See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242573762

Towards a user-centred theory of built environment

Article  in  Building Research and Information · June 2008

DOI: 10.1080/09613210801936472

CITATIONS READS
159 2,017

1 author:

Jacqueline Vischer
Université de Montréal
25 PUBLICATIONS   1,045 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacqueline Vischer on 21 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2008) 36(3), 231 –240

Towards a user-centred theory of the

built environment

Jacqueline C.Vischer

School of Industrial Design, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Montreal, c. p. 6128 succursale
Centreville, Montre¤al, Que¤bec H3C 3J7, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]

The building user’s experience is explored as the basis for constructing a theory of the built environment. The first postulate
of a user-centred theory is that the built environment exists to support the activities of users that it shelters. This theory,
therefore, indicates ways in which we might learn more about this complex relationship; it also provides tools for
measuring the degree to which the built environment in use is successful. Ways of approaching the users’ experience of
built space, and ways of measuring it to ensure that knowledge of the user-environment relationship grows, are
described. Challenges to implementing such an exploration include defining users, agreeing on the meaning of
experience, and organising if not delimiting what is included in the notion of built environment. The temporal
dimension of space use is also a consideration. Drawing on extensive research on space-use in office buildings, a viable
user-centred theory is developed in the context of one type of built environment. The user-centred theory enables links
to be made between knowledge accumulated both at the micro scale of the users’ experience and at the macro
perspective of how the built environment is produced and delivered.

Keywords: building performance, built environment, occupants, social theory, theory, user experience, user-based
theory

L’expérience des usagers qui occupent les bâtiments est analysée dans le but d’établir la base d’une théorie du milieu bâti.
Selon le premier postulat d’une théorie centrée sur l’usager, le cadre bâti existe pour venir en soutien aux activités des
occupants hébergés par celui-là. Une telle théorie nous offre des moyens permettant de mieux comprendre cette relation
complexe et nous fournit également des outils pour mesurer jusqu’à quel point le cadre bâti est efficace. Il faut élaborer
les façons d’aborder l’évaluation de l’expérience des occupants ainsi que de mesurer celle-ci afin d’aquérir une meilleure
comprehension de la relation personne et environnement. Pour effectuer une telle analyse il faut surmonter les difficultés
suivantes, entre autres: le consensus sur comment définir les usagers, l’accord sur ce qu’est l’expérience des ces derniers et
l’élaboration de ce qui signifie le concept du cadre bâti. En outre, la dimension temporelle de l’usage de l’espace en est un
aspect important. La théorie centrée sur les utilisateurs se concretise en prenant l’exemple des nombreuses recherches
effectuées sur les occupants des edifices à bureaux. Ce cadre théorique forge les liens entre la connaissance accumulée tant
à l’échelle ‘micro’ de l’expérience de l’usager individuel que dans une perspective ‘macro’ visant la réalisation et la
livraison du milieu bâti.

Mots clés: performances des bâtiments, milieu bâti, occupant, théorie sociale, théorie, expérience de l’utilisateur, théorie
basée sur l’utilisateur

There are at least two ways to think about a theory of worldview provides all one might need to infer and
the built environment. One is exemplified in Thomas articulate a theory of the universe. The other is exem-
Mann’s The Magic Mountain (1924), in which the plified in the famous quotation from Douglas
world is viewed and represented through the eyes of Adams’s A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (1979),
one ordinary person in the confined world of a tubercu- where the answer to the meaning of life, the universe
losis sanatorium. The micro-scale of this individual’s and everything is ‘42’. Here the view is from a
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2008 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210801936472
Vischer

macro-scale perspective: the way to form the theory is tended to be oriented to process – how it is created
to take in everything. and supplied – and/or product – how it functions
once it has come into existence. Typically, building
It is tempting to take one or another of these two poss- users feature in such theories but are rarely central to
ible perspectives when identifying building use and them. This is likely attributable to the difficulties of
users as the focus of a theory of the built environment, measuring human behaviour and the limitations of
although one does not exclude the other (Kuhn, 1962). conventional social science research in the practical
In the first instance, examples of approaches to built context of planning, designing, building, managing
environment research that incorporate all stages of and occupying buildings. As a result, user-centred the-
planning, creating, producing and occupying buildings ories have tended to be located somewhere along a con-
include the Building Performance Evaluation theory tinuum ranging between a deterministic definition of
advanced by Preiser and Vischer (2004), as well as the environment – behaviour relationship, and one
Davis et al.’s (1993) approach to measuring building that minimizes the impact of the built environment
serviceability, Lutzkendorf and Speer’s (2005) propo- on users (Hillier and Leaman, 1973; Lang, 1987).
sal for a building information system, and the Process Figure 1 illustrates this theoretical polarity.
Protocol approach (Cooper et al., 2004), to name a
few. This exhaustive and inclusive approach to a At one end is the extreme cause –effect perspective
theory of the built environment has immense practical based on the premise that what is built, and the
value: it is noteworthy that all these examples presume environments thereby created, cause users to behave
an underpinning and mostly implicit theory of the built in certain ways, many of which are predictable.
environment in their orientation towards field Environmental determinism, while out of favour as a
measurement and practical applications. theory, tends to be favoured by members of the
design professions, who see its immediate applicability
An alternative approach is based on and lodged in the to practice. A significant amount of research in
micro-perspective of the building user’s experience; environmental psychology is based on the environ-
the reason, after all, that there is a built environment is mental determinism paradigm, where efforts are
the uses to which it is put. Current examples include evi- made to identify how human behaviour is influenced
dence-based design – using data gathered from users in by features of the spaces people occupy, whether this
situ to identify solutions to specific design problems is at the scale of an urban neighbourhood or a door
(Healthcare Design 90, 2006; Evidence-Based Design handle. Although not without value, as a user-centred
Symposium, 2006), as well as the neuro-scientific theory this position is clearly simplistic, minimizing
approach to architecture: how physical features in the as it does all possible influences on human behaviour
environment affect brain processes (Eberhard, 2007); in a given situation that can themselves affect
and post-occupancy evaluation (POE): the analysis of person–space interaction. The environmental deter-
building functionality according to feedback from minism argument continues today in the ubiquitous
users (Zeisel, 2006). Some of the challenges and issues form of user satisfaction as an outcome measure.
in constructing a user-centred theory of the built Using the stimulus– response logic of experimental psy-
environment are explored in this paper. chology, this approach posits that user satisfaction is a
meaningful and measurable behavioural response to
features of the physical environment. Little effort has
been expended to understand exactly what users are
What is a ‘user-centred theory’of the built reporting when they rate themselves satisfied (or not)
environment? with the built space they occupy, nor the influences
Since the built environment became a legitimate subject of other, non-space factors on the ‘satisfaction’ that is
of research, theories of the built environment have being reported. Numerous other interesting and

