Leaman, A; Stevenson, F and Bordass, B (2010) Building evaluation: Practice and principles. Building Research & Information, 38(5), pp. 564-577. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Based on experiences of carrying out building-performance studies in non-domestic buildings in the United Kingdom and around the world, the question is addressed of how these might apply in the emerging area of housing evaluation studies. Principles are offered covering both non-domestic and domestic buildings. The research area and approach are defined, and types of feedback and their effectiveness are explored, along with the sorts of methods that should be used and some wider topics including duty of care and some of the implications of 'real-world' research. Key lessons from fieldwork are presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building evaluation; building performance; energy assessment; feedback; occupant surveys; post-occupancy evaluation; real-world research |
| Index terms: | housing, duty, building evaluation, effectiveness, non-domestic building, domestic building, post-occupancy evaluation, United Kingdom, building performance, occupant survey |
| Subjects: | asset management, quality assurance, performance management, Geography, evaluation methods, data collection methods, contractual role, construction type |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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