Al-Maiyah, S; Brett Martinson, D and Elkadi, H (2024) Evaluation of the indoor environment in a historic museum during the COVID-19 lockdown in Northwest England. Building Research & Information, 52(7), pp. 748-764. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Monitoring the quality of the indoor environment is a practice commonly adopted by museums as part of operational risk management. Recorded environmental data are often used to assess the safety of the indoor environment for artefacts, and their suitability for visitors' comfort. Previous studies reported monitoring campaigns assessing the performance of museums and level of compliance with regulatory standards. These analyses were typically conducted in normal circumstances assessing indoor microclimate quality under normal operating procedures. Museum closures during the 2020 pandemic and the global lockdown measures, introduced by governments, presented the heritage sector with an unprecedented situation with empty galleries where collections, in several museums, were held 'dormant' in free-running environments. Assessing the indoor environment in such exceptional circumstances offers a unique insight into the performance of these heritage repositories in other unpredicted situations and potential opportunities for microclimate optimization. This paper reports the results of an extended pre and post-pandemic monitoring that was performed in a historic museum in Northwest England. It contributes to the ongoing universal debate about the application of standardized strict environmental guidelines and the shift towards more contextualized standards in museums in the face of the decline in heritage funding and the pledges for carbon reductions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collection care; COVID-19 lockdown; extended in situ monitoring; indoor environment; museums |
| Index terms: | carbon reduction, pandemic, England, indoor environment, comfort, risk management, in-situ, monitoring, microclimate, funding, compliance, COVID-19, face, artefact, suitability |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, building construction, sociology, design criteria, health risk and incident analysis, Geography, health safety and environment, psychology, environmental science, economic analysis, risk assessment, climate science, control systems |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, Design Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| 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