Post-Occupancy Evaluation’s Applications for Improving Indoor Environment Quality: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Vivi Li and Version 1 by Francesco Lolli.

To improve buildings and their characteristics, the feedback provided directly by users is generally fundamental in order to be able to adapt the technical and structural functions to the well-being of users. The post-occupancy evaluation (POE) fits perfectly into this context. The POE, through qualitative and quantitative information on the interior environment, makes it possible to identify the differences between the performances modeled in the design phase and the real performances experienced by the occupants. 

  • post-occupancy evaluation
  • building performance
  • indoor environment quality
  • occupants’ comfort
  • literature analysis

1. Introduction

People spend a substantial proportion of their time in confined spaces. Approximately 90% of the day is spent at home, work or school, and in traveling [1], so much so that the definition of the “indoor generation” is spreading. In addition, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire world’s population has been forced to stay in confined spaces (especially at home) for long periods of time, which has provided the opportunity to rethink the design and operation of buildings to make them more liveable and efficient in relation to the needs of their users [2].
To improve buildings and their characteristics, the feedback provided directly by users is fundamental information to enable the technical and structural functions to be adapted to the well-being of users [3]. The post-occupancy evaluation (POE), which was introduced in the United States in the 1960s and then disseminated globally, fits perfectly into this context [4,5,6][4][5][6]. This assessment consists of a process of analyzing the characteristics and performance of buildings, carried out with particular attention to the perspective of the inhabitant/user of the building. The concept of the POE is that by asking users about their needs and experiences in the built environment, better spaces can be designed and used [7,8][7][8]. By building performance, wresearchers mean the behavior of the building system, as a whole, when used by the end user, according to their needs [8]. By allowing a “post-dwelling” evaluation, following the actual use of the spaces by the final recipients of the building, the POE makes it possible to identify any discrepancies between the performances modeled in the design phase and those experienced by the occupants. This reveals whether this discrepancy is due to failures in the building design, construction, management or misuse, and it also identifies improvements that can be made. In this way, this approach combines the information collected through the monitoring of the structural and physical parameters that characterize the living spaces and the qualitative and quantitative indications collected through questionnaires, interviews and visits inside the buildings, directly involving the users [9]. All this makes the POE a useful tool for continuous improvement that is capable of providing useful information to all the actors involved in the life cycle of a building [10,11][10][11] and that is applicable to any type of building [12].
According to the authors of [13], the POE evaluates the performance of the analyzed environments according to three main types of aspects: functional, technical and behavioral. Functional performance elements relate to the functionality and level of efficiency of a building’s features, including accessibility, adequacy of spaces and facilities, and services, etc. Behavioral performance concerns the interaction between occupant activities and the physical environment provided. Finally, the elements of the technical performance—such as hygiene and the quality of the indoor environment—represent the factors that influence the comfort, health and productivity of the occupants.
The benefits that the POE guarantees, in the short, medium and long term, are as follows [5]:
  • Short-term benefits include obtaining feedback from users about problems in buildings and in identifying solutions.
  • Medium-term benefits include the feed-forward of the positive and negative lessons learned into the next building cycle.
  • The long-term benefits are aimed at creating databases and at updating, upgrading and generating planning and design protocols and paradigms.
The concept of the POE has evolved considerably over time, adapting to different contexts and applying increasingly complex tools for the collection, processing and combination of qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore, the methodologies for POE are different and there are many ways to conduct it, which characterizes the great flexibility of this approach [14].
As people spend most of their time indoors, indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is one of the priority factors influencing the physiological and psychological health of occupants and results in changes in their habits, well-being, and their physical and cognitive productivity [15,16][15][16]. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) describes the IEQ as the quality of a building’s environment, related to the health of occupants within it. IEQ encompasses the conditions inside a building (air quality, lighting, thermal conditions and ergonomics) and their effects on the occupants or residents.
As indicated in [17], parameters such as thermal, acoustic, light and air quality could—also taking into account individual factors (age, sex, etc.) [18]—strongly influence well-being and health, while also playing a role in the performance of the building, such as its energy consumption. Demonstrating the direct relationship between the IEQ parameters and occupants’ comfort has been the goal of many studies: [16,19,20,21,22,23][16][19][20][21][22][23]. For this reason, the POE method is an ideal approach to analyze the interaction between the factors that make up the IEQ and the users of buildings.
In [24], articles that were published between 2000 and 2015 and that identified and classified many indicators to measure the IEQ dimension within the POE’s applications were analyzed. Using POE, each factor was analyzed from the following two aspects: (i) the values of this particular parameter in the environment were analyzed, and (ii) the perception that users have of this particular parameter was assessed [25].
The scientific literature appears to be very rich in articles that analyze the application of the POE approach to different reference contexts, demonstrating its effectiveness as a study tool and as a support for improving planning, management and behavior in a confined environment, both domestic and economic/productive/services.
Several reviews were also conducted, as summarized in Table 1, each focused on particular aspects assessed by the POE or on specific case studies. In [26] the literature on POE, with a particular focus on the origins, theories, benefits and approaches that make up POE, were reviewed by the authors. Similarly, in [27] the authors conducted a critical and exhaustive review of 146 POE projects since 2010 in order to obtain both a qualitative and quantitative benchmark on this issue. The review in [28] critically examined recent case studies of green building certification systems, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Green Mark and Green Star. In [29], an analysis of the POE tools to identify the methods applied for the evaluation and the metrics used to measure occupant satisfaction was conducted by the authors. The authors of [30] presented the state of the art on the links between IEQs and the well-being and comfort of occupants, with a particular focus on commercial and office buildings. In particular, the literature has analyzed indoor air quality, sick building syndrome, thermal comfort, acoustic comfort and visual comfort, with the aim of providing indications on some primary parameters that characterize the IEQ. The authors of [17] presented a review of the literature about indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and occupant comfort, identifying the most studied parameters. Similarly, review studies [24,31][24][31] identify the factors that distinguish each characteristic aspect of IEQs. In [15], the authors, in assessing the health and satisfaction of occupants in green buildings, also analyzed the design, aesthetics and ergonomics of buildings, which characterize the IEQ.
Table 1.
Review articles related to POE methodology.
Paper Objective Consider IEQ Paper’s Contribution Gap and Future Developments
Afroz Z. et al., 2020

