Search

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to valuate existing building stock with respect to its contribution to a changing and uncertain future, especially in relation to energy performance. Design/methodology/approach – The authors review literature related to existing buildings, climate change and future environmental needs; present energy performance data from ten case studies; and identify inadequacies and scope for improvements with reference to typical housing stock. Findings – Current policies and programmes are inadequate to the scope and scale of the task; a step-change in thought and practice is needed. Practical implications – A massive programme is warranted if the substantial stock of existing buildings is to be adapted to meet identified environmental standards to "save the planet"; a radical re-conceptualisation of building adaptation is required. Originality/value – The paper prompts a review of the role of the surveyor in achieving sustainability through adaptation of existing buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-occupancy evaluation of buildings has been developing as a distinctive discipline for over 40 years, but has been traditionally more concerned with energy, social and architectural concerns in relation to the user rather than other issues of sustainability such as transportation, waste and resource use. This paper outlines the challenges of implementing post-occupancy evaluation in relation to rapidly developing UK government policy on climate change and other sustainability issues. It reviews developing methodologies and the progress to date in relation to key building typologies: offices, healthcare, education and housing. The methods are discussed in terms of their qualitative and quantitative aspects, as well as the degree of detail actually necessary to evaluate building performance effectively. A diagnostic approach that avoids any unnecessary and costly monitoring is advocated. Various barriers preventing the widespread implementation of post-occupancy evaluation are identified, including lack of legislation, threats of litigation, cost and the perception that the work of the design and building team is finished at the point of handover. The review concludes that it is not desirable to have one single method for evaluation, as each typology requires its own set of criteria. While a lack of education in professional programmes is an underlying barrier to implementation, there are positive signs that routine feedback is beginning to take hold in policy development and design office practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]