Isaacs, N and Hills, A (2014) Understanding the newzealand non-domestic building stock. Building Research & Information, 42(1), pp. 95-108. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Unlike the residential building stock, most countries have poor information on their non-domestic stock. This necessitates the use of other data sources. In the mid-1980s the (then) New Zealand Department of Valuation digitized its valuation records. This permitted the first analysis of an entire country's non-domestic buildings. A very long-tail probability density function was identified, with the largest 5% of buildings containing more than 40% of the floor space. This knowledge informed the development of research for understanding non-domestic buildings as well as underpinning the 1996 revision of the NZ Building Code Clause H1 Energy Efficiency. More recently an analysis of valuation data has provided the Building Energy End-use Study (BEES) with a national sampling frame to examine energy and water end-uses in non-domestic buildings. The development of processes for collecting and analyzing data is described. Considerable changes in understanding of valuation data have occurred for documenting the non-domestic building stock. New online and geographic information sources can validate and improve building data. The use of such a database supports improved understanding of the changing nature of the building stock and potential intervention points, as well as harnessing regulatory and market forces.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building stock; buildings; consumption; data-mining; energy survey; evidence-based policy; geographic information science; non-domestic; sustainability indicators; valuation |
| Index terms: | non-domestic building, survey, building stock, mining, science, database, sampling, evidence-based policy, building code, New Zealand, sustainability indicator, energy efficiency, residential building, consumption, density |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, asset management, specialized education, regulatory law, data management, sustainability assessment, consumer economics, public policy, sustainability and energy, construction type, geotechnical engineering, Geography, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Education, Construction Technology, Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| 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