Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Evaluation of buildings in real conditions of use: Current situation MARK

Alejandro Vsquez-Hernndez , Mario Fernando Restrepo lvarez
Civil Engineering Department, EAFIT University, Medellin, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Nowadays, the construction industry does not have any feedback regarding the operation of buildings. The
Post occupancy evaluation evaluation of buildings in real conditions of use or post occupancy evaluation is the systematic study of buildings
Green building rating system with the objective of determining the performance once they are inhabited. It is a process of revision and
Building performance identication of the strengths and weaknesses in order to improve the condition of existing buildings and
User satisfaction
provide feedback for future designs. With the purpose of having an approach to studies and proposals related to
the topic, this article presents a review of the literature on methodologies and cases of applications of evaluations
of buildings in real conditions of use, identifying the referred study factors, gathering information on tools used
and the existing types of post occupancy evaluation, as well as the integrated study factors of evaluation and
certication of environmental performance in buildings, whose time of application is phase one. Finally, the
benets and application barriers associated to post occupancy evaluation and issues for further investigation will
be presented.

1. Introduction predicted amount in the modeling [2].

The construction industry does not have feedback processes regard-
ing the operation of a building in real use conditions. The identication
and evaluation of successes and failures, aiming at constant improve-
ment, is focused on the specic processes of the construction phase,
which is explained with the intention of improving the technique that
constitutes the most obvious work of the industry, to construct.
However, this exercise must necessarily be linked to the building
phase, where assessment processes give information about the satisfac-
tion of the needs of the population, the consumption of resources
associated with use and the conservation of quality in time.
The tool used in some projects to have an approach in the operating
phase is modeling. With this, from the design phase, the conditions of
use are simulated with the purpose of improving the knowledge and
comprehension of the building in interaction with atmospheric agents
and inhabitants. The usage of this tool is generally associated with the
evaluation of the consumption of water and electricity resources, and
the quality of the indoor environment. However, the eectiveness of the
models as tools of certainty depends on the level of correspondence that
can be achieved between the model and the system represented. In
terms of the operation of buildings, in many of the cases where that
correspondence had been collated, substantial dierences between the
assumptions considered in the modeling and the actual behavior of
buildings were found [1], in some cases, to be related to the energy
resource, and to real consumption of more than three times the
The evaluation of buildings in real conditions of use or post
occupancy evaluation (POE) is the systematic study of buildings with
the objective of determining its performance once these are inhabited in
a process of revision that allows to draw lessons from the identication
and analysis of the successes and failures, with the purpose of
improving the conditions of existing buildings and giving feedback
about future designs.
POE was introduced as the answer to the issues encountered due to
the relation between a building and the experience that the users had
[3], as some buildings evinced poor performance in the satisfaction
given the needs of the inhabitants and the costs of maintenance being
much higher than budgeted due to the rapid deterioration of materials
[4]. Starting from this point, an object of study has been dierent
research in which diverse approaches and interests related to the
evaluation process can be found, manifested in the evaluated aspects
contemplated and in the strategies used for the gathering of data.
In order to have an approach to studies and proposals related to the
topic, this article presents a literature review of methodologies, tools
and cases of the application of the post occupancy evaluation of
buildings and systems of evaluations and certication of the environ-
mental performance of buildings (Building Rating System) whose time
of application is phase one.

