IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i4p882-d1122709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Terminology, Definitions, and Forms of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) in Landscape Architecture

Author

Listed:
  • Guanyu Chen

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

  • Jacky Bowring

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

  • Shannon Davis

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

Abstract

While the concept of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is widely applied in landscape architecture and other relevant fields, the term POE is not well-defined. By reviewing and analysing a representative set of POE definitions collected from existing academic and grey literature using content analysis methods, this study aims to enhance understanding of the breadth of the concept and its relevant practices. Our research found that the concept of POE was developed in architecture in the 1970s and subsequently adopted in landscape architecture in the 1980s. With the growth of the field in architecture and its adaptation to landscape architecture, the scope of POE was significantly expanded over recent decades, and with this growth, there have been considerable divergences in definitions and understandings of how to carry out POE. A range of different evaluation objects and four evaluation models were identified by this study. By surveying the conceptual terrain of POE, our research establishes the need for practitioners to be aware of the breadth of the concept and the potential ambiguity surrounding what is meant by the approach. Consequently, practitioners need to be specific and explicit about their understanding of POE. The findings also demonstrate how interdisciplinary differences appear to have been overlooked when adapting POE from one discipline to another. We, therefore, argue that it is crucial to keep shaping and trimming the concept to support the adaption of POE processes into different disciplinary domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Guanyu Chen & Jacky Bowring & Shannon Davis, 2023. "Exploring the Terminology, Definitions, and Forms of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) in Landscape Architecture," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-41, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:882-:d:1122709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/882/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/882/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bo Yang & Shujuan Li & Chris Binder, 2016. "A research frontier in landscape architecture: landscape performance and assessment of social benefits," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 314-329, April.
    2. Zhen Wang & Bo Yang & Shujuan Li & Chris Binder, 2016. "Economic Benefits: Metrics and Methods for Landscape Performance Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, April.
    3. Jessica K. Breadsell & Joshua J. Byrne & Gregory M. Morrison, 2019. "Pre- and Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Resident Motivations for and Experiences of Establishing a Home in a Low-Carbon Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guanyu Chen & Jacky Bowring & Shannon Davis, 2023. "How Is “Success” Defined and Evaluated in Landscape Architecture—A Collective Case Study of Landscape Architecture Performance Evaluation Approaches in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-15, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Zhen Wang & Bo Yang & Shujuan Li & Chris Binder, 2016. "Economic Benefits: Metrics and Methods for Landscape Performance Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, April.
    3. Anne Taufen & Ken Yocom, 2021. "Transitions in Urban Waterfronts: Imagining, Contesting, and Sustaining the Aquatic/Terrestrial Interface," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Yimeng Wu & Zhendong Wang & Hao Wang, 2023. "Vertical Greenery Systems in Commercial Complexes: Development of an Evaluation Guideline," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Atampugre, Gerald & Mensah, E. & Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe & Cofie, Olufunke, 2022. "Towards a framework for assessing the sustainability of social-ecological landscapes," IWMI Books, Reports H051655, International Water Management Institute.
    6. Jisoo Sim & Cermetrius Lynell Bohannon & Patrick Miller, 2019. "What Park Visitors Survey Tells Us: Comparing Three Elevated Parks—The High Line, 606, and High Bridge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Tiezheng Zhao & Yang Zhao & Ming-Han Li, 2019. "Landscape Performance for Coordinated Development of Rural Communities & Small-Towns Based on “Ecological Priority and All-Area Integrated Development”: Six Case Studies in East China’s Zhejiang Provi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-23, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:882-:d:1122709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.