Post-occupancy evaluation: Identifying and mitigating implementation barriers to reduce environmental impact

TY - JOUR

T1 - Post-occupancy evaluation

T2 - Identifying and mitigating implementation barriers to reduce environmental impact

AU - Roberts, C. J.

AU - Edwards, D. J.

N1 - Funding Information: Various POE strategies are available to practitioners, including: i) Post-occupancy Review of Buildings and their Engineering (PROBE) (cf. Bordass and Leaman, 2005; Riley et al., 2010); ii) Building Use Studies (BUS) Methodology (cf. BUS Methodology, 2017; Riley et al., 2010); iii) Construction Industry Council (CIC) Design Quality Indicators (DQI) (cf. Construction Industry Council, 2003); iv) Overall Liking Score (OLS) (cf. Riley et al., 2010; Roberts et al., 2019); v) The Higher Education Design Quality Forum (HEDQF) Post-occupancy Evaluation Forum Methodology (cf. HEFCE, 2006); vi) Soft Landings (cf. Riley et al., 2010; Sustainable Cities, 2009); and vii) the Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Guide to Post-occupancy Evaluation (HEFCE, 2006). A significant barrier to POE implementation has been identified in the two prominent classification systems that have been developed to categorise extant POE strategies, the first developed by Preiser and Vischer (2005) and the second by Bordass and Leaman (2005). Preiser (1995) classifies POE strategies as (or a combination of): i) indicative; ii) investigative; or iii) diagnostic (cf. Preiser, 1995). Conversely, Bordass and Leaman (2005) classify strategies as (or a combination of): i) audit ii) discussion; iii) questionnaire; iv) process; or v) package (cf. Bordass and Leaman, 2005). Cross-comparison of these classification systems (cf. Roberts et al., 2021) shows significant diversity in terms of the remit of different strategies. This is particularly pertinent when considering deliberate flexibility incorporated into POE strategies (cf. Roberts et al., 2019), engendering an increasingly complex landscape for practitioners to navigate in terms of implementing regular and systematic building feedback (Roberts et al., 2021).A semi-structured focus group was adopted as a data collection instrument (cf. Morse and Richards, 2002; Matthews and Ross, 2010; Marshall and Rossman, 2011). This technique requires a group leader (the researcher) to moderate the focus group whilst asking open ended questions pertaining to a specific topic (Matthews and Ross, 2010; Morse and Richards, 2002). Ten participants were selected from a case study of a UK Higher Education Institution's Estates Department, hence a non-probability opportunity (or convenience) sample was adopted (Shan et al., 2017). Despite disadvantages in terms of generalisation compared to probability samples, non-probability techniques are the de facto approach adopted in developmental science (Jager et al., 2017; Shan et al., 2017). A HEI was chosen as a case study setting because HEIs offer a multitude of different building types from administrative office facilities, teaching facilities (both traditional and specialist) and residential facilities for student accommodation (Kastner and Matthies, 2014). All of these differing building types are normally managed by a single estates management department (Robinson et al., 2018) giving a useful overview of the plethora of differing barriers to POE which must be overcome that are not necessarily apparent in alternative settings. Moreover, POEs are mandated on developments using public funds within the UK, meaning implementation rates are usually substantially higher than in the private commercial or residential sectors (Roberts et al., 2019). This has an impact upon gaining useful insights into the practical barriers to POE in sectors where it is advised rather than mandated, and subsequently less frequently implemented. Participants included: i) Head of Estates; ii) Deputy Head of Estates; iii) a soft landings representative; iv) Environmental Officer; and v) five individual Building Managers for differing facilities around the campus – this gave nine focus group participants in total. Whilst this sample consisted of only nine individuals, this represented 100% coverage of the personnel planning and conducting of POE within the Estates department.There are a number of limitations to utilising an interpretivist epistemological approach. First, generalisations cannot be drawn from the approach due to researchers' own biases (views and values) heavily influencing the data and findings utilised in the research (Kiernan and Hill, 2018). Second, researchers utilising interpretivist approaches may assume that social constructs, such as the prevailing academic discourse on environmental sustainability and POE, are the mechanism for accessing reality (Antwi and Hamza, 2015). Third, interpretivist philosophical positioning emphasises qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, analysis due to it being considered a branch of positivism (Symon et al., 2016). Qualitative research is subjective in nature which can introduce researcher bias in terms of the literature selected for study (omitting pertinent research), and the introduction of translation errors (Mallett et al., 2012). Furthermore, the utilisation of a single HEI's Estates Department as a case study for collecting the primary data utilised in this research diminishes the ability to draw wider inference and universalise the findings with certainty, especially considering HE buildings are often required by law to undergo a POE process upon completion, unlike buildings funded through private funds (cf. Ofori-Boadu et al., 2012). Regarding the levels of POE experience of practitioners participating in the focus group, this was found to be relatively low when compared to participants' overall estates experience. This observation can be explained by the lack of implementation of POE in practice (cf. Alborz and Berardi, 2015) and is mitigated by the complete coverage of managerial positions and perspectives garnered in the industry focus group.This research was funded by Birmingham City University's Doctoral Scholar Scheme. Funding Information: This research was funded by Birmingham City University's Doctoral Scholar Scheme . Publisher Copyright: © 2022

PY - 2022/11/10

Y1 - 2022/11/10

KW - AECO

KW - Climate emergency

KW - Environmental sustainability

KW - Implementation barriers

KW - Post-occupancy evaluation

KW - Scientometric analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138119549&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138119549&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133957

DO - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133957

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85138119549

SN - 0959-6526

VL - 374

JO - Journal of Cleaner Production

JF - Journal of Cleaner Production

M1 - 133957

ER -