[28]		 POE evaluation applied to certified buildings. Yes, as part of green building projects. Collect a large amount of information related to post-employment data collection and analytical approaches prescribed by the certification systems reviewed.
-
Discrepancies in data infrastructure and archiving practices.
-
In-depth policy exploration and strategies suggested by the certification schemes.
-
Further research efforts in utilizing the data for advanced-level analysis.
Al Horr Y. et al., 2016

[30]		 Describe the state of the art about the links between IEQs and occupant well-being and comfort. Yes, assess the different factors that make up the IEQ. The relationship between the IEQ and the well-being of the occupants and the relationship of IEQs amongst themselves is quite complex.

Qualitative and quantitative introduction of POE.
Yes.
Emerging research topics related to visualization of POE results, occupant survey database analysis, and occupancy measurement.
-
Five directions for future POE development and applications, as follows: from ad hoc to ongoing, from high-level to detailed, owner-/occupant-oriented researcher-oriented, from academia to industry, and from independent to integrated.
Meir I.A. et al., 2009

[5]		 Describe POE’s

conceptual and methodological context, its interaction with other issues related to sustainable design and its growing “canonization” as a method.		 Yes POE is an important and probably inevitable step to make buildings more sustainable. n.a.
Mirzaei N. et al., 2020

[15]		 Examine the relationship between buildings and health Yes Identification of important IEQ factors, including building design, aesthetics and ergonomics, which

were less valued in previous research.

Occupants of green buildings enjoy higher IEQ, satisfaction and health than occupants of non-green buildings.
-
More buildings to accurately assess the indicators cited.
Roberts C.J. et al., 2019

[35]		 Analyze POE literature on building operations and performance as a way to holistically map the body of existing knowledge Yes A stronger community of practice is needed to ensure a consistent approach to POE.
-
Expand current research study and generate broader debate among practitioners and scholars.
 
Considering previous work that has examined POE and the various perspectives for future development that have been described, the purpose of this aentrticley was to review and compare the recent literature on the application of POE methodology to provide both a qualitative and a quantitative assessment of the main factors that make up the IEQ. Therefore, the specific focus of this reviewentry was the application of one/several/all of IEQ’s variables in the POE methodology, by considering the papers that describe the integration of the IEQ into the POE evaluation.
The contribution to the related literature that this aentrticley intends to offer is an analysis of the methods used internationally in POE methodology and of the determining factors in defining the IEQ. In addition, in the discussion some limitations of the current literature are identified to guide future research on this theme.

