Bhorkar, S; Glew, D and Fletcher, M (2026) Improving survey-based data collection for more effective domestic retrofit evaluations: Perspectives from occupants and surveyors. Building Research & Information, 54(3), pp. 273-288. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Evaluating the performance of domestic retrofits is essential in appraising their success and identifying if they improved the lives of occupants. In the UK, billions of pounds are invested annually in retrofits through policy funding; however, current building regulations do not mandate evaluation, and monitoring requirements are poorly defined. Without agreed standardised protocols or tools, retrofit evaluations remain inconsistent and incomparable, providing little assurance to occupants, landlords, installers, or the government. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a common and well-established form of building performance evaluation used in retrofit evaluations; however, it faces challenges in multi-dwelling retrofit schemes. This research evaluated the effectiveness of occupancy evaluation surveys in five domestic retrofit projects overseen by a local authority in Northern England between 2022 and 2024. Phase one implemented a retrofit survey taken from the UKGBCs BuildUpon2 Framework. In phases two and three, iterative improvements were made to the survey based on feedback from occupants and surveyors. Five key barriers were identified: resources, technical challenges, surveyor engagement, trust, and accessibility. Addressing these challenges increased the survey response rate from 25% to 98%. The refinements significantly improved the quality and usefulness of the data collected, offering valuable insights for designing robust, easily implementable occupant surveys.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; occupant surveys; post-occupancy evaluation; retrofit |
| Index terms: | survey, local authority, face, building performance, mandate, occupant survey, post-occupancy evaluation, landlord, building regulation, England, accessibility, building performance evaluation, effectiveness, installer, monitoring, funding |
| Subjects: | evaluation methods, control systems, data collection methods, political science, regulatory law, sociology, performance management, economic analysis, psychology, practitioner, quality assurance, building performance, Geography, inclusive design |
| Topics: | Governance, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Site Management, Design Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here