design: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Higher Education Classrooms. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 11181. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su132011181

Academic Editor: Roberto Alonso González Lezcano

Received: 14 August 2021 Accepted: 8 October 2021 Published: 11 October 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 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/).

Since 1960, attempts have been made to study social interactions and the user's perception of the environment, an issue that emerged in the field of environmental psychology through post-occupancy evaluation (POE) studies [11]. Sustainable design is not only about reducing emissions and saving energy but also about providing the necessary comfort in the environment for the development of human activities [12,13]. For this reason, in POE studies, it is usual to include user characteristics, work processes, user satisfaction regarding the possibilities of interaction with their colleagues, and privacy and comfort [14].

Current studies have explored the effects of poor environments on cognitive functions, including social cognition [15]. Advances in this field confirm that subjective issues play an important role in user behavior, such as attitude, social customs, or perceived behavioral control, as well as intentionality [16]. Social values, cultural differences, and personality traits have also become factors to be valued among the scientific community [17–19]. However, there is still some uncertainty about the selection and use of appropriate contextual, social and personal variables; this could be addressed through the implementation of interdisciplinary frameworks [20]. In addition, recent studies have emphasized the need to consider the relationships and interactions between physical or technical variables and personal and social factors [9,21].

This manuscript deals with the learning space typology that considers social interactions as a means of learning. Regarding educational buildings, the literature has already identified that elements such as satisfaction or comfort, functionality, the possibilities of social interaction and place attachment are key for the development of learning [22]; this will be considered in this research as part of the social dimension of space.

#### *1.1. Peer Effect and Active Methodologies in Higher Education*

In recent decades, peer effect studies have provided contradictory results, including positive and negative influences [23,24] as well as large or small effects in similar contexts. Some investigations have focused on the characteristics of classmates. Booij, Leuven, and Oosterbeek [25] found that low-ability students perform better when in groups with peers of a similar skill level. Others have focused on group size, such as Brady, Insler, and Rahman [26], who identified different social influences depending on group size, showing negative effects at a broader company level and positive effects at a narrower company level.

The influences of social interactions and the peer effect have been analyzed in recent studies on educational buildings that include disruptive and attractive methodologies such as gamification [27,28]. In addition, classroom design can foster interaction and collaboration among peers, affecting teaching methodology and improving learning [29]. Specifically, flexible spaces are more appropriate for adapting to different teaching methodologies, including a better flow of interactions between users [30].

There is general agreemen<sup>t</sup> on the benefits of social relationships among classmates [31,32], since they provide companionship, affection, intimacy, assistance, improvement of selfesteem and emotional support, as a basis for the development of identity [33]. The results show that those students who participate in positive social interactions with other classmates are associated with greater academic motivation as well as a higher academic result [34,35].

#### *1.2. Satisfaction and IEQ Perception*

Comfort and satisfaction are social constructions that can influence the value of the indoor environment, not only over time, but also from one culture to another [36]. However, this satisfaction covers environmental aspects and social characteristics that can contribute to the mental harmony or instability of the users [37]. This indicator has been correlated with building characteristics, personal characteristics and variables related to the purpose of the space [38]. Under these premises, studies were carried out regarding buildings classified as "green", showing that the interior environments led to a positive perception that affected productivity [39,40]. In addition, some research has focused on how the

social influence of friends and family affects the opinion and satisfaction of sustainable elements [41]. Non-physical and subjective aspects influence the way occupants perceive environmental comfort; therefore, psychological and social factors can positively affect users' perception of comfort [42]. For this reason, satisfaction as a variable that favors social relations is part of Kopec's theory of integration [43] on the relationship between human beings and space. The literature on buildings destined for education reiterates that the satisfaction of students with their environment is related to their academic results [44,45].

Studies on the comfort and satisfaction in school buildings have identified that a good quality environment positively affects the well-being, learning capacity and comfort of students [46]. It has been suggested that a better understanding of students' perceptions is necessary to understand their comfort level with the different variables of building design, such as temperature or lighting [47]. The effects of artificial light on the emotional state of adolescent students have also been explored, since inadequate lighting can be very harmful to the psyche of young people. Thus, ethical and healthy regulations regarding the optimization of lighting have been put forward [48]. Satisfaction regarding the indoor environment of schools, according to thermal comfort, air quality, and visual and acoustic comfort, has been addressed in recent studies, verifying that the discomfort of a specific element does not result in general discomfort; thus, individualized treatment of IEQs is necessary [49]. The literature has brought to light visual or aesthetic satisfaction, beyond the color of the classroom, as being influenced by images in primary education settings [50]. This is an unusual practice in university classrooms, but it is important to keep in mind the possible relationship with the place attachment. Other studies have shown that the level of satisfaction decreased when there were many people in the same room, which can be attributed to a lower degree of perceived control and greater necessary social interactions [51].

However, perceptions of comfort and satisfaction are usually incomplete or biased, which leads to failure when performing any type of intervention. Specifically, in educational buildings, the approach that involves students in POE provides researchers with contextualized information on which elements are most influential in overall comfort. This helps analyses to be carried out with greater precision, taking into account the factors that maximize solutions [13,52].

#### *1.3. Place Attachment*

In recent years, researchers have become more interested in the human dimension of sustainable design as it relates to health and well-being [53]. POE studies identified a series of outcomes related to the well-being of users, such as reduced absenteeism and stress, greater comfort and learning outcomes, and more positive attitudes [54,55]. However, among these human factors, place attachment and the relationships between people and their places have received little attention in the literature [56]. This fact is reflected in the multiple definitions of this construct in the literature before Scannell and Gifford [57] synthesized them and created an organizational framework with three main dimensions.

The first focuses on a personal and cultural dimension and is centered on who is becoming attached and how places are meaningful, both in individual and collective experience. The second brings a dimension that focuses on what a person is attached to, including physical and social characteristics, such as the natural environment that surrounds him or her or the opportunities for interaction with the rest of the users. The third, a psychological process dimension that focuses on how attachment includes certain behaviors, affective bonds and cognition, such as memories. Thus, in the case of students, their need to define their territory and their sense of belonging to it can be seen, for example, in the choice of seating area [58]. Affection is a key element in the process of creating a bond between the person and the place. Therefore, place attachment is more likely to occur in spaces with physical characteristics that support stress reduction, that evoke memories of people, and that facilitate the inclusion and interaction of other people [59,60]. It is also related to the personal or cultural circumstances of the users, which can lead to variations

in the affective bonds with the different architectural contexts and even with the other users of the space [61].

Several studies have highlighted the value of place attachment concerning green or sustainable buildings and have tried to determine a connection between these feelings and pro-environmental behavior [62]. Thus, its consideration in educational buildings has the potential to support sustainable behavior, providing an incentive for green building practices [63]. Building design strategies focused on human attachment have also been found to improve community well-being, quality of life, and resilience [64]. They can also increase the amount of time spent in the building and the kinds of activity engaged in [65]. In this sense, Heerwagen and Zagreus [66] found an association between the feeling of place attachment and pride in the adoption of actions focused on sustainability. The results provided information on a series of psychosocial benefits, such as a more positive work experience, better communication between colleagues, and a strong connection with the environment and the company.

Regarding learning spaces, holistic studies on place attachment have shown that it has a greater value than other common IEQs, such as light, in the development of educational activities [67].