2. IEQ Parameters

The interaction between the IEQ and occupant satisfaction is very complex. Due to the numerous studies available (e.g., [17,22,46,50,106,146][17][22][36][37][38][39]), it has been shown that the IEQ has a direct short- and long-term effect on the comfort, health and productivity of the occupants of buildings. Therefore, to analyze these aspects, the POE also contributes to the evaluation of all the possible factors [31]. As reported in [25], the factors that influenced IEQ and occupant satisfaction can be divided into physical factors (thermal comfort, indoor air quality, lighting and acoustic environment), which can be assessed by corresponding measurable parameters and non-physical factors (layout of space, privacy, cleanliness, facilities, and the view from the building) that are difficult to measure with tools. Most of the authors (88%) considered the IEQ parameters in the case studies described as supporting elements for understanding occupant satisfaction and for planning possible improvements. In some cases (21%), the IEQ factors were not taken into account. The authors of [147][40] compared the expected and actual energy performance of non-residential buildings and applied the POE to produce more accurate energy performance models. The authors of [81][41] used the POE to prioritize maintenance work to achieve the maximum occupant satisfaction. The authors of [68][42] aimed to improve the accuracy of buildings’ energy simulation, through the evaluation of occupant behaviors. The authors of [67][43] evaluated the functional performance of entrance spaces in apartments in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. With respect to the physical parameters, the analyzed authors described whether or not the evaluation of the POE was completed by in situ measurements, or whether the evaluation was carried out solely by qualitative assessments and judgments, provided by the users of the spaces investigated. In this case, there was a greater balance: 43% expected physical measurements, while 57% of the authors only made qualitative assessments. Some case studies that complemented the POE surveys with field measurements were as follows: [148][44], alongside the questionnaires, the authors also measured the temperature, relative humidity, noise, light, and CO2 concentrations in the case study of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS’ new academic complex; the authors of [149][45] measured the brightness of highly glazed modern buildings, which require solar protection to ensure the visual and thermal comfort of the occupants; the authors of [150][46] detected the temperature and relative humidity trends in houses in the hot and humid tropical climate of Darwin; the authors of [151][47] measured the brightness in collective housing in Algeria; the authors of [152][48] measured different physical parameters (temperature, relative humidity, noise, light and CO2 concentrations) for a comparative study on green and conventional malls in Beijing, China; the authors of [61][49] focused on noise measurements to improve the acoustic performance of residential buildings in Turkey. Conversely, some authors only carried out qualitative evaluations, as follows: the authors of [135][50] analyzed the relationship between defects and occupant satisfaction and loyalty in build-then-sell houses; the authors of [86][51] assessed how maintenance features might affect occupant satisfaction; the authors of [71][52] analyzed the demand for space in the common areas of student residences in Iran; the authors of [153][53] applied the POE to understand how occupants perceive wood in built environments; the authors of [129][54] analyzed how the social dimension of physical space in educational contexts can explain a student’s academic achievement. Considering only the 157 articles that provided qualitative and/or quantitative assessments of IEQ’s physical parameters, Table 52 reports the frequency of analysis of the four categories proposed in [25]: thermal comfort, indoor air quality, lighting and acoustics. For each variable investigated, the main types of tools used for measurement were also reported, as support elements for the design of measurement campaigns, which are useful for the use of the POE methodology.
Table 52.
IEQ categories considered.
Category Number of Papers Frequency (%) of Articles that Analyze this Category, Compared to those that Do Not Main Variables Measured Main Instruments Used for the Sampling/Measurement
Thermal comfort 134 85% Temperature HOBO and Tinytag sensors; Raspberry-Pi-based sensors; Kestral 4000 m; DT-172 logger; and HWM Ecosense temperature loggers
Humidity HOBO and Tinytag sensors; Raspberry-Pi-based sensors; Kestral 4000 m; and DT-172 loggerGreen building designs do not automatically guarantee that the building designed will be comfortable and ensure occupant well-being.
-
More specific and in-depth reflections on the well-being of the occupants necessary.
-
Designing a potentially comfortable building is not enough. It is also necessary to monitor the performance of the building and its occupants during its operations.
Aliyu A.A. et al., 2016

[26]		 Review previous literature on POE—origins, theories, benefits and approaches used in

conducting POE		 Not a priority
Air pressure HOBO and Tinytag sensorsPOE facilitates the detection of construction defects at an early-stage so

corrective actions can be implemented as soon as possible.
-
Future multidisciplinary research is recommended—deepen the social aspects.
-
Learn more about how occupants experience buildings.
-
Examine trends and patterns in building energy data.
-
Promote the successes of the development of social housing.
Artan D. et al., 2018

[29]		 Review metrics used to measure occupant satisfaction, information

collected for each parameter and mechanisms adopted to process the data collected.		 Yes The results show that most of the existing tools are not statistically validated as a measurement construct and that there is no consensus on occupant satisfaction measures, as well as on the information that should be collected by the operator/

Air velocityoccupant for each parameter T-DCI-F900-S-O
-
Improve the way data are collected and managed.
Brambilla A. and Capolongo S., 2019

[32]		 Compare and review recent tools

able to assess the built environment of the hospital		 Yes The most recent tools analyzed by the document show a tendency to increase the percentage of indicators related to health rather than sustainability.
-
Understand the effectiveness of those tools in practice.
Indoor air quality 100 64% CO HD21AB/HD21AB17 Durosaiye I.O. et al., 2019

[6]		 Describe the state

the art of POE in the UK building procurement process.		 Not a priority.
Particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.5 Optical particle countersPOE can be used to make important strategic decisions.

