Research needs for enhancing pre-occupancy evaluation of buildings

Abstract

PurposeMany buildings fail to meet user expectations, causing a performance gap. Pre-occupancy evaluation (PrOE) is believed to have the potential to close the gap. It enables designers to obtain end-user feedback in the design phase and improve the design for better performance. However, PrOE implementation faces challenges due to still maturing knowledgebase. This study aims to understand the state-of-the-art knowledge of PrOE, thereby identifying future research needs to advance the domain.Design/methodology/approachA systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework was conducted. A thorough search in five databases and Google Scholar retrieved 90 articles, with 30 selected for systematic review after eliminating duplicates and irrelevant articles. Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny on the article metadata, and thematic analyses were conducted on their contents.FindingsPrOE is a vehicle for engaging building end-users in the design phase to address the credibility gap caused by the discrepancies between the expected and actual performance of buildings. PrOE has gained limited applications in healthcare, residential, office and educational building design for two broad purposes: design management and marketing. Using virtual reality technologies for PrOE has demonstrated significant benefits. Yet, the PrOE domain needs to mature in multiple perspectives to serve its intended purpose effectively.Originality/valueThis study identifies four knowledge gaps for future research to advance the PrOE domain: (1) developing a holistic PrOE framework, integrating comprehensive performance evaluation criteria, useable at different stages of the design phase and multi-criteria decision algorithms, (2) developing a mixed reality tool, embodying the holistic PrOE framework, (3) formulating a PrOE framework for adaptive reuse of buildings and (4) managing uncertainties in user requirements during the lifecycle in PrOE decisions.