Agee, P; Gao, X; Paige, F; McCoy, A and Kleiner, B (2021) A human-centred approach to smart housing. Building Research & Information, 49(1), pp. 84-99. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Smart buildings are complex systems, yet architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) professionals often perform their work without considering the human factors of building occupants. Traditionally, the AEC industry has employed a linear design and delivery approach. As buildings become smarter, the AEC industry must adapt. To maximize human well-being and the operational performance of smart buildings, an iterative, human-centred approach must be employed. The omission of human factors in the design and delivery of smart building systems risks misalignment between occupant-user needs and the AEC industry’s perception of occupant-user needs. This research proposes a human-centred approach to smart housing. The study employed a multi-phase, mixed-methods research design. Data were collected from 309 high performance housing units in the United States. Longitudinal energy use data, occupant surveys, and semi-structured interviews are the primary data inputs. Affinity diagramming was leveraged to categorize the qualitative data. The output of the affinity diagramming analysis and energy analysis led to the development of data-driven Personas that communicate smart housing user needs. While these data were gathered in the United States, researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers can leverage the human-centred approach presented in this paper toward the design of other human-centred buildings and infrastructure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design framework; evidence-based design; human behaviour; human factors; human-centred design; indoor environmental quality |
| Index terms: | evidence-based design, research design, complex system, energy use, energy analysis, indoor environmental quality, personas, human behaviour, United States, occupant survey, interview, design framework, smart housing, housing, human factor, misalignment, smart building, well-being, practitioner, user need |
| Subjects: | engineering analysis, systems engineering, environmental health, occupational health and safety management, Geography, design practice, research methods, energy systems, practitioner, design methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, engineering problems, construction type, data collection methods, research design and methodology, mental health and wellbeing, user-centered design |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions |
| 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