A comparison of the performance of sustainable buildings with conventional buildings from the point of view of the users

Architectural Science Review

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 135-144

  Baird, George ^a   Leaman, Adrian ^b   Thompson, James ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^b Building Use Studies ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

building performance assessment; building users; post occupancy evaluation; Sustainable buildings; users perceptions

Indexed keywords

BUILDING PERFORMANCE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING; PERSONAL CONTROL; POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION; SUSTAINABLE BUILDING; THERMAL CONDITION; USER PERCEPTIONS; USERS PERCEPTIONS;

INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84862072625     PISSN: 00038628     EISSN: 17589622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2012.670699     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Baird, G., 2010. Sustainable buildings in practice -what the users think. Abingdon: Routledge.
2. Baird, G., et al., 1996. Building evaluation techniques. New York: McGraw Hill.
3. Baird, G. and Thompson, J., 2011. An examination of the distribution of user perception scores in a world-wide set of sustainable buildings. In: R. Hyde, S. Hayman, and D. Cabrera, eds. Fromprinciples to practice in architectural science. 45th Annual Conference of the Australian andNewZealand Architectural Science Association [CD-ROM]. Sydney: Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning.
4. Birt, B. and Newsham, G.R., 2009. Post-occupancy evaluation of energy and indoor environmental quality in green buildings; a review. Ottawa: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Report NRCC-51211. See also http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/projects/irc/postoccupancy. html [Accessed 22 March 2011].
5. BRI, 2001. Special issue -post-occupancy evaluation. Building Research and Information, 29 (2), 79-174.
6. Brown, Z., et al., 2010. Evaluating user experience in green buildings in relation to workplace culture and context. Facilities, 28 (3/4), 225-38.
7. Building Use Studies, 2011. http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk [Accessed 22 March 2011].
8. Cohen, R., et al., 2001. Post occupancy evaluation. Building Research and Information, 29 (2), 85-157.
9. Frontczak, M., et al., 2012. Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air, 22 (2), 119-131.
10. Haynes, B.P., 2008. The impact of office comfort on productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 6 (1), 37-51.
11. Huizenga, C., et al., 2006. Air quality and thermal comfort in office buildings: results of a large indoor environmental quality survey. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings, Lisbon, III, 393-397.
12. See also 'Occupant Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) Survey and Building Benchmarking'. Available from: http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm [Accessed 3 April 2009].
13. Junnila, S., 2007. The potential effect of end-users on energy conservation in office buildings. Facilites, 25 (7/8), 329-339.
14. Leaman, A., 2011. Coping with the age of consequences. Build, (125), August/September, p. 50. Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ), Wellington, New Zealand.
15. Leaman, A. and Bordass, B., 2005. Productivity in buildings: the killer variables. Ecolibrium, 4, April, 16-20.
16. Leaman, A. and Bordass, B., 2007. Are users more tolerant of 'green' buildings. Building Research and Information, 35 (6), 662-673.
17. Markus, T., 2001. Does the building industry suffer from collective amnesiǎ Building Research and Information, 29 (6), 473-476.
18. MfE, 2005. The value case for sustainable building in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Ministry for the Environment, ME705. Available from: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/sus-dev/value-case-sustainable-building- feb06/index.html [Accessed 23 February 2011].
19. Paevere, P. and Brown, S., 2008. Indoor environmental quality and occupant productivity in the CH2 building: postoccupancy summary. Victoria, Australia: CSIRO, Report No USP2007/23.
20. Salkind, N.J., 2005. Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Soft Landings, 2009. The soft landings framework. Bracknell: Building Services Research and Information Association, BSRIA BG 4/2009. Available from: http://www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/soft-landings [Accessed 23 September 2011].