Facility managers can use information from this POE repository to make strategic decisions.		 n.a.
Esfandiari M. et al., 2017

[17]		 Analyze IEQ parameters and their relationship to occupant satisfaction. Yes. Identify IEQ parameters that have a strong influence on occupant comfort.

The thermal, acoustic, light and air quality could strongly influence the comfort and health of people, playing a critical role in the energy consumption of buildings.

There is a complicated relationship between IEQ parameters, which makes it difficult for a designer to find a balance between them.
-
Simultaneously identify full satisfaction and IEQ parameters.
Fantozzi F. and Rocca M., 2020

[31]		 Collect indicators for occupant health and comfort assessment in IEQ assessments. Yes. Human health risk assessment and comfort assessment indicators are specified.
-
Simultaneously identify full satisfaction and IEQ parameters.
Galasiu A.D. and Veitch J.A., 2006

[33]		 Occupant preferences and satisfaction with lighting environment and control systems in daylight offices.
NO2 Passive Difram100 Rapid air monitor Yes, for daylight.
Total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) RadielloTM Cartridge Adsorbents; 98,519 The paper reveals the limitations in the current

knowledge about how people react to daylight and, in particular, how they react to

lighting and shading controls.

Improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings’

lighting should include better use of daylight, but this will require the development of control systems.
-
Formaldehyde
Systematically study the lighting conditions created by individuals using manual lighting and shading control systems.
 Passive devices
-
Make systematic comparisons.
-
Widen the range of light conditions studied.
-
Study the relationship between discomfort and glare ratios.
Geng Y. et al., 2019

[25]		 Review published research on post-occupancy performance of green buildings in terms of energy consumption, IEQ and occupant satisfaction. Yes, with special attention to green buildings.
CO2The energy performance of green buildings was, on average, better than that of conventional buildings. Raspberry-Pi-based sensors; 98,123 J; HD21AB/HD21AB17; Vaisala CO2 sensor

A significant discrepancy was found between planned and operational power consumption.

It was not possible to observe a clear relationship between the actual energy consumption and the level of certification of sustainable construction.

Current IEQ conditions of green buildings were not comparable in different countries.

Green buildings generally have a higher level of occupant satisfaction than conventional buildings.
-
New data collection technologies.
-
Global performance optimization.
Ilter D.A. et al., 2016

[24]		 Collect indicators for assessing occupant satisfaction in IEQ evaluations. Yes. Evaluation indicators.
-
Identify and solve existing issues that impede occupant satisfaction and guide the design of retrofits in office buildings to maximize building performance and user needs.
Lee J.W. et al., 2020
Lighting 112 71% Lighting TM-203 Datalogging; Digital Light Meter and Lutron-YK2005LX; illuminance sensors

[34]		 Implement a web-based building occupant tracking system that incorporates the new

approaches, based on a geographic information system (GIS) tool and open source spatial information.		 Yes. Define a detailed system framework
Glare
-
Conduct research on IEQ factors.
 Camera-based imaging luminance photometer
-
Analyze occupant satisfaction and display the visualization vertically.
-
Carry out a case study of the occupants of a real building to propose a direction for statistical analysis with 3D visualization.
Li P. et al., 2018

[27]
Views from windows Two-dimensional color analyzer
Acoustic environment 97 62% Noise Sound level meter and tapping machine.

