Evaluating user experience in green buildings in relation to workplace culture and context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore the relationship between green building design and workplace design practice, and to examine the role of organizational culture in shaping design and operation decisions with consequence for user experience. Design/methodology/approach A literature review and introduction of key concepts establish the foundation for the research and provide a context for interpreting results. Empirical findings are presented from a pre‐ and post‐occupancy evaluation of a company's move to a new headquarters building designed both to shift organizational culture and to meet environmental objectives. Findings The paper demonstrates that, while there are potentially significant gains to be made from integrating green building with workplace design strategies from the outset, there are many other factors beyond the quality of the space, which may play a role in shaping user experience. Links are drawn between improved occupant comfort, health and productivity in the new headquarters building, and organizational culture and contextual factors accompanying the move. The findings raise a number of important questions and considerations for organizational and workplace research, and post‐occupancy evaluation of buildings. Research limitations/implications The research and findings focus on the experience and context of one company's move to a new headquarters building and cannot be extrapolated. Given the mainstreaming and merging of green building design with workplace design practice, more research and studies are needed to advance this important line of inquiry. Originality/value The paper brings together the two agendas of workplace design and green building design, which have until very recently progressed along separate paths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".