Building as common property: Examining ostrom's model in an innovative university residence hall

Baird, T. D.; Tural, E.; Kniola, D. J.; Pingel, T. J. and Abaid, N. (2026) Building as common property: Examining ostrom's model in an innovative university residence hall. Building Research & Information, 54(4), pp. 393-409. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

Buildings are not only physical infrastructures but also socially and institutionally produced environments that structure access to space, resources and community life. This study draws from human–environment geography, common property theory and scholarship on built environments to conceptualize buildings as shared indoor environments that function as common pool resources and can be governed as common property regimes. Using an ethnographic approach, we examine a large, mixed-use academic–residential building at a U.S. research university to better understand how it was produced and governed as a shared resource. Data from stakeholder interviews, institutional documents and participant observation reveal governance dynamics that align closely with Ostrom's design principles, including clear boundaries, collective choice, monitoring and sanctions. We identify both the institutional mechanisms and spatial strategies that contribute to sustainable, cooperative use of shared indoor resources. We also propose a conceptual framework that links building governance to broader national design trends, institutional mental models, and localized scarcities and abundances. Our findings offer practical insights for designers, campus planners and institutional decision-makers seeking to foster more inclusive, adaptive and sustainable building use.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: built environment governance; common property regimes; human–environment geography; institutional design; shared indoor environments
Index terms: residential building, governance, indoor environment, mental model, designer, monitoring, dynamics, planner, built environment, interview, observation, physical infrastructure, strategy, design principle, sustainable building, documents, conceptual framework, boundaries
Subjects: management, professional development, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, data collection methods, profession, business, control systems, design methods, theoretical framing, sustainable construction, cognitive psychology, construction type, environmental science, property law
Topics: Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance, Construction Technology, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Site Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

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