Solo 1092 01dB-METRAVIB
All categories were considered by a significant number of authors. The thermohygrometric evaluation of environments was the most considered category (85%), in particular, by measuring the temperature, relative humidity and atmospheric pressure. The authors of [154][55] described the importance of thermal control for building occupants and facility managers. The authors of [155][56] described the case study of a LEED gold-rated university building, in which thermal comfort was analyzed as an IEQ factor. In [42][57], with a case study of university dormitories in China, they described residential satisfaction, which was also linked to thermal comfort. In [118][58], in evaluating the performance of an agri-food building in Italy, they measured the indoor heat levels in hot and cold seasons. In two studies, [16,156][16][59], the authors measured the thermal conditions in green office buildings in Jordan. In [157][60], evaluating 20 office buildings, they measured the lighting levels as a factor in visual comfort and workplace productivity. The authors of [158][61] analyzed the internal conditions of the Arts Tower (Sheffield, UK), also through light measurements. The authors of [159][62] analyzed the physical quantities of lighting in an open plan office to assess the layout of the environment and the effect on the occupants. The authors of [160][63] compared green office buildings with different levels of energy consumption intensity, using light measurement as a rating indicator. The authors of [161][64] analyzed the IEQ of platinum, green-certified office buildings in Malaysia, assessing thermal comfort, indoor air quality, acoustics, lighting, furnishings and cleanliness. The authors of [162][65], by monitoring the performance of four social housing units certified to the Code for Sustainable Homes level, measured CO2 levels as a representative parameter of indoor air quality. Likewise, the authors of [115][66] applied CO2 measurements as an air quality indicator to assess energy-certified buildings. The authors of [54][67] also used this indicator to assess the quality of office space at an Australian urban university. In [163][68], the authors verified occupants’ satisfaction with the indoor environment at work, through the qualitative assessment of indoor air quality. In [164][69], for the assessment of green office buildings, they measured many air pollutants, such as CO2, PM2.5, CO and formaldehyde. The authors of [165][70], in a zero-carbon building, measured CO2 and PM2.5 concentrations. Finally, noise was analyzed in 62% of the papers collected. The authors of [166][71] quantified several key factors influencing occupant satisfaction in higher education institutions in the USA and Lebanon, considering acoustic quality as one of them. The authors of [167][72] analyzed the environments of university buildings in Chongqing, China, through questionnaires and occupant measurements. The authors of [168][73] analyzed the office plan of the Land Rover/Ben Ainslie Racing (LR/BAR) team’s headquarters in Portsmouth, UK. A comparison was made between the measurements with the occupants’ perception of comfort with respect to the same parameters. The authors of [169][74] examined occupant satisfaction in three excellent BREEAM-certified buildings at Coventry University, in the UK. Qualitative assessments were carried out on the perceptions of the occupants, evaluating the thermal environment, indoor air quality, as well as the visual and acoustic environment. The authors of [11] analyzed satisfaction in the office buildings of the University of Southampton (UK), by measuring and evaluating the thermal, acoustic and air quality of the indoor environment.

