Tierney, G and Tennant, S (2016) Post occupancy evaluation (POE): A BREEAM excellent case study. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Despite many challenges, building industry stakeholders of the early 21st century could be viewed by future generations as pioneers for sustainable development and construction. That is, this industrial chapter could be remembered as one in which the demand for heat and power in buildings and associated carbon emissions ceased to be on an upward trajectory. In addition to the concept of a low carbon, low energy built environment, this period may also be acknowledged as one in which the comfort, health and wellbeing of building occupants is fully included. This honourable legacy is arguably within reach due to clearly-stated national and international policies on climate change, energy consumption, safety and end-user comfort. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is an important mechanism for the construction industry to objectively measure building performance against policy targets. A function of POE is to capture the value of 'in-use' demand in comparison with theoretical performance. The information gathered can be collated to underline performance outcomes in building energy usage, carbon emissions, wider environmental impacts and end-user satisfaction, thus providing (1) a benchmark for building operation and (2) a route map for future developments and initiatives. This paper draws upon a case study to explore the value of post-occupancy evaluation of a BREEAM Excellent building. Opened in 2011, the five year occupancy timescale will present key performance data. Findings from the POE study will be drawn upon to investigate potential performance gaps that may exist between BREEAM model predictions and actual results for three key parameters: 1) energy (electricity and gas), 2) water (supply and waste) and 3) social performance (comfort, health and wellbeing). Whilst the design of low carbon, low energy buildings is commendable, recording and interpretation of actual building performance is a fundamental step in the continuous improvement of sustainable construction outcomes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability; BREEAM; post-occupancy evaluation |
| Index terms: | health and wellbeing, BREEAM accreditation, post-occupancy evaluation, continuous improvement, building performance, sustainable development, low carbon, social performance, low energy, low-energy building, carbon emission, sustainable construction, case study, performance outcome, building operation, construction industry, climate change, user satisfaction, energy consumption, building industry, performance gap, environmental impact, comfort, built environment |
| Subjects: | sustainable construction, health safety and environment, performance management, sustainability assessment, energy efficiency, management, performance measurement, quality assurance, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, occupational health and safety management, climate science, value management, environmental impact, client relations, mental health and wellbeing, data collection methods, evaluation methods, energy systems, environmental policy |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Quality Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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