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: avasqu12@eat.edu.co (A. Vsquez-Hernndez), mrestr16@eat.edu.co (M.F. Restrepo lvarez).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.04.019
Received 16 November 2016; Accepted 22 April 2017
Available online 06 May 2017
2352-7102/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez
1.1. Evaluation of buildings in real conditions of use
The lack of systems and customs of the evaluation of buildings in
real conditions of use is one reason that the construction sector does not
have feedback for possible misguided design decisions to assess the
convenience of such criteria in future projects, nor can they count on
mechanisms that allow the analysis of systems built in the stage in
relation to the social systems that inhabit them. are established with an
architectural inquiry mechanism for continuous improvement processes
towards the satisfaction of needs and with the purpose of giving correct
answers in response to the limitations of the environment. This
situation is conrmed by the lack of a habit of revision by the
professionals involved, correspondence and discrepancies between
design decisions made, and the operation of buildings manifested in
phase of use [5].
The evaluation of the behavior of a building in the phase of use is a
process that seeks to gather information with aims for a feedback
process in which objective and subjective variables should be inte-
grated, since, as stated by Joseph Muntaola [6]:
You cannot avoid linking physical aspects of the environment
short, large, heavy, light, etc. with social aspects of the same
environment pleasant, unpleasant, repressive, habitable, signi-
cant or insignicant, etc. for the most objective (what is more
objective than a building?) and the most subjective (what is more
subjective than the assessment of a building?) of any culture is that
they must necessarily have contact.
The post occupancy evaluation of buildings, called environment
design evaluation [7] after occupancy evaluation, evaluation of occu-
pancies or performance evaluation of buildings [8] is dened by Preiser
[3] as:
() the process of systematically comparing actual building perfor-
mance i.e. performance measures with explicitly stated performance
criteria. These are typically documented in a facility program which
is a common pre-requisite for the design phases in the building
delivery cycle. The comparison constitutes the evaluation in terms
of both positive and negative performance aspects.
POE constitutes a wide range of activities that aim to determine the
performance of buildings in real conditions of use to know the
perception that residents have over these, and thus, comprehend the
gap between the needs of the user and the reality of the residential
context inhabited [7,9], and likewise analyze the building in terms of
real consumption and the conservation of quality in time.
The rst post occupancy evaluation systems began to develop in
1960, and this was subsequently integrated into the rst manual of the
Royal Institute of British (RIBA) in 1965 [10], and, today, after 52
years, it is already part of the work plan of RIBA, which has been
established since 2013, and which contains seven stages: Strategic
Denition, Preparation and Brief, Concept Design, Developed Design,
Technical Design, Construction, Handover And Close Out and In Use.
This last phase recognizes the possible benets of taking advantage of
the information coming from the operation of the building for the
development of new projects [11]. The rst methodologies were
highlighted by focusing on the evaluation of homes, college dormitories
and mental health centers [12].
1.2. Systems of evaluation and certication of environmental behavior in
buildings
Due to the high consumption of materials and waste generation,
both in terms of solid waste as well as gas generation, associated with
the construction of buildings, a movement characterized by its concern
for environmental degradation started to take o in the 70s which had a
focus of interest on energy eciency. Later, in the 80s, the manifesta-
tion of this environmental concern in the eld of architecture and
27
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
construction became interested in the impacts generated by the
buildings on the natural environment and the conditions of quality of
the indoor environment, which led to a growing interest in the topic by
the users of buildings [13].
This context worked as the basis so that evaluations and tools that
allow the identication of buildings that address specic design and
construction parameters could be developed in the last two decades in
the search for sustainability in the sector. This was posed under the
premise of decreasing the environmental impacts generated. Sometimes
evaluation systems become a certication, which can be sought in order
to provide verication of the conditions of sustainability of the
building, and simultaneously as an advertising tool for owners and
design and construction teams with the possibility to carry out visible
practices.
The objective of the evaluation systems is to assess the environ-
mental impacts caused from the specic weighing parameters to each
certication, and provide guidelines for its decrease. In the words of
Navarro [13]:
Most of the evaluation systems mix two dierent types of informa-
tion: the measures incorporated into the project and the impacts
associated to the measures. This leads these systems to an attempt to
solve two functions in one: guide the developers and the planners in
the attempt to design high performance buildings (Design guide)
and evaluate building performance in the most objective way
possible (Evaluation tool).
Initially, evaluation systems focused on the design and construction
phase, but various investigations indicated the numerous times that
projects conceived under the so-called sustainability parameters were
not met. Once they were in phase of use, with the characteristics to be
labeled as such, the development of certications that validate and
certify the impact of buildings in real conditions of use was encouraged.
2. Methodology
The study of scientic articles published in the last 15 years that
addressed post occupancy evaluation methodologies, as well as build-
ing evaluation and certication tools which are currently applied in this
sector and which integrate the phase of use in the processes of revision
and evaluation, were used as a basis for the elaboration of the presented
literature review.
The analysis of the bibliographic material was based on the study
factors contemplated by the studied methodologies, information gath-
ering tools used and the type of occupancy evaluation referenced.
The study factors contemplated refer to each of the evaluation
items, that is, they give an account of the aspects that are of interest to
the researcher and to the focus given to the methodology and the
purpose related to it, which are considered to be linked to the
performance of the building and warrant feedback for future design
and construction processes.
The information gathering tools refer to the instruments used in the
assessment methodologies consulted for collecting the information
needed for the study of the aspects of the evaluation identied.
The type of post occupancy evaluation refers to the identication of
the depth level of the contemplated assessment. The analysis was
developed based on the levels identied by Preiser [3] and Turpin-
Brooks [14], who present three types of post occupancy evaluation:
1. Indicative post occupancy evaluation: This approach suggests a
supercial analysis that can include fast evaluations through surveys
structured for the inhabitants of a building, as well as a subsequent
observation tour by the researcher. The typical result is knowledge
of the problems of the project.
2. Investigative post occupancy evaluation: It is an approach that is
made in more detail and more in depth than the previous one, using
interviews and questionnaires, and is usually performed on many
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez
Table 1
Study factors contemplated.
Category Study factors
Environmental aspects Resource consumption- energy consumption
Resource consumption-water consumption
Resource consumption- material consumption
Waste generation - solid waste management
CO2 generation
Physical and space aspects Materiality structural stability
ad estructural
Materiality - durability/maintenance
Materiality suitability of materials
Materiality - thermal inertia of materials
Private zones - area and distribution of enclosures
Private zones ergonomics
Private zones exibility
Private zones privacy
Private zones - ventilation system
Private zones - furniture and/or decoration
Private zones - satisfaction with the design
Common zones - quality of circulation areas
(hallways, stairs, elevators)
Common zones - meeting spaces/gathering spaces
Common zones - Suciency and quality
Common zones - meeting spaces/leisure
Common zones - spaces for recreation/sports
Common zones - access for disabled
Common zones parking/parking lot
Common zones - quality of roads/trails (external)
Psychosocial aspects Thermal comfort
Acoustic comfort
Lighting comfort
Odor comfort
Space comfort
Perception of the quality of indoor air
Perception of the aesthetic of materials
Perception of cleaning/cleanliness
Socioeconomic aspects Security
Maintenance cost
Location
Traveling time
Public transportation
buildings to determine a common pattern. The result is focused on
understanding the causes and eects of the behavioral problems of a
building and provide possible solutions.
3. Diagnostic post occupancy evaluation: It is considered the
deepest approach of the methodologies, as it tends to have a broader
orientation by considering a relation between the measurements of
the physical environment with the subjective responses of the
occupants. Preiser [12] suggests that this kind of depth produces a
high validity and generalization of the data collected, which has
the potential to become a guideline for its use in the public domain.
Also, a dierentiation was made depending on the types of projects
that are being evaluated: residential, institutional or commercial.
Fig. 1. Study factors in building in real conditions of use.
28
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
3. Findings
3.1. Study factors
In the post occupancy evaluation process of a building, there are
many factors that can be evaluated; the goal is to determine the
weaknesses to be improved and the strengths to keep implementing.
Table 1 presents the aspects collected in the analyzed investigations.
The categorization was implemented at the discretion of the authors of
this article as a way of classication.
These aspects have been considered in at least one of the meth-
odologies of post occupancy evaluation consulted. However, some
factors are frequently more studied by the articles addressed, as is the
case of thermal comfort, acoustic comfort, lighting comfort and indoor
air quality. The percentage of occurrence of each of the aspects
addressed in the research is presented in Fig. 1.
The decision regarding which of the study factors to take into
account in a post occupancy evaluation depends on those responsible
for the implementation of the evaluation, depending on the specic
interest that motivates its implementation. Therefore, the percentage of
appearance of the study factors should be reviewed, depending on the
type of building in which it was applied. Fig. 2 presents this informa-
tion.
3.2. Information gathering tools
There is a great diversity of information gathering tools used in the
post occupancy evaluation of buildings, such as questionnaires, indivi-
dual and group interviews, both for users and experts, observations, and
inspection tours, among others. No specic tool is identied as the most
suitable in relation to post occupancy evaluation according to Karim
[15]. It is necessary to take the context and the specic needs and
resources into account, due to the high-end cultural climates in which
the POE can be used.
The information gathering tools for building performance can be
classied into three groups: perception tools, through which the
appreciation that users have over the study factors is investigated, as
it is the most frequently used application of questionnaires for
inhabitants and users [16]. Monitoring tools, from which direct
measurement of the study factors susceptible to this procedure is made,
or monitoring data raised by other agents is consulted; and observation
tools, of which the investigator obtains his own judgment about the
factors analyzed. Not all methodologies of post occupancy evaluation
use information gathering tools related to the three groups described
above. Some only integrate tools from one or two of the groups. Despite
the fact that some of the study factors are closer to one of the
aforementioned groups, the methodologies of occupancy evaluation
intend, as far as possible, to address the same factor from the
information gathering tools related to several groups with the intention
of counteracting the information resulting from the application of
various tools and gaining wider knowledge that integrates dierent
approaches of the factor studied. The percentages of use of the types of
information gathering tools used in the investigations addressed are the
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636

Fig. 2. Number of investigations per study factor according to the type of building.

