
www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/news/occupant-surveys.html
This peer-reviewed paper consolidates lessons from 20 years of post-occupancy surveys
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) serves an important role in
collecting occupant insights on the performance of a building, understanding
flaws, and establishing ways to improve the indoor environment. Lindsay T. Graham,
Thomas Parkinson and Stefano Schiavon's recent Buildings & Cities
research paper LESSONS LEARNED FROM 20 YEARS OF CBE'S OCCUPANT SURVEY analyses
20 years of data to evaluate the structure and benchmarking metrics of the University
of California Berkeley Center for the Built Environment's (CBE) Occupant
Survey. Using data from over 90,000 respondents from approximately 900
buildings, they reassess whether occupant surveys are evaluating all they need
to, especially following the transformation that workspaces have experienced in
the last two decades.
The general occupant survey structure includes:
Using correlation analysis, Principal Component Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering Analysis, the authors explore: the distribution of participant responses across several Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors; the structure and measurement properties of the survey; and how benchmarking metrics align with the tool's underlying structure.
Over the entire survey database, the authors find that roughly two thirds of respondents are satisfied with their workspace. Occupants are most satisfied with spaces' ease of interaction, amount of light, and space cleanliness; they are most dissatisfied with sound privacy, temperature, and noise level. In addition to aggregating findings, the authors use their analysis to reflect on the wider practice of POE and make recommendations for developing occupant surveys.
With regard to the survey structure, the authors make a case for streamlining questions. At present individual IEQ factors each have an associated question about whether they enhance or interfere with occupants' ability to complete their job. Instead, they suggest that it should be possible to have just one item that assesses the impact of the space overall on occupants' ability to complete tasks. In addition, the authors' correlation analysis suggests that multiple items around an IEQ theme are not always needed.
Crucially, the authors note that the occupant survey focuses on the problems and limitations within a space, rather than what is working well. They highlight that the survey offers an opportunity for insight into the successful elements of a design and suggest adding questions to capture this. Alongside this, questions that address occupant expectations of the space could be added to help understand the way space impacts emotions and could support occupants to achieve their tasks.
Cross-pollination between building science and social and health sciences could be especially fruitful. Specifically, they suggest incorporating well-developed and tested variables for stress, wellbeing and personality elements. This could be particularly fruitful for monitoring how comfortable people are in workspaces following the Covid-19 pandemic.
The use of workspaces is changing, particularly an increasing prevalence of agile work spaces. POE approaches need to adapt to this. The authors suggest generating shorter, experience-focused surveys utilising smartphones and wearable technologies. They also advocate for pairing this with monitoring of occupancy using sensors to gather a more holistic view of the occupant-building relationship.
The analysis presented in this paper is incredibly useful for truly understanding the utility of the tools that are used for monitoring our built environment such that they can be improved. Changes to the CBE Occupant Survey will be made as a result of this work.
Graham, L. T., Parkinson, T., & Schiavon, S. (2021). Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE's occupant surveys. Buildings and Cities, 2(1), pp. 166-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.76
Urban form metrics for building occupancy modelling: applications and impacts
D Reiter, M Jehling & R Hecht
Retrofit realism: affordable low-carbon policies for existing homes
N Eyre & R Khosla
Inside offsite: everyday dwelling in factory-built apartments
L Dorignon & R Horne
MMC for housing: sectoral perception on governance challenges
J Morgan, C Goodier, R Schmidt-III & K Ayinla
Reorganising specification practice for component reuse: an exploratory study
S Gao, K Jones, J Xu & J Glass
Kitchen retrofits to support food practices and wellbeing
F J Andrews, A Sal Moslehian, E Warner & R Tucker
From strategy to delivery: a comparative analysis of MMC roadmaps
G Goldman, D Sorokine, F Suerich-Gulick, C Carbone & M Jemtrud
Thermal comfort, ventilation and mosquito-borne disease risk in Zanzibar hospitals
O Sloan Wood, J B Knudsen, K L Schiøler, E Lupenza, M Msellem & F Saleh
Reusing precast concrete elements in construction: assessing the economic conditions
O Vigren, H Westerlind & T Malmqvist
Institutional readiness for industrialised social housing in Vietnam
T Q Nguyen, B N Nguyen, T H Q To & Z Aziz
Prefabrication for housing retrofit: governance, innovation and resident experience
E Pikas, K Kuusk, P Pihelo, R Liias, J Pukk & T Kalamees
Reframing heat pump transitions: a care perspective
J van der Haer, R Schelwald & F de Haan
Urban informal settlements in Africa: transforming adaptation governance
K Buyana & H Sseviiri
Reusing concrete products in indoor environments: chemical hazard assessment
K Tähtinen, A Helin, E Parshintsev & H Hovi
Negotiating net-zero carbon: an ANT analysis of two buildings
L Schweber & M Green
Design for disassembly: a review of public policy proposals
O Vorobjev, U Uotila, T Joensuu & A Saari
Retrofitting Norwegian residential buildings: an archetype-based dynamic stock model
L S A Rousseau, S Amini, S Akin & E G Hertwich
Decolonising time: vernacular villages and the politics of heritage temporality
R Al-Rabady
Commutes to alternative workplaces: GHG emissions and physical activity
J Taylor, L Thoen, A Espinosa Mireles De Villafranca, P Anashin, J Vanhatalo, D Milián
Bernal & I Okkonen
Nine ‘myths’ about the building stock of Great Britain
S Evans, P Steadman, A Neto-Bradley, D Humphrey, R Liddiard,H Shamsi, J Palmer & G Simons

The most important part of any journal is our people – readers, authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors. You are cordially invited to join our community by joining our mailing list. We send out occasional emails about the journal – calls for papers, special issues, events and more.
We will not share your email with third parties. Read more
Latest Commentaries
Freedom from Stress is Symptomatic of Death
Marcel Schweiker (RWTH Aachen University) and Richard de Dear (University of Sydney) discuss the neutrality fallacy and resilience. They explain why indoor environments do not need to be stress free in order to support their occupants’ resilience.
Reducing CO2 Emissions: Building with Biogenic Materials
At the 2026 Sustainable Buildings and Construction Summit Michael H. Ramage (Manchester School of Architecture, Centre for Natural Material Innovation, Manchester Metropolitan University) explained how new construction can substantially reduce its carbon footprint by using biogenic materials. These materials lock in carbon during their growth and store it in use as building materials. This provides a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. The premises surrounding an inadequate supply of timber are shown to be false.