Leaman, A and Bordass, B (2007) Are users more tolerant of 'green' buildings? Building Research & Information, 35(6), pp. 662-673. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Are buildings designed for lower environmental impacts better from the occupants' point of view? Based on methodology developed in the UK by Building Use Studies and used for the Probe series of post-occupancy studies, the paper explores sources of occupant dissatisfaction, and whether or not green buildings are perceived as better by their users. Occupant surveys from 177 UK buildings are used for statistical comparisons between conventional and green buildings. Findings point to improvements in some areas, such as image and how needs are met, but green buildings are in danger of repeating past mistakes, especially if they are too difficult to manage. Users tend to tolerate deficiencies rather more than they do with more conventional buildings. There are also methodological problems. Findings based on more general, 'summary' questions tend give a more optimistic picture for green buildings than those which dig deeper. It is thus vital to back up statistical descriptions with detailed accounts of context so that rounded conclusions are obtained.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance assessment; dislikes; dissatisfaction; green buildings; likes; occupants; post-occupancy evaluation; sustainability; users |
| Index terms: | post-occupancy evaluation, building performance, occupant survey, methodology, environmental impact, green building |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, research methods, design practice, evaluation methods, data collection methods, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Research Practice, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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