Welcome to the B&C COMMUNITY WEBSITE | Visit the B&C JOURNAL WEBSITE

www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/news/occupant-surveys.html

What Have We Learnt from 20 Years of Occupant Surveys?

What Have We Learnt from 20 Years of Occupant Surveys?

This peer-reviewed paper consolidates lessons from 20 years of post-occupancy surveys

Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) serves an important role in collecting occupant insights on the performance of a building, understanding flaws, and establishing ways to improve the indoor environment. Lindsay T. Graham, Thomas Parkinson and Stefano Schiavon's recent Buildings & Cities research paper LESSONS LEARNED FROM 20 YEARS OF CBE'S OCCUPANT SURVEY analyses 20 years of data to evaluate the structure and benchmarking metrics of the University of California Berkeley Center for the Built Environment's (CBE) Occupant Survey. Using data from over 90,000 respondents from approximately 900 buildings, they reassess whether occupant surveys are evaluating all they need to, especially following the transformation that workspaces have experienced in the last two decades.

The general occupant survey structure includes:

  • questions on the occupant themselves 
  • questions on their physical environment
  • customized questions that occupants are directed to if they express some degree of dissatisfaction with aspects of their environment
  • a general assessment of the overall environment.

Using correlation analysis, Principal Component Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering Analysis, the authors explore: the distribution of participant responses across several Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors; the structure and measurement properties of the survey; and how benchmarking metrics align with the tool's underlying structure.

Over the entire survey database, the authors find that roughly two thirds of respondents are satisfied with their workspace. Occupants are most satisfied with spaces' ease of interaction, amount of light, and space cleanliness; they are most dissatisfied with sound privacy, temperature, and noise level. In addition to aggregating findings, the authors use their analysis to reflect on the wider practice of POE and make recommendations for developing occupant surveys.

With regard to the survey structure, the authors make a case for streamlining questions. At present individual IEQ factors each have an associated question about whether they enhance or interfere with occupants' ability to complete their job. Instead, they suggest that it should be possible to have just one item that assesses the impact of the space overall on occupants' ability to complete tasks. In addition, the authors' correlation analysis suggests that multiple items around an IEQ theme are not always needed.

Crucially, the authors note that the occupant survey focuses on the problems and limitations within a space, rather than what is working well. They highlight that the survey offers an opportunity for insight into the successful elements of a design and suggest adding questions to capture this. Alongside this, questions that address occupant expectations of the space could be added to help understand the way space impacts emotions and could support occupants to achieve their tasks.

Cross-pollination between building science and social and health sciences could be especially fruitful. Specifically, they suggest incorporating well-developed and tested variables for stress, wellbeing and personality elements. This could be particularly fruitful for monitoring how comfortable people are in workspaces following the Covid-19 pandemic.

The use of workspaces is changing, particularly an increasing prevalence of agile work spaces. POE approaches need to adapt to this. The authors suggest generating shorter, experience-focused surveys utilising smartphones and wearable technologies. They also advocate for pairing this with monitoring of occupancy using sensors to gather a more holistic view of the occupant-building relationship.

The analysis presented in this paper is incredibly useful for truly understanding the utility of the tools that are used for monitoring our built environment such that they can be improved. Changes to the CBE Occupant Survey will be made as a result of this work.


Reference

Graham, L. T., Parkinson, T., & Schiavon, S. (2021). Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE's occupant surveys. Buildings and Cities, 2(1), pp. 166-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.76

Latest Peer-Reviewed Journal Content

Journal Content

Retrofitting Norwegian residential buildings: an archetype-based dynamic stock model
L S A Rousseau, S Amini, S Akin & E G Hertwich

Decolonising time: vernacular villages and the politics of heritage temporality
R Al-Rabady

Commutes to alternative workplaces: GHG emissions and physical activity
J Taylor, L Thoen, A Espinosa Mireles De Villafranca, P Anashin, J Vanhatalo, D Milián Bernal & I Okkonen

Nine ‘myths’ about the building stock of Great Britain
S Evans, P Steadman, A Neto-Bradley, D Humphrey, R Liddiard,H Shamsi, J Palmer & G Simons