Figure 1 User-centred theories of the built environment

232
 Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment

useful outcome measures of how humans occupy space users’ experience offers a better understanding not
– for example, appropriation, sense of territory, useful- only of how behaviour is influenced by the environ-
ness/usability, physical well-being, social interaction, ment, but also how users’ act on their environment
competence, and legibility, to name a few – have and how such behaviour redefines the user–building
taken second place to the generalist, global and relationship.
inexact concept of satisfaction, which continues to
dominate much applied environmental psychology The user-centred theory outlined in this paper is built
research (Vischer, 1985). A later section discusses the around the two key concepts of the building user’s
value judgement implicit in the satisfaction paradigm. experience and the user–building relationship, and –
like all good theories – it must guide research and help
At the other end of the continuum is social constructi- accumulate both practical and theoretical knowledge.
vism, inspired by the writings of the sociologist G. H. A better understanding of how we are all affected by
Mead and based on the premise that the human experi- buildings, and how this process of being affected and
ence and therefore reality is entirely socially con- then affecting in turn the spaces occupied, pivots on
structed and exists as a function of social and the notion of use. Ultimately, this approach may help
biological influences (Mead, 1962). According to this change conventional ways of planning, constructing,
thinking, behaviour results from learned social norms thinking about and occupying buildings and space.
and patterns and is not influenced by the physical
environmental context in which it occurs. If the phys-
ical environment has any role to play, it is at a symbolic
level and as a mediator of the social relationships that Parameters of a theory centred on users’
determine behavioural outcomes (Blumer, 1969). experience
Those who invoke the constructivist perspective tend The first challenge of a user-based theory of the built
to cite the Hawthorne studies carried out at Westing- environment is how to define the parameters of the
house in the 1930s, which seemed to indicate that building user’s experience. Conventional social
being subjects of a research study had a greater influ- science research specifies an analytic approach, in
ence than changing light levels on task performance which hypothetical ways of linking features of the
in a factory. But for today’s built environment physical environment to measurable behavioural and
researchers, this too is a simplistic perspective, ignoring psychological phenomena can be tested. Studies in
as it does what is now known about the importance of this category may look at precise phenomena, such as
the effects of the built environment on users. Concepts the effect of variations in ventilation conditions on
such as defensible space, territoriality, space syntax, amount of sick leave (Milton et al., 2000), or at less
neighbourhood, and personal space are part of archi- easy-to-define relationships, such as patterns of friend-
tectural language today, and the vast accumulation of ship and sociability on an urban street (Appleyard
studies of use of the built environment over the past et al., 1981), or how much satisfaction a given group
50 or so years bear witness to the widespread belief of users express with environmental features with
in the importance of our relationship to built space which they interact (Veitch et al., 2003). The logic of
(Hillier, 2008). these studies is predicated on identifying an outcome
measure – absenteeism, friendship, satisfaction – and
What is clear, however, is that in spite of the unrealistic measuring how it is affected by changing environ-
positions of each of these extremes, any user-centred mental conditions. The cause –effect logic underpin-
theory of the built environment is likely to be located ning this approach – ‘If we change this, people will
somewhere along the continuum between them. do that’ – comes perilously close to environmental
Human behaviour is influenced by the built environ- determinism. Indeed, as anyone who has been a
ment in which it occurs – how could it be otherwise? member of an architectural jury in schools or elsewhere
– but it is not determined by it; and it is clear that in a can attest, this reasoning is beloved of designers intent
given situation, building users’ behaviour is influenced on showing how the spatial arrangements they propose
not just by the space they occupy but by their feelings, cause desirable behavioural outcomes in their users.
intentions, attitudes and expectations as well as by the
social context in which they are participating. In this The deterministic framework, while seductive to
paper, a theoretical framework is outlined in which researchers anxious to use a conventional analytic
the building user’s experience is central. While user- approach, fails to take into account the reality of
oriented (or user-sympathetic) theories tend to identify human experience, which rarely conforms to simple
the user as one part or player in the built environment cause –effect postulates. Researchers seeking a