Hendrickson, D J and Wittman, H K (2010) Post-occupancy assessment: Building design, governance and household consumption. Building Research & Information, 38(5), pp. 481-490. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Can post-occupancy assessment assess drivers of household consumption? A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate household consumption patterns in three housing types in Vancouver, Canada. An analysis of eight multi-unit, residential household settings was conducted that included high-performance green residential buildings, co-housing buildings, and typical multi-residential buildings. A post-occupancy assessment survey instrument quantified household solid waste, recycling, and storage relationships, and triangulated results with qualitative interviews and site observations. Findings suggest that both the type of housing development and the building governance structure influence household consumption levels, in particular with regard to waste-reduction strategies and storage issues. Of the studied building types, co-housing appears to have the most potential to reduce household consumption through innovative management practices and the sharing of resources.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-housing; consumption; governance; households; housing; post-occupancy assessment; solid waste |
| Index terms: | recycling, Canada, housing, survey, management practice, strategy, building design, interview, residential building, governance, consumption, household, housing development |
| Subjects: | business, waste management, consumer economics, demography, management, data collection methods, architectural design, construction type, Geography |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Design Practice, Sustainability, Geographical Context, Governance, Urban Studies |
| 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