Table 2 tion in future designs.

Percentages of use of the information gathering strategies.
Types of information gathering tools
Perception of tools
Monitoring
Observation
following (Table 2):
Each of these groups is formed by information gathering tools that
are used to analyze the study factors in the post occupancy evaluations.
Below, the tools used and their percentages of application are pre-
sented. It is appreciated that the satisfaction survey is the most common
tool used by researchers, followed by inspection tours and monitoring
activities (Table 3).
The summary of the use of the dierent information gathering tools
used in the methodologies of post occupancy evaluation studied,
relating the type of building to which the methodology was applied
and the type of POE, are fully presented below (Table 4).
Each of the post occupancy evaluations studied corresponds to a
specic type of evaluation, regarding the depth of the study and the
Usage percentage
information gathering tools applied. Fig. 3 presents the percentage of
59.43 investigations according to the type of post occupancy evaluation,
19.81 relating the type of building to which the methodology was applied.
20.75 The frequency of investigation that addresses each of the study
factors according to the type of POE is presented in Fig. 4.
The information gathering tools applied to the analysis of buildings
in real conditions of use, in accordance with the type of POE, are
presented below, nding that the satisfaction survey is the most
frequently used tool by researchers regardless of the type of POE
applied, while tools such as monitoring, benchmarking, historical
records, individual drawings, open questions and an energy quiz are
used more often in diagnostic types of post occupancy evaluations
(Table 5).
The frequency of application of each of these tools, according to the
type of POE, is presented below, in accordance with the percentage of
use (Fig. 5).

3.4. Synoptic view of the post occupancy evaluation of buildings in the

3.3. Types of post occupancy evaluation
investigations addressed
Depending on the intention and object of the post occupancy
In the following, the state of art of the post occupancy evaluation of
investigation, the study factors addressed are analyzed with dierent
buildings, according to the study factors, of the last 15 years is
levels of depth, that is, based on the implementation of dierent
exhibited. It includes the type of POE and typology of the building in
information gathering tools. As mentioned above, Preiser [3] and
which it was applied. These are presented in Table 6.
Turpin-Brooks [13] identied three types of post occupancy evaluation,
which are directly related to the level of depth of the study conducted.
These are: post occupancy evaluation of indication, investigation and 3.5. Study factors in systems of evaluation and certication of
diagnostic. environmental performance of buildings
The level implemented by the interested party depends heavily on
the nancial availability, the time and the result required or desired. In Not all evaluation tools integrate the phase of use in their evaluation
general, the approach to each of these levels involves a comprehensive processes. There are guidelines for design and construction that can be
planning of the process, the direction of the study and the interpretation evaluated in the construction phase or upon delivery of the property.
of the data in order to provide the feedback needed for the implementa- However, some evaluation systems associated with certications inte-
grate factors of evaluation in the phase of use. These are presented in
Table 3 Table 7.
Percentages of application of the information gathering strategies. These certications are commercial tools developed with the
purpose of reducing the environmental impacts related to the construc-
Types Information gathering tools Usage percentage
tion of buildings, based on giving guidelines for design and construc-
Perception of tools User satisfaction survey 41.5 tion, and evaluating the performance of the building. Each one has a
Focus Group 6.6 dierent origin so they respond to their own peculiarities and specic
Interview 4.7 contexts of their place of origin; thus, a certication designed for a
Expert survey 2.8
Individual drawings 1.9
specic geographical point is not necessarily applicable in other
Open questions 1.9 regions. However, some of these have developed more general evalua-
Monitoring tools Monitoring 15.1 tion processes or have reached a certain prestige in the eld, so they are
Benchmarking 3.8 currently applied in places dierent to their country of origin.
Energy quiz 0.9
Each certication has a specic evaluation purpose, which is
Observation tools Walkthroughs 17.0
Historical records 3.8 approached based on the denition of the evaluation aspects. In some
cases, these certications integrate evaluation aspects that match the

29
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636

Table 4
Information gathering tools of buildings in real conditions of use.

Type of POE Indicative Investigation Diagnosis

Evaluation factors/type of building Residential Commercial Institutional Residential Commercial Institutional Residential Commercial Institutional

User satisfaction survey [1722] [23,24] [2532] [33,34] [3540] [4144] [4547] [4854] [48,5559]
Focus group [23,24] [25] [35,60] [42] [59]
Interview [23] [29] [36,60] [59]
Expert survey [31] [33] [44]
Individual drawings [55,59]
Open questions [37] [45]
Monitoring [61] [37] [4547] [4954] [5559]
Historical records [60] [49,51] [55]
Benchmarking [39] [48,53] [48]
Energy quiz [55]
Walkthroughs [62,17] [29,31] [33] [3537,60] [4143] [49,50] [55,5759]

Table 5
Information gathering tools for building analysis.

Types of information gathering Type of POE

tools
Indicative Investigation Diagnosis

User satisfaction survey X X X

Focus Group X X X
Interview X X X
Expert survey X X
Individual drawings X
Open questions X X
Monitoring X X
Fig. 3. Number of investigations in function of the type of POE and building. Historical records X X
Benchmarking X X
study factors proposed in the methodologies of post occupancy evalua- Energy quiz X
Walkthroughs X X X
tion of the consulted buildings, and in other cases, they propose new
aspects. In Table 8, existing certication systems and their associated
evaluated aspects are presented. use and health eects. The growing interest in the issue of sustain-
Well Standard is a certication that diers to a certain extent from ability, both as a general topic and a topic in the construction eld,
the others already mentioned, as it deals not only with the design and which is present in the discussed systems of certication and evalua-
functioning of buildings, but also with how they aect and inuence tion, together with the requirements of a normative type that are
human behaviors related to health and well-being within such civil gradually being incorporated, have led to the fact that after the
works. requirement of structural stability, eciency in the consumption of
Despite the particular evaluation purposes of each certication resources related to the operation of the building in phase of use is
system, it is useful to identify those systems in which their evaluation constituted as an aspect of special interest.
parameters integrate, to a greater or lesser extent, the evaluation According to Macozoma, the construction sector is responsible for
aspects gathered. For example, the LEED system for existing building 1216% water consumption and 3040% energy consumption [76,77].
integrates 60% of the evaluation aspects (Fig. 6). These are two key variables in terms of an environmental impact. For
Likewise, it is opportune to identify evaluation aspects of general some industries related to static products, such as furniture and
interest, that is, those that are recurrently included in the parameters clothing, the most signicant impacts in terms of resource consumption
evaluated by the dierent systems (Fig. 7). are in the initial stages of manufacturing and production. In other
According to Fig. 7, the most studied factors are: energy consump- industries, for example, those related to the manufacturing of auto-
tion, indoor air quality, water consumption and lighting comfort, all of mobiles and electronic devices, the greatest impacts due to resource
which are directly linked to the consumption of resources in phase of consumption are in the phase of use. The construction industry, when

Fig. 4. Percentage of investigations per study factor according to the type of POE.