References

  1. Lucialli, P.; Marinello, S.; Pollini, E.; Scaringi, M.; Sajani, S.Z.; Marchesi, S.; Cori, L. Indoor and Outdoor Concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene in Some Italian Schools Evaluation of Areas with Different Air Pollution. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2020, 11, 1998–2010.
  2. Awada, M.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Hoque, S.; O’Neill, Z.; Pedrielli, G.; Wen, J.; Wu, T. Ten Questions Concerning Occupant Health in Buildings during Normal Operations and Extreme Events Including the COVID-19 Pandemic. Build. Environ. 2021, 188, 107480.
  3. Clement-Croome, D. Intelligent Buildings: An Introduction; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2014; pp. 92–95.
  4. Preiser, W.F.E. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: How to Make Buildings Work Better. Facilities 1995, 13, 19–28.
  5. Meir, I.A.; Garb, Y.; Jiao, D.; Cicelsky, A. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable Step toward Sustainability. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2009, 3, 189–219.
  6. Durosaiye, I.O.; Hadjri, K.; Liyanage, C.L. A Critique of Post-Occupancy Evaluation in the UK. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2019, 34, 345–352.
  7. Adinyira, E.; Abankwa, D.A. Post Occupancy Evaluation of Newly Built Lecture Theatres and Office Buildings at KNUST. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology and Entrepreneurship (ESTE), KNUST-Kumasi, Ghana, 6–7 August 2015.
  8. Boarin, P.; Besen, P.; Haarhoff, E. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Neighbourhoods: A Review of the Literature; National Science Challenge: Auckland, New Zealand, 2018; pp. 1–75.
  9. Federal Facilities Council Learning from Our Buildings; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  10. Hadjri, K.; Crozier, C. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Purpose, Benefits and Barriers. Facilities 2009, 27, 21–33.
  11. Bourikas, L.; Gauthier, S.; En, N.K.S.; Xiong, P. Effect of Thermal, Acoustic and Air Quality Perception Interactions on the Comfort and Satisfaction of People in Office Buildings. Energies 2021, 14, 333.
  12. Harputlugil, T.; de Wilde, P. The Interaction between Humans and Buildings for Energy Efficiency: A Critical Review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 71, 101828.
  13. Mustafa, F.A. Performance Assessment of Buildings via Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of the Building of the Architecture and Software Engineering Departments in Salahaddin University-Erbil, Iraq. Front. Archit. Res. 2017, 6, 412–429.
  14. Ahmed, H.; Edwards, D.J.; Lai, J.H.K.; Roberts, C.; Debrah, C.; Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Thwala, W.D. Post Occupancy Evaluation of School Refurbishment Projects: Multiple Case Study in the UK. Buildings 2021, 11, 169.
  15. Mirzaei, N.; Kamelnia, H.; Islami, S.G.; Kamyabi, S.; Assadi, S.N. The Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality of Green Buildings on Occupants’ Health and Satisfaction: A Systematic Review. J. Community Health Res. 2020, 9, 54–65.
  16. Elnaklah, R.; Fosas, D.; Natarajan, S. Indoor Environment Quality and Work Performance in “Green” Office Buildings in the Middle East. Build. Simul. 2020, 13, 1043–1062.
  17. Esfandiari, M.; Zaid, S.M.; Azzam Ismail, M. Investigating the Indoor Environment Quality Parameters and Their Relationship with Occupants’ Satisfaction in Office Buildings: A Review. J. Des. Built Environ. 2017, 17, 181–193.
  18. Alomirah, H.F.; Moda, H.M. Assessment of Indoor Air Quality and Users Perception of a Renovated Office Building in Manchester. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1972.
  19. De Giuli, V.; Da Pos, O.; De Carli, M. Indoor Environmental Quality and Pupil Perception in Italian Primary Schools. Build. Environ. 2012, 56, 335–345.
  20. Agha-Hossein, M.M.; El-Jouzi, S.; Elmualim, A.A.; Ellis, J.; Williams, M. Post-Occupancy Studies of an Office Environment: Energy Performance and Occupants’ Satisfaction. Build. Environ. 2013, 69, 121–130.
  21. Kim, J.; de Dear, R.; Cândido, C.; Zhang, H.; Arens, E. Gender Differences in Office Occupant Perception of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ). Build. Environ. 2013, 70, 245–256.
  22. Al horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Katafygiotou, M.; Mazroei, A.; Kaushik, A.; Elsarrag, E. Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on Occupant Well-Being and Comfort: A Review of the Literature. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 1–11.
  23. Berquist, J.; Ouf, M.M.; O’Brien, W. A Method to Conduct Longitudinal Studies on Indoor Environmental Quality and Perceived Occupant Comfort. Build. Environ. 2019, 150, 88–98.
  24. Ilter, D.A.; Tekce, I.; Ergen, E.; Seyis, S. Toward an Occupant Satisfaction Measure for Office Building Retrofits. In Proceedings of the 20th CIB World Building Congress—Intelligent Built Environment for Life, Tampere, Finland, 30 May–3 June 2016.
  25. Geng, Y.; Ji, W.; Wang, Z.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. A Review of Operating Performance in Green Buildings: Energy Use, Indoor Environmental Quality and Occupant Satisfaction. Energy Build. 2019, 183, 500–514.