Critical Reconstruction Theory and the invention of post-disaster response
G Lizarralde, D Wachsmuth, F Özdoğan & M Cossu

Post-war reconstruction-as-knowledge practice: Fukui’s dual disaster recovery
A Y F Urushima & K Yamaguchi

Critical reflections on the process of interdisciplinary building science research
G T Morgan, M F Touchie, J Robinson, A Jakubiec & J Tran

Comparing technical disassembly potential methods for concrete and timber buildings
N Westerholm, A Tuure, S Pajunen & M Kuittinen

One-stop shops as leverage points for renovation sufficiency
G Pardalis & M Sula

Creating resilient cities: advocacy and planning for equity-based recovery
A Paidakaki

Impact of glazed balcony design on daylight in Finnish apartments
L Jegard, R Castaño-Rosa & S Pelsmakers

Climate-related risks: implications for municipal governments in Brazil
C Nastari Fernandes, P Ciminelli Ramalho & F Lima-Silva

Changing land-use metrics in mass housing: Türkiye case study
M S Çepni, A K Kutluca, T Salihoğlu, A Atmaca & S Mintemur

Personal comfort systems for adults with intellectual disabilities
K Exss, M Trebilcock, P Wegertseder-Martínez, S Schiavon & H Zhang

How buildings shape occupant movement: a systematic review and framework
G Chinazzo & N Wang

Rethinking the second life of post-disaster and post-conflict temporary housing
N Akdede, B Ö Ay & İ Gürsel Dino

Embodied carbon impacts of residential development siteworks: new assessment framework
P Comerford, O Kinnane, R O’Hegarty & P Crowe

Horizontal building extensions: potential in Finnish blocks of flats
J Tarpio & P Lehtovuori

Post-disaster reconstruction and ethics: the power of social capital
B Ubesingha, G Ofori, G Agyekum-Mensah & D Frings

Towards net zero: sectoral ambitions and global trends in building decarbonisation
C E Caballero-Güereca, J Vogel, N Alaux, C M Ouellet-Plamondon, J Silva Santana, G Foliente, T Lützkendorf & A Passer

Climate literacy and labour agency in vocational education and training
J Calvert, V Price, C Winch, L Clarke, M Sahin-Dikmen, P-L Bilodeau & E Dionne

Towards a new neighbourhood-scale climate risk-adaptation approach
C Rigoni, S Oliveira, O Romice, A Moreno-Rangel & A Chatzimichali

Sharing energy renovations know-how through citizen–professional knowledge networks
C Foulds, S Royston, A Aggeli, A Crowther & R Robison

Environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks: comparing different deconstruction methods
E Salmio & S Huuhka

eCOMBINE: framework for energy, comfort, behaviour and a multi-domain environment
V M Barthelmes, C Karmann, V Gonzalez Serrano, K Lyu, J Wienold, M Andersen, D Licina & D Khovalyg

Living labs as ‘agents for change’ [editorial]
N Antaki, D Petrescu & V Marin

See all peer reviewed articles

Latest Commentaries

Disaster Reconstruction: Practitioner Insights Improve Outcomes

Regan Potangaroa (Auckland University of Technology - AUT), Kelvin Zuo (Massey University), Suzanne Wilkinson (AUT) explain why experience-led knowledge from the field, when triangulated with contemporaneous documentation, can constitute evidence for understanding post-disaster reconstruction systems. People working within reconstruction environments (engineers, builders, logisticians and community actors) provide crucial observations about how reconstruction systems function in practice, particularly supply chains, material flows, procurement and governance in post-disaster rebuilding. Integrating this knowledge can lead to better outcomes.

Preparedness for Recovery

Kristen MacAskill (University of Cambridge) and Lianne Dalziel (University of Canterbury) explain capabilities (and the associated capacity) are essential for preparedness. Capacity for both physical infrastructure and organisational / institutional response are necessary. This commentary focuses primarily on institutional capacity for disaster risk management, and the positive (if slow) developments in the value that is being placed on preparedness.

Join Our Community

Join Our Community

The most important part of any journal is our people – readers, authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors. You are cordially invited to join our community by joining our mailing list. We send out occasional emails about the journal – calls for papers, special issues, events and more.

We will not share your email with third parties. Read more