The sole focus of current occupant behavior research on environmental and contextual factors (i.e., physical attributes) in buildings is a missed opportunity. Psychological, physiological, social, time, and random factors also influence building occupants. In this pilot study (n=10), the authors used Interaction Geography to capture human movements across space and time in a Virtual Reality (VR) museum to dissect building occupant behavior. Results indicated that study majors (i.e., psychological) and personal connections (i.e., social) with the space affected how participants explored and spent time in the VR museum.

1. L. T. Graham, T. Parkinson, S. Schiavon, “Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE’s occupant surveys”, Buildings and Cities, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 166–184, 2021. http://doi.org/10.5334/bc.76
2. C. D. Roa, S. Schiavon, T. Parkinson, “Targeted occupant surveys: A novel method to effectively relate occupant feedback with environmental conditions”, Building and Environment, pp. 107129, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107129
3. K. A. Young, “Direct from the source: the value of’think-aloud’data in understanding learning”, Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6348
4. C. D. Darker, D. P. French, “What sense do people make of a theory of planned behaviour questionnaire? A think-aloud study”, Journal of health psychology, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 861–871, 2009. doi: 10.1177/1359105309340983
5. C. Macal, M. North, “Introductory tutorial: Agent-based modeling and simulation”, Proceedings of the winter simulation conference 2014, pp. 6–20, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2014.7019874.
6. M. Jia et al., “A systematic development and validation approach to a novel agent-based modeling of occupant behaviors in commercial buildings”, Energy and Buildings, vol. 199, pp. 352–367, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.07.009
7. S. Norouziasl, A. Jafari, C. Wang, “An agent-based simulation of occupancy schedule in office buildings”, Building and Environment, vol. 186, pp. 107352, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107352
8. K. R. Rozo et al., “Modelling building emergency evacuation plans considering the dynamic behaviour of pedestrians using agent-based simulation”, Safety science, vol. 113, pp. 276–284, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.028
9. P. Li, T. M. Froese, G. Brager, “Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review”, Building and Environment, vol. 133, pp. 187–202, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.024
10. D. Sanchez Leitner, N. Christine Sotsek, A. de Paula Lacerda Santos, “Postoccupancy evaluation in buildings: Systematic literature review”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 03119002, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001389
11. B. R. Shapiro, “What About Interaction Geography to Evaluate Physical Learning Spaces?”, Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning Environments, pp. 167–179, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_14
12. B. R. Shapiro, R. P. Hall, D. A. Owens, “Developing & using interaction geography in a museum”, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 377–399, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9264-8
13. B. R. Shapiro, B. Garner, “Classroom interaction geography: visualizing space & time in classroom interaction”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, pp. 1–15, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1927265
14. G. Fernandez-Nieto et al., “Classroom Dandelions: Visualising Participant Position, Trajectory and Body Orientation Augments Teachers’ Sensemaking”, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–17, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517736
15. S. Carlucci et al., “Modeling occupant behavior in buildings”, Building and Environment, vol. 174, pp. 106768, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106768
16. M. Arslan, C. Cruz, D. Ginhac, “Understanding occupant behaviors in dynamic environments using OBiDE framework”, Building and environment, vol. 166, pp. 106412, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106412
17. N. Haidar et al., “Towards a new graph-based occupant behavior modeling in smart building”, 2019 15th International Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 1809–1814, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWCMC.2019.8766569
18. F. Stazi, F. Naspi, M. D’Orazio, “A literature review on driving factors and contextual events influencing occupants’ behaviours in buildings”, Building and Environment, vol. 118, pp. 40–66, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.03.021
19. E. Delzendeh et al., “The impact of occupants’ behaviours on building energy analysis: A research review”, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 80, pp. 1061–1071, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.264
20. S. Chen et al., “The impacts of occupant behavior on building energy consumption: A review”, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 45, pp. 101212, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101212
21. C. Shen, K. Zhao, J. Ge, “An overview of the green building performance database”, Journal of Engineering, vol. 2020, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3780595
22. Arup, “BUS methodology.” https://busmethodology.org.uk/ . (accessed: 05-Oct-2021).
23. I. A. Sakellaris et al., “Perceived indoor environment and occupants’ comfort in European “modern” office buildings: The OFFICAIR study”, International journal of environmental research and public health, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 444, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050444
24. A. Rode et al., “Estimating a social cost of carbon for global energy consumption”, Nature, vol. 598, no. 7880, pp. 308–314, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03883-8
25. N. Stern, J. E. Stiglitz, The social cost of carbon, risk, distribution, market failures: An alternative approach, vol. 15, , National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021. https://files.static-nzz.ch/2021/4/26/7e32b21f-81b9-4033-907c-7aaeba85e7a5.pdf
26. A. Mathur, B. R. Shapiro, “Interactive Transcription Techniques for Interaction Analysis”, 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), pg. 19-26, 2022. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/ltd_facpub/46
27. A. Hepburn, G. B. Bolden, Transcribing for social research, Sage, 2017.
28. J. Bezemer, D. Mavers, “Multimodal transcription as academic practice: A social semiotic perspective”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 191–206, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563616
29. G. Jefferson, “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction”, Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, vol. 125, pp. 13–34, 2004.
30. T. Hägerstrand, “Reflections on “what about people in regional science?””, Papers of the Regional Science Association, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01954291
31. B. Jordan, A. Henderson, “Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice”, The journal of the learning sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39–103, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
32. Matterport Inc., “Matterport.” https://matterport.com/ . (accessed: 03-Sep-2022).

Citations by Dimensions

Citations by PlumX

Crossref Citations

This paper is currently not cited.

No. of Downloads per Month

No. of Downloads per Country