30
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez
Fig. 5. Percentage of application of the information gathering tools in accordance with
the type of POE.
integrating the sector related to the manufacture of materials and
supplies, has a large impact associated with the consumption of
resources in its production phases. But also, the product delivered by
the industry is not only a constructed object, it also constitutes an object
of habitability, which means, it is dynamic in which things happen in
order to satisfy the needs of the people who inhabit the space, therefore,
it also has a large impact associated with consumption of resources in
its phase of use.
In countries such as Norway and the United Kingdom, the phase of
use of buildings is responsible for the consumption of up to 90% of the
total energy, as well as total environmental loads between 6090%
[78]. In Italy, the operation of a single-family building can be
responsible for up to 75% of the total energy consumption, depending
on many cases on the characteristics for which the project was
conceived, and in a Latin American country like Brazil, it is responsible
for 45% of electric power consumption [79]. In developed countries,
such as Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Germany and the United States,
the major energy expenditure is produced in the phase of operation of
the buildings. This is because they are located in regions with extreme
winters, which forces the residents to use a lot of energy to condition
their living space, for which the certication systems pursue the
reduction of consumption at that stage [79].
Likewise, according to the Brazilian Council for Sustainable
Construction (CBCS) [80], the implementation of conservation prac-
tices and resource care during the relation phase of buildings with the
user could reduce the consumption of energy and water by 3040%.
Given the abovementioned, the phase of use is not only directly related
to large impacts due to the consumption of resources, among other
things, because it is the most widespread phase in time, but it is also
related to a high potential in terms of consumption reduction. This may
explain the special interest of the certication systems addressed by
aspects such as energy consumption, water consumption and lighting
comfort.
Among these aspects strongly linked to sustainability, from the
consumption of resources, is the quality of indoor air, not distant from
the environmental sphere, but more related to health eects and the
normal development of basic activities in the building. It is for that
reason that emphasizing aspects like the quality of the indoor air in
buildings has become a matter of interest for these systems of
certication, recognizing that environments that provide the conditions
for the development of a healthy life, bring with it quality of life with
high standards of well-being and productivity of the occupants. This is
also supported by the WGBC in its HEALTH AND WELLBEING IN
HOMES report [81] when it states that housing must ensure not only
energy eciency, but also provide good lighting that allows the
31
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
appearance and identity of a home, as well as the well-being of its
occupants and indoor air quality, in order to provide health at home.
The luminous comfort is one of the most recurrent factors, both in
the investigations addressed and in the certication systems; and
according to Vahid Moghimi et al. [82], it is one of the main strategies
to keep in mind when designing a building, since this attribute plays an
essential role in saving resources, perception of spaciousness, environ-
mental awareness, creating a pleasant ambiance as well as safety and
vitality of the occupants.
It is for this reason that, on a number of occasions, commercial
buildings that seek certication are moved not only by the recognition
of their good practices, in terms of reducing associated environmental
impacts, but also by the possibility of improving their human and
economic indicators, as according to researchers, occupants of oce
buildings with environmental certications [8386] have been asso-
ciated with higher productivity, lower absenteeism, lower spending on
health insurance and a lower rate of compensation.
People are 90% of an organization's expenses, so a small improve-
ment in employee productivity produces signicant value for the
organization. Thus, the report of Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in
Oces [87] shows that buildings that have such factors as indoor air
quality, lighting, noise, among others, can maximize benets for people
and leave a better planet. So, there is a strong causal relationship
between design and the health of the occupants, the well-being, the
productivity and ecological construction.
The other evaluation aspects, related mostly to issues of comfort,
maintenance and relations possibilities, and waste generation and
management, are included with less recurrence in the certication
systems studied.
4. Benets of application of POE
The application of POE as a methodological strategy for evaluating
buildings brings benets to both users and developers, designers and
builders, due to the fact that it enables the evaluation of design
decisions, both for those usually applied as well as for the new
integrated concepts [88] in phase of use and maintenance, in terms
of forming a relationship throughout construction with the users, based
on determining their needs and the way the Project responds to them in
a clearer and more direct way. Also, the evaluation of the connections
and discrepancies between what is conceived in the Project and the
styles of living of the users, its impact on aspects such as positive
perceptions of users and generating a sense of belonging, in the
durability of components of the building, on the costs and the frequency
of associated maintenance routines, as well as corroborating the
behavior of new materials, construction techniques and design strate-
gies [89], and determining the real consumption of resources, materi-
als, water and electricity, are associated to the use of buildings [62].
That is, knowing the actual performance of a building in interaction
with atmospheric agents and inhabitants, its operation in real condi-
tions of use as valuable information gives feedback for future projects
and enables a process of continuous improvement with the purpose of
conceiving sustainable projects in relation to the person that inhabits
them, the society that produces them, both natural and articial, and
the territory where they settle.
5. Application barriers
The post occupancy evaluation processes are not widely applied in
the construction sector, even knowing the many benets that this tool
has. Among the identied barriers to the adoption of this instrument is
the lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for the application of the
evaluation process [90], the time required to carry out the process [91],
the costs [91], not only for the investment needed to carry out the
activities, but also the lack of clarity regarding who the person
responsible for covering the costs associated to these activities is
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636

Table 6
Synoptic view of POE in the investigations addressed.

Type of POE Indicative Investigation Diagnosis

Evaluation factors/ Residential Commercial Institutional Residential Commercial Institutional Residential Commercial Institutional
type of building

Energy consumption [62] [26] [45,47] [55]