  26. Aliyu, A.A.; Muhammad, M.S. A Review of Post-Occupancy Evaluation As a Tool and Criteria for Assessing Building Performance. In Proceedings of the Academic Conference on Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa, Abuja, Nigeria, 28 April 2016.
  27. Li, P.; Froese, T.M.; Brager, G. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: State-of-the-Art Analysis and State-of-the-Practice Review. Build. Environ. 2018, 133, 187–202.
  28. Afroz, Z.; Burak Gunay, H.; O’Brien, W. A Review of Data Collection and Analysis Requirements for Certified Green Buildings. Energy Build. 2020, 226, 110367.
  29. Artan, D.; Ergen, E.; Dönmez, D. A Critical Review of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Tools. In Proceedings of the 5th international Project and Construction Management Conference (IPCMC 2018), Nicosia, North Cyprus, 16–18 November 2018.
  30. Al Horr, Y.; Arif, M.; Kaushik, A.; Mazroei, A.; Katafygiotou, M.; Elsarrag, E. Occupant Productivity and Office Indoor Environment Quality: A Review of the Literature. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 369–389.
  31. Fantozzi, F.; Rocca, M. An Extensive Collection of Evaluation Indicators to Assess Occupants’ Health and Comfort in Indoor Environment. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 90.
  32. Brambilla, A.; Capolongo, S. Healthy and Sustainable Hospital Evaluation-A Review of POE Tools for Hospital Assessment in an Evidence-Based Design Framework. Buildings 2019, 9, 76.
  33. Galasiu, A.D.; Veitch, J.A. Occupant Preferences and Satisfaction with the Luminous Environment and Control Systems in Daylit Offices: A Literature Review. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 728–742.
  34. Lee, J.W.; Kim, D.W.; Lee, S.E.; Jeong, J.W. Development of a Building Occupant Survey System with 3d Spatial Information. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9943.
  35. Roberts, C.J.; Edwards, D.J.; Hosseini, M.R.; Mateo-Garcia, M.; Owusu-Manu, D.G. Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Review of Literature. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 2084–2106.
  36. Altomonte, S.; Saadouni, S.; Kent, M.G.; Schiavon, S. Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in BREEAM and Non-BREEAM Certified Office Buildings. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2017, 60, 343–355.
  37. Sadick, A.M.; Kpamma, Z.E.; Agyefi-Mensah, S. Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on Job Satisfaction and Self-Reported Productivity of University Employees in a Tropical African Climate. Build. Environ. 2020, 181, 107102.
  38. Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Egbu, C.O.; Zawawi, E.M.A.; Ali, A.S.; Che-Ani, A.I. The Effect of Indoor Environmental Quality on Occupants’ Perception of Performance: A Case Study of Refurbished Historic Buildings in Malaysia. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 407–413.
  39. Benayoune, H.; Boudjadja, R. Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment of University Facilities Through Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Int. J. Innov. Stud. Sociol. Humanit. 2021, 6, 35–50.
  40. Menezes, A.C.; Cripps, A.; Bouchlaghem, D.; Buswell, R. Predicted vs. Actual Energy Performance of Non-Domestic Buildings: Using Post-Occupancy Evaluation Data to Reduce the Performance Gap. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 355–364.
  41. Cao, Y.; Wang, T.; Song, X. An Energy-Aware, Agent-Based Maintenance-Scheduling Framework to Improve Occupant Satisfaction. Autom. Constr. 2015, 60, 49–57.
  42. Yu, C.; Du, J.; Pan, W. Improving Accuracy in Building Energy Simulation via Evaluating Occupant Behaviors: A Case Study in Hong Kong. Energy Build. 2019, 202, 109373.
  43. Al-Yozbakee, H.A.A.K.; Sanjary, H.A.R.H.A. Evaluating the Functional Performance of the Entrance Space in Apartments of Local Affordable Multi-Family Housing. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 61, 1083–1092.
  44. Khamidi, M.F.; Ngah, S.; Wahab, A.; Rodzi, M.; Mohd, N. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) And Indoor Environmental Quality ( IEQ ) Assessment: A Case Study Of Universiti Teknologi Petronas New Academic Complex. Indoor Environ. Qual. 2013, 6, 1–21.
  45. Karlsen, L.; Heiselberg, P.; Bryn, I. Occupant Satisfaction with Two Blind Control Strategies: Slats Closed and Slats in Cut-off Position. Sol. Energy 2015, 115, 166–179.
  46. Safarova, S. Thermal Performance of 6 Star Rated Houses in the Hot and Humid Tropical Climate of Darwin. Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 510–519.
  47. Nadji Maachi, I.; Mokhtari, A.; Slimani, M.E.A. The Natural Lighting for Energy Saving and Visual Comfort in Collective Housing: A Case Study in the Algerian Building Context. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 24, 100760.
  48. Du, X.; Zhang, Y.; Lv, Z. Investigations and Analysis of Indoor Environment Quality of Green and Conventional Shopping Mall Buildings Based on Customers’ Perception. Build. Environ. 2020, 177, 106851.
  49. Şentop Dümen, A.; Tamer Bayazıt, N. Enforcement of Acoustic Performance Assessment in Residential Buildings and Occupant Satisfaction. Build. Res. Inf. 2020, 48, 866–885.
