The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings?
Open accessAbstract
Are buildings designed for lower environmental impacts better from the occupants' point of view? Based on methodology developed in the UK by Building Use Studies and used for the Probe series of post-occupancy studies, the paper explores sources of occupant dissatisfaction, and whether or not green buildings are perceived as better by their users. Occupant surveys from 177 UK buildings are used for statistical comparisons between conventional and green buildings. Findings point to improvements in some areas, such as image and how needs are met, but green buildings are in danger of repeating past mistakes, especially if they are too difficult to manage. Users tend to tolerate deficiencies rather more than they do with more conventional buildings. There are also methodological problems. Findings based on more general, ‘summary’ questions tend give a more optimistic picture for green buildings than those which dig deeper. It is thus vital to back up statistical descriptions with detailed accounts of context so that rounded conclusions are obtained. Les bâtiments conçus pour avoir moins d'impact sur l'environnement sont-ils meilleurs du point de vue des occupants? Cet article, basé sur une méthodologie développée au Royaume-Uni par Building Use Studies et utilisée pour la série Probe d'études de post-occupation, analyse les sources de mécontentement des occupants et cherche à savoir si les bâtiments écologiques sont mieux perçus ou non par leurs utilisateurs. Les enquêtes menées auprès des occupants de 177 bâtiments au Royaume-Uni servent à des comparaisons statistiques entre bâtiments classiques et bâtiments écologiques. Les résultats font ressortir des améliorations dans certains secteurs comme l'image et la satisfaction des besoins mais les bâtiments écologiques risquent de répéter les erreurs du passé, en particulier s'ils sont trop difficiles à gérer. Les utilisateurs ont tendance à mieux tolérer les lacunes qu'avec les bâtiments plus classiques. On note également des problèmes de méthodologie. Les résultats basés sur des questions plus générales, succinctes, ont tendance à fournir une image plus optimiste des bâtiments verts que les réponses à des questions plus approfondies. Il est donc essentiel d'accompagner les descriptions statistiques de rapports détaillés du contexte afin d'obtenir des conclusions arrondies. Mots clés: évaluation des performances des bâtiments, aversions, mécontentement, bâtiments verts, appétitions, occupants, évaluation post-occupation, durabilité, utilisateurs
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Thermal comfort and building energy consumption implications—A review
Yang, L., Yan, H., & Lam, J. C. (2014) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.062 · Cited by 1,448
Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People are Affected by Environments for Work
Vischer, J. C. (2008) · Architectural Science Review · doi:10.3763/asre.2008.5114 · Cited by 384
A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016
Zhao, X., Zuo, J., Wu, G., & Huang, C. (2019) · Architectural Science Review · doi:10.1080/00038628.2018.1485548 · Cited by 339
Feedback and adaptive behaviour in green buildings
Brown, Z. B., Dowlatabadi, H., & Cole, R. J. (2009) · Intelligent Buildings International · doi:10.3763/inbi.2009.0034 · Cited by 51
Influences on the predictive performance of thermal sensation indices
Schweiker, M., & Wagner, A. (2017) · Building Research & Information · doi:10.1080/09613218.2017.1256673 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Leaman, A., & Bordass, B.
- Venue
- Building Research & Information
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 662-673
- ISSN
- 0961-3218 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4321
- OpenAlex
- W2070527806
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09613210701529518
- The paper
- Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2007). Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Building Research & Information. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701529518
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.