Water consumption [18] [26] [46]
Material [26] [45,47]
consumption
Solid waste [27] [41]
management
CO2 generation [24] [52]
Structural stability [33] [46]
Durability/ [18] [33] [38] [46] [53]
maintenance
Suitability of [18] [38]
materials
Area and distribution [18] [23,24] [27] [39] [4244] [45,46] [48,53,54] [48,55]
of enclosures
Ergonomics [19] [45]
Flexibility [23] [29] [46] [50,54]
Privacy [27] [42,43] [50,53] [58]
Ventilation system [28] [41] [45] [48,49] [48,55,58]
Furniture and/or [28] [39] [41]
decoration
Satisfaction with the [23] [26,30] [33] [35,60] [42,43] [45,46] [48,54] [48,55]
design
Quality of circulation [30] [44] [45,46] [55]
areas
Quality external [30,31]
areas
Spaces for [18] [53] [55]
recreation/
sports
Meeting spaces/ [18] [27] [53] [55]
leisure
Access for the [18,21]
disabled
Parking/parking lot [19] [25]
Thermal comfort [17,1922] [23,24] [25,2729,31,32] [34,61] [3540,60] [4144] [45,47] [51,52,49,50,53,54,48] [48,5659]
Acoustic comfort [17,1921] [23] [25,2732] [34] [3537,39,40,60] [4144] [52,50,53,54,48] [48,56,57,59]
Lighting comfort [17,1922] [23] [25,2729,31,32] [34] [3537,39,40,60] [4144] [52,50,53,54,48] [48,5659]
Odor comfort [42,43]
Space comfort [17] [53]
Quality of indoor air [1721] [23,24] [25,29,31,32] [34] [35,36,39,40,60] [4143] [45] [5254] [56,57]
Aesthetic of [18] [26,30] [33] [35,38,60] [42,43] [54]
materials
Cleaning/cleanliness [38] [44]
Security [18] [27,30,31] [37,38] [44] [46]
Maintenance cost [18] [38]
Location [30] [33]
Traveling time [30] [35]
Public transportation [18] [30] [37] [41]
Quality of roads/ [21] [33]
trails

Table 7 [90,92] and the dierence between who pays and who is beneted in
Systems of evaluation and certication. the rst instance of the implementation of the systematic study of the
building [5]. This is clearly linked to the lack of appreciation and
Year Rating system Country of origin
recognition of the continuous improvement processes [5] associated to
1998 NABERS Australia the operation of a building, to the lack of unanimity in the identication
2000 Green globes for existing building Canada of the key performance indicators [90,93] and the reliability associated
2005 Green Mark Singapore
to these [90],as well as to the lack of relevant training of professionals
2007 IISBE Canada
2009 LEED for existing building United States
in the sector, manifested among other things by the absence of these
2009 BREEAM in use United Kingdom issues in most curriculums associated to the construction sector and its
2011 BREEAM Home United Kingdom gradual elimination of those curriculums that had traditionally been
2012 Verde Spain using these types of methodologies, such as the case of architectural
2013 CASBEE for existing building Japan
schools in the United Kingdom [90]. From the point of view of
2013 Green Start Australia
2015 The WELL Building Standard United States architectural design, the application of these types of evaluation nds
barriers in the fact that, in an increasingly litigious society, the notion
of evaluation is not always well received, especially if it is a criticism of
the designs, even becoming considered a tool against the freedom of

32
 Table 8
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez

Aspects evaluated in systems of evaluation and certication of buildings.

Evaluated factors/certication BREEAM in Use VERDE CASBEE GREEN STAR iiSBE [69] Green Mark LEED for existing NABERS [73] Green Globes WELL Standard
[63,64] [12,65] [66,67] [68] [70,71] building [72] [74] [75]

Matching Energy consumption X X X X X X X X X

Water consumption X X X X X X X
Material consumption X X X
Solid waste management X X X
CO2 generation X X X X
Flexibility X
Satisfaction with the design X
Outdoor Space X X
Access for disabled X X
Thermal comfort X X X X X
Acoustic comfort X X X X X X
Lighting comfort X X X X X X X

33
Quality of indoor air X X X X X X X X X
Security X
Maintenance cost X X X X
Location X X X
Public transportation X X X X

News Alternative modes of X X X X X X

transport
Ventilation X X X X
Recycling X
Guide and user X X X X
Maintenance programs X
Post occupancy evaluation X X
Innovation in operation X X
Impact on neighbors X X X
Water Quality X
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez
Fig. 6. Integration Percentage of aspects in certication systems.
Fig. 7. Percentage of inclusion of the evaluated aspects.
design [15]. Also, the logic of the construction industry, which is
aiming at more than any other industry, the non-integration of the
phases of design, construction and operation of a building, causes a
division in the benets related to the post occupancy evaluation in
these stages, fragmenting the incentives at the same time [90]. In
addition, the high number of specialists involved in the conception of a
building, where each has their own point of view, technical language,
goals and incentives in order to achieve their particular objectives,
increases the diculty of having an agreement among them for the
benet of nal users [5], as well as the continuous improvement
process after the feedback originated in the post occupancy evaluation.
6. Discussion
The results studied in each of the investigations suggest that, despite
the potential that POE has to generate positive eects in the construc-
tion industry in a process of continuous improvement, its application is
still very limited due to the economic and social logics, due to the costs
of formulation, execution and implementation of the recommendation
of the evaluation, plus the fragmented incentives among the dierent
players involved within a building, since none of them knows what
their participation is and what the benets of carrying out a post
occupancy evaluation are.
The post occupancy evaluation has progressed from very few
dimensions to a process of multidimensional feedback; therefore, the
elds of evaluation and interests are increasingly wider, so the
evaluations in real conditions of use have begun to migrate, not
forgetting the most interesting aspects, to aspects such as a satisfaction
of needs, social relations, security, and specialization, among others.
Even so, dierent topics are shown such as the conservation of qualities
in time where post occupancy evaluation could be highly useful, but has
not yet received the appropriate importance.
As the topic of which kind of POE is used deepens, it is found that
34
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
the buildings in which the evaluation is usually carried out are
institutional and commercial, and this relates to the fact that it is a
type of building in which the agents interested in promoting the project
from design and construction are related to the buildings in the phase of
use and maintenance; therefore, the benets associated with the
reduced consumption of resources, conservation of qualities in time,
satisfaction of needs, as well as the property valuation and advertising,
applicable to certication matters, are appreciated by the one in charge
of assuming the cost of the study and implementation.
7. Conclusions
This document contributes to the existing literature on the evalu-
ated subject because it focuses on the need for a clear understanding of
the practice of POE, favoring the approach to the topic, the issues
related to its implementation: the factors studied, the methods of
information gathering, the dierent types of evaluation, these of which
are related to the typologies of edication in which they are applied.
The abovementioned, under the conviction of the need for the
implementation of POE in the eld of construction, is a mechanism of
feedback in terms of operation under real conditions of use, as an
essential starting point in a process of continuous improvement.
The approach to the subject is a concise starting point for future
researchers interested in this eld of knowledge and for the construc-
tion industry in terms of the application of tools to improve the
performance of buildings. It also benets social and technical research-
ers who wish to know and learn about the behavior of buildings in their
phase of use and from this information to feed the dierent stages of the
life cycle of a building.
The application of POE has been segregated to some extent, to
institutional and commercial buildings, because there is less ambiguity
in terms of who is responsible for the cost of the study and who the
beneciary of their ndings is and what conclusions there are.
However, it is important to emphasize the importance of these practices
beginning to be integrated into residential buildings, not only because
of the associated construction volumes, but also because of what it
represents in terms of satisfying needs, the conservation of the qualities
in time and rational use of resources.
In order to encourage the deepening of post-occupancy evaluation
in the real estate market, the transversal evaluation of all its stake-
holders is essential: developers, regulators, designers, builders and
buyers. The education, training and dissemination about what the
concept of Post-Occupancy Assessment (POE) in the real estate area
consists of and how this translates into concrete elements and benets is
a fundamental task in the process of consolidating a sustainable
building park.
So, the development of Post-Occupancy Assessment Tools that
provide the interested parties, possibilities to know their buildings
and in this way improving the processes in each of the stages of the
building is necessary. These tools should be focused on the particular
conditions and generalities of each region in order to generate concrete,
ecient and eective feedback that responds to the needs of the
occupants and to the benet of the whole community.
In countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, the
systematic study of buildings turned from an academic interest to an
economic interest, since the potential of performing such a study was
evidenced. This is why companies that are focused solely on the study
of buildings were created. Some which have been successful case
studies are: The MLC center, The Rivergreen Center, Kingsmead
Primary School in the United Kingdom, showing that in buildings that
have feedback processes, the perceptions of the individuals who make
use of them improve considerably and the operation has more
correspondence to what was planned, generating benets to designers,
contractors, developers, operators and project managers.
For the dissemination of studies with these characteristics to have
an impact in developing countries, it is necessary to incorporate
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez
regulations or policies that require the correspondence of buildings
with the needs of the country and the preservation of their natural
resources, while ensuring a relevant and responsible investment over
time, thus allowing the benets of this study to reach vulnerable groups
that otherwise could not access them, seeing their quality of life
improved by having more comfort, better living conditions and
optimizing economic resources. Strategies of this nature would not
only benet the individuals who use the buildings, but also govern-
mental entities that seek to provide conditions of decent and adequate
housing to the citizens.
Acknowledgements
The funding to this study was provided by EAFIT University, under
the project number 690-000095.
References
[1] C.G.S. Olivia, T. Aidan, In-use monitoring of buildings: an overview and classi-
cation of evaluation methods, Energy Build. 86 (2015) 176189, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.005.
[2] B. Bordass, R. Cohen, J. Field, Energy performance of non-domestic buildings:
closing the credibility gap, Build. Perform. Congr. (2004) 110 http://www.
usablebuildings.co.uk/Pages/Unprotected/EnPerfNDBuildings.pdf.
[3] P. Wolfgang, Postoccupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better,
Facilities 13 (1995) 1928, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632779510097787.
[4] A. Leaman, F. Stevenson, B. Bordass, Building evaluation: practice and principles,
Build. Res. Inf. 3218 (2010) 564577, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.
495217.
[5] A. Zimmerman, M. Martin, Post-occupancy evaluation: benets and barriers, Build.
Res. Inf. 29 (2001) 168174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210010016857.
[6] M.. Josep, Topognesis DOS: Ensayo Sobre la Naturaleza Social Del Lugar, Oikos-
Tau, Barcelona, 1979.
[7] R.C. Zimring, T. Getting, it right the second or third time rathxer than the sixth or
seventh, in: Federal Facilities Council Symposium on Building Performance
Assessment: Current and Evolving Practices for the Post Occupancy Evaluation
Programs, Washington, 2001.
[8] C.O. Aigbavboa, W.D. Thwala, Housing experience of South African Low-income
Beneciaries, 2011.
[9] D.P. Varady, W.F.E. Preiser, Scattered-site public housing and housing satisfaction:
implications for the new public housing program, J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 64 (1998)
189207, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975975.
[10] B. Rober, Environment and Behavior: An Introduction, SAGE Publications,
California, 1997.
[11] Royal Institute of British Architects, RIBA plan of work 2013, 2013. doi:ISBN 978 1
85946 519 6.
[12] W.F.E. Preiser, Built environment evaluation: conceptual basis, benets and uses, J.
Archit. Plann. Res. 11 (1994) 91107.
[13] M. Macas, J. Garca Navarro, Metodologa y herramienta VERDE para la
evaluacin de la sostenibilidad en edicios, Inf. La Constr. 62 (2010) 87100,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/ic.08.056.
[14] S. Turpin-Brooks, G. Viccars, The development of robust methods of post occupancy
evaluation, Facilities 24 (2006) 177196, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02632770610665775.
[15] K. Hadjri, C. Crozier, Postoccupancy evaluation: purpose, benets and barriers,
Facilities 27 (2009) 2133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632770910923063.
[16] J. Yang, M. Santamouris, S.E. Lee, Review of occupancy sensing systems and
occupancy modeling methodologies for the application in institutional buildings,
Energy Build. 121 (2016) 344349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.12.
019.
[17] H. Marianne, M. Paddy, A post-occupancy evaluation (POE) study of student
accommodation in an MMC/modular building, Struct. Surv. 29 (2011) 244252,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630801111148211.
[18] T. Wongbumru, B. Dewancker, Post-occupancy evaluation of user satisfaction: a
case study of old and new public housing schemes in Bangkok, Archit. Eng. Des.
Manag 12 (2) (2016) 107124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2015.
1106399.
[19] C. Huber, D. Koch, S. Busko, An international comparison of user satisfaction in
buildings from the perspective of facility management, Int. Comp. User Satisf. Build.
Perspect. Facil. Manag. 5 (2014) 15.
[20] A. Zalejska-Jonsson, Parameters contributing to occupants' satisfaction, Facilities 32
(2014) 411437, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2013-0021.
[21] C. Voelker, J. Beckmann, S. Koehlmann, O. Kornadt, Occupant requirements in
residential buildings: an empirical study and a theoretical model, Adv. Build.
Energy Res. 7 (2013) 3550, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512549.2012.749808.
[22] P. Xue, C.M. Mak, H.D. Cheung, J. Chao, Post-occupancy evaluation of sunshades
and balconies' eects on luminous comfort through a questionnaire survey, Build.
Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 37 (2016) 5165, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0143624415596472.
[23] S.J. Wilkinson, R.G. Reed, J. Jailani, User Satisfaction in sustainable oce
35
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
buildings: a preliminary study 17, in: 17th PRRES Pacic Rim Real Estate Soc.
Conf., Gold Coast, 2011, pp. 115.
[24] Y. Davara, I.A. Meir, M. Schwartz, Architectural design and IEQ in an oce
complex on research , politics and their dynamics, in: Heal. Build. Creat. a Heal.
Environ. People, Lisboa, 2006, pp. 7781.
[25] F. Adewunmi, Yewande; Omirin, Modupe; Famuyiwa, post-occupancy evaluation of
postgraduate hostel facilities, Facilities 29 (2012) 149168, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/0263277111110927.
[26] E. Ojeda, Marian;, Vanessa Prieto, Rondn, Validating a post ocupancy evaluation
tool: an aproximation Validacin de un instrumento para la evaluacin post
ocupacional de Obras, Ing. Y Soc. 5 (2010) 3742.
[27] A.M. Kotzer, S.K. Zacharakis, M. Raynolds, A. Aia, F. Buenning, Evaluation of the
built environment: sta and family satisfaction pre- and post-occupancy of the
children Hospitals, Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 4 (2011) 6078.
[28] J. Mundo-hernndez, M.C. Valerdi-nochebuena, Post-occupancy evaluation of a
restored industrial building: a contemporary art and design gallery in Mexico,
Front. Archit. Res. 4 (2015) 330340, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2015.09.
003.
[29] Y. Zhang, P. Barrett, Findings from a post-occupancy evaluation in the UK primary
schools sector, Facilities 28 (2010) 641656, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02632771011083685.
[30] E. Cubukcu, Z.N. Isitan, Does student behavior dier in relation to perception/
evaluation of campus environments ? A post-occupancy research in Two University
Campuses, Gazi Univ, J. Sci. 24 (2011) 547558.
[31] B.E. Davis, Rooftop hospital gardens for physical therapy: a post-occupancy, Eval.
Heal. Environ. Res. Des. J. 4 (2011) 1443.
[32] M.A. Hassanain, Post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of
student housing facilities post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation
of student housing facilities, Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2007 (2016) 249256,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2007.9684646.
[33] A.O. Ilesanmi, Post-occupancy evaluation and residents' satisfaction with public
housing in Lagos, Nigeria, J. Build. Apprais. 6 (2010) 153169, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1057/jba.2010.20.
[34] P. Xue, C.M. Mak, Z.T. Ai, A structured approach to overall environmental
satisfaction in high-rise residential buildings, Energy Build. 116 (2016) 181189,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.01.006.
[35] M.A. Hassanain, H. Mathar, A. Aker, Post-occupancy evaluation of a university
student cafeteria, Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 12 (2016) 6777.
[36] F. Martellotta, A. Simone, S. Della Crociata, M.D. Alba, Global comfort and indoor
environment quality attributes for workers of a hypermarket in Southern Italy,
Build. Environ. 95 (2016) 355364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.
029.
[37] S.W. Ornstein, B. Chaves, C. Leite, .M. De Andrade, Oce spaces in Sa o Paulo:
post-occupancy evaluation of a high technology building, Facilities 17 (2009)
410422.
[38] N. Hadi Nawawi, Abdul; Khalil, Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building
occupants' satisfaction: an approach to performance evaluation of government and
public buildings, J. Build. Apprais. 4 (2008) 5969, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jba.
2008.22.
[39] C. Abbaszadeh, S. Zagreus, L. Lehrer, D. Huizenga, Occupant satisfaction with
indoor environmental quality in Green Buildings, Proc. Heal. Build. 3 (2006)
365370.
[40] Y. Langston, Craig; Song, Perceived conditions of workers in dierent organiza-
tional settings, Facilities 26 (2012) 5467.
[41] M. Bonde, J. Ramirez, A post-occupancy evaluation of a green rated and conven-
tional on-campus residence hall, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4 (2015) 400408,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.07.004.
[42] T. Horgen, S. Sheridan, S. Sheridan, Post-occupancy evaluation of facilities: a
participatory approach to programming and design, Facilities 14 (1996) 1625,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632779610123344.
[43] N. Muhamad, S. Nizam, M. Riley, E. Marinie, A. Zawawi, R. Sulaiman, A
quantitative evaluation of indoor environmental quality in refurbished kindergar-
ten buildings: a Malaysian case study, Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 723733, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.11.002.
[44] S.I. Yuan, C. of, C. Chinese, Post Occupancy Evaluation Report Si Yuan Centre of
Contemporary Chinese Studies, 2014.
[45] F. Stevenson, H.B. Rijal, F. Stevenson, H.B. Rijal, Developing occupancy feedback
from a prototype to improve housing production, 38, 2010, pp. 549563. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.496182.
[46] H. Nizam, A. Hadi, F. Ismail, N. Khalil, Preliminary survey of integrated safety
elements into post occupancy evaluation for Malaysia s Low Cost Housing,
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 36 (2012) 583590, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2012.03.064.
[47] C. Spataru, M. Gillott, M.R. Hall, S.E. Technology, Domestic energy and occupancy:
a novel post-occupancy evaluation study, Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 5 (2010)
148157, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctq020.
[48] Arup, BUS Methodology, 2017. http://www.busmethodology.org.uk.
[49] M. Malkoc, Emine, Bulent Ozkan, Indoor and B uilt Post-occupancy Evaluation of a
Built Environment: the Case of Konak Square ( Izmir, Turkey), Indoor Built Environ.
19 (2010) 422434, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/142032610365819.
[50] E. Finch, Empathetic design and post-occupancy evaluation, Facilities 17 (1999)
431435, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632779910291903.
[51] Z. Gou, S.S. Lau, Post-occupancy evaluation of the thermal environment in a green
building, Facilities 31 (2013) 357371, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02632771311317493.
[52] H. Liang, C. Chen, R. Hwang, W. Shih, S. Lo, Satisfaction of occupants toward
A. Vsquez-Hernndez, M.F. Restrepo lvarez
indoor environment quality of certi ed green of ce buildings in Taiwan, Build.
Environ. 72 (2014) 232242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.11.007.
[53] C. Candido, J. Kim, R. De Dear, L. Thomas, C. Candido, J. Kim, R. De Dear, BOSSA :
a multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation tool, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (2016)
214228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015.1072298.
[54] J. Li, Y. Song, S. Lv, Q. Wang, Impact evaluation of the indoor environmental
performance of animate spaces in buildings, Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 353370,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.08.007.
[55] A. Wheeler, M. Malekzadeh, Exploring the use of new school buildings through
post-occupancy evaluation and participatory action research, Archit. Eng. Des.
Manag. 11 (2015) 440456, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2015.1021292.
[56] M.C. Lee, K.W. Mui, L.T. Wong, W.Y. Chan, E.W.M. Lee, C.T. Cheung, Student
learning performance and indoor environmental quality ( IEQ) in air-conditioned
university teaching rooms, Build. Environ. 49 (2012) 238244, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.001.
[57] V. Loftness, A. Aziz, J. Choi, K. Kampschroer, K. Powell, M. Atkinson, J. Heerwagen,
The value of post-occupancy evaluation for building occupants and facility
managers, Intell. Build. Int. 1 (2009) 249268, http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/inbi.
2009.SI04.
[58] L. Frenkel, S. Fundaminsky, I. Meir, L. Morhayim, Post-occupancy evaluation of a
scientists village complex in the desert towards a comprehensive methodology, in:
PLEA2006 - 23rd Conf. Passiv. Low Energy Archit., Geneva, 2006, pp. 68.
[59] S.W. Ornstein, R. Ono, Post-occupancy evaluation and design quality in Brazil:
concepts, approaches and an example of application, Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 6
(2010) 4868.
[60] K. Wall, A. Shea, Post-occupancy evaluation of a mixed-use academic oce
building, in: Int. Conf. Sustain. Energy Build., Berlin, 2013, pp. 501510. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36645-1.
[61] S. Yokobayashi, M. Sato, Estimation of indoor environment of a Tsuchikabe house
constructed by Japanese Sakan Craftsmen, in: 6th Int. Build. Phys. Conf. IBPC 2015,
Elsevier B.V., 2015: pp. 28142819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.
638.
[62] A.. Plasencia, C Mario; Guerra, Post-occupational evaluation : tool for the
implementation of the international standard ISO 50001 in buildings, Rev.
Cientca La Univ. Cienfuegos. 6, 2014, pp. 1322.
[63] S. Summerson, J. Atkins, A. Harries, BREEAM In-Use. Driving sustainability through
existing buildings, n.d. http://www.breeam.org/lelibrary/BREEAM In Use/
KN5686BREEAM-In-Use-White-Paper_dft2.pdf.
[64] B.R. Establishment, Breeam in Use, 2017. http://www.breeam.com/in-use
(Accessed 01 June 2016).
[65] G.B.C. Espaa, GBCe, 2016. http://www.gbce.es/ (Accessed 01 June 2017).
[66] J.S.B.C. (JSBC) and I. for B.E. and E. Conservation (IBEC), CASBEE, (n.d.). http://
www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/ (Accessed 01 June 2016).
[67] Japan sustainable building Consortium, CASBEE for market promotion, 2011.
http://www.unep.org/leadmin/publications/property/CASBEE-Market_
Promotion_tentative.pdf.
[68] G.B.C. Australia, Green Star, (n.d.). http://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-
system/performance/ (Accessed 01 July 2016).
[69] I. Canada, iisbe CANADA, 2017. http://iisbecanada.ca/ (Accessed 20 June 2007).
[70] B.G.M. Version, BCA Green Mark for Existing Residential Buildings Version ERB 1 .
0, 2013.
[71] B. & C. Authority, Building and construction Authority, 2016. (n.d.). https://www.
bca.gov.sg/ (Accessed 01 July 2016).
[72] USGBC, LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance Project, 2012.
[73] S. and T. governments Oce of Environment and Heritage on behalf of Federal,
NABERS, (n.d.). http://www.nabers.gov.au (Accessed 01 July 2016).
36
Journal of Building Engineering 12 (2017) 2636
[74] G. Globes, Green globes, (n.d.). http://www.greenglobes.com/home.asp
(Accessed 01 July 2016).
[75] I.W.B. Institute, Institute, International WELL Building, 2017. https://www.
wellcertied.com/.
[76] D.S. Macozoma, Construction Site Waste Management And Minimisation, South
Africa, 2002.
[77] I. Zabalza Bribin, A. Aranda Usn, S. Scarpellini, Life cycle assessment in buildings:
state-of-the-art and simplied LCA methodology as a complement for building
certication, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 25102520, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2009.05.001.
[78] C.K. Chau, T.M. Leung, W.Y. Ng, A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy
assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings, Appl. Energy
143 (2015) 395413, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023.
[79] F. Maia Guzenski, Impacto ambiental del sector de la construccin. Anlisis
comparativo de cerramientos externos aplicando el enfoque de ciclo de vida,
Madrid (2011).
[80] A. BENITE, Emisses de Carbono e a Construo Civil, 2011. http://www.cte.com.
br/imprensa/2011-02-27-emissoes-de-carbono-e-a-construcao-civ/.
[81] UK Green Building Council, Health and Wellbeing in Homes, 2016. http://www.
ukgbc.org/resources/publication/uk-gbc-task-group-report-healthy-homes,.
[82] V. Moghimi, M.B.M. Jusan, P. Izadpanahi, J. Mahdinejad, Incorporating user values
into housing design through indirect user participation using MEC-QFD model, J.
Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 7683, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.012.
[83] V. Loftness, V. Hartkopf, L.K. Poh, M. Snyder, Y. Hua, Y. Gu, J. Choi, X. Yang,
Sustainability and health are integral goals for the built environment, Healthy
Build. 1 (2006) 117 http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
84857052326&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.
[84] Amanjeet Singh, Matt Syal, Sue C Grady, Sinem Korkmaz, Eects of green buildings
on employee health and productivity, Am. J. Public Health 100 (2010) 6651668,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.180687.
[85] K.L. Ries, Bilec Robert, M. Melissa, Nuri Mehmet Gokhan, Needy, the economic
benets of green buildings: a comprehensive case study, J. Devoted Probl. Cap.
Investig. 51 (2006) 259295, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00137910600865469.
[86] A. Thatcher, K. Milner, The impact of a green building on employees' physical and
psychological wellbeing, Work 41 (2012) 38163823, http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/
WOR-2012-0683-3816.
[87] R.O. John Alker, Michelle Malanca, Chris Pottage, Productivity in Oces The next
chapter for green building, 2015. http://www.worldgbc.org/les/4614/1152/
1461/WorldGBC__Health_Wellbeing__Productivity_Short_Report.pdf.
[88] F.F. Council, Learning from our Buildings: A State of the Practice Summary of Post
Occupancy Evaluation, National Academy Press, Washington, 2001.
[89] T. Andreu, Isabel Carmona, Oreszczyn, architects need environmental feedback,
Build. Res. Inf. 32 (2004) 313328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09613210410001679857.
[90] I. Cooper, Post-occupancy evaluation where are you? Build. Res. Inf. 29 (2001)
158163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210010016820.
[91] J. Vischer, Post-occupancy evaluation: a multifaceted tool for building improve-
ment, in: Learn. from our Build. A State-of-the-Practice Summ. Post-Occupancy
Eval., National Academy Press, Washington, 2002, pp. 2353.
[92] Bill Bordass, Adrian Leaman, Paul Ruyssevelt, Assessing building performance in
use 5: conclusions and implications, Build. Res. Inf. 29 (2001) 144157, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008054.
[93] A. Bordass, Bill; Leaman, Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine,
Build. Res. Inf. 33 (2005) 347352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09613210500162016.