  50. Fauzi, S.N.F.M.; Yusof, N.; Abidin, N.Z. The Relationship of Housing Defects, Occupants’ Satisfaction and Loyalty Behavior in Build-Then-Sell Houses. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 62, 75–86.
  51. Au-Yong, C.P.; Ali, A.S.; Ahmad, F. Improving Occupants’ Satisfaction with Effective Maintenance Management of HVAC System in Office Buildings. Autom. Constr. 2014, 43, 31–37.
  52. Khajehzadeh, I.; Vale, B. Shared Student Residential Space: A Post Occupancy Evaluation. J. Facil. Manag. 2016, 14, 102–124.
  53. Watchman, M.; Potvin, A.; Demers, C.M.H. A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of the Influence of Wood on Environmental Comfort. BioResources 2017, 12, 8704–8724.
  54. López-Chao, V.; López-Pena, V. Purpose Adequacy as a Basis for Sustainable Building Design: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Higher Education Classrooms. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11181.
  55. Loftness, V.; Aziz, A.; Choi, J.H.; Kampschroer, K.; Powell, K.; Atkinson, M.; Heerwagen, J. The Value of Post-Occupancy Evaluation for Building Occupants and Facility Managers. Intell. Build. Int. 2009, 1, 249–268.
  56. Collinge, W.O.; Landis, A.E.; Jones, A.K.; Schaefer, L.A.; Bilec, M.M. Productivity Metrics in Dynamic LCA for Whole Buildings: Using a Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Tradeoffs. Build. Environ. 2014, 82, 339–348.
  57. Ning, Y.; Chen, J. Improving Residential Satisfaction of University Dormitories through Post-Occupancy Evaluation in China: A Socio-Technical System Approach. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1050.
  58. Barreca, F.; Praticò, P. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Buildings for Sustainable Agri-Food Production-A Method Applied to an Olive Oil Mill. Buildings 2018, 8, 83.
  59. Elnaklah, R.; Walker, I.; Natarajan, S. Moving to a Green Building: Indoor Environment Quality, Thermal Comfort and Health. Build. Environ. 2021, 191, 107592.
  60. Choi, J.H.; Loftness, V.; Aziz, A. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of 20 Office Buildings as Basis for Future IEQ Standards and Guidelines. Energy Build. 2012, 46, 167–175.
  61. Lawrence, R.; Keime, C. Bridging the Gap between Energy and Comfort: Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Two Higher-Education Buildings in Sheffield. Energy Build. 2016, 130, 651–666.
  62. Kong, Z.; Utzinger, D.M.; Freihoefer, K.; Steege, T. The Impact of Interior Design on Visual Discomfort Reduction: A Field Study Integrating Lighting Environments with POE Survey. Build. Environ. 2018, 138, 135–148.
  63. Geng, Y.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. Comparative Study on Indoor Environmental Quality of Green Office Buildings with Different Levels of Energy Use Intensity. Build. Environ. 2020, 168, 106482.
  64. Esfandiari, M.; Zaid, S.M.; Ismail, M.A.; Hafezi, M.R.; Asadi, I.; Mohammadi, S.; Vaisi, S.; Aflaki, A. Occupants’ Satisfaction toward Indoor Environment Quality of Platinum Green-Certified Office Buildings in Tropical Climate. Energies 2021, 14.
  65. Sodagar, B.; Starkey, D. The Monitored Performance of Four Social Houses Certified to the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5. Energy Build. 2016, 110, 245–256.
  66. Pastore, L.; Andersen, M. Building Energy Certification versus User Satisfaction with the Indoor Environment: Findings from a Multi-Site Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) in Switzerland. Build. Environ. 2019, 150, 60–74.
  67. Woo, J.; Rajagopalan, P.; Francis, M.; Garnawat, P. An Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment of Office Spaces at an Urban Australian University. Build. Res. Inf. 2021, 49, 842–858.
  68. Kwon, M.; Remøy, H.; van den Bogaard, M. Influential Design Factors on Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environment in Workplaces. Build. Environ. 2019, 157, 356–365.
  69. Lee, J.Y.; Wargocki, P.; Chan, Y.H.; Chen, L.; Tham, K.W. How Does Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Refurbished Office Buildings Compare with the One in New Certified Buildings? Build. Environ. 2020, 171, 106677.
  70. Trofimova, P.; Cheshmehzangi, A.; Deng, W.; Hancock, C. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality and Thermal Performance in a Zero Carbon Building. Sustainability 2021, 13, 667.
  71. El Asmar, M.; Chokor, A.; Srour, I. Are Building Occupants Satisfied with Indoor Environmental Quality of Higher Education Facilities? Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 751–760.
  72. Yu, X.; Liu, L.; Wu, X.; Wu, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Q.; Shi, G. On a Post-Occupancy Evaluation Study of Effects of Occupant Behavior on Indoor Environment Quality in College Buildings in Chongqing. Procedia Eng. 2017, 205, 623–627.
  73. Ponterosso, P.; Gaterell, M.; Williams, J. Post Occupancy Evaluation and Internal Environmental Monitoring of the New BREEAM “Excellent” Land Rover/Ben Ainslie Racing Team Headquarters Offices. Build. Environ. 2018, 146, 133–142.
  74. Montazami, A.; Korsavi, S.; Howell, G. Occupants’ Satisfaction in BREEAM Excellent Certified Buildings. Proc. Int. Conf. Archit. Sci. Assoc. 2020, 2020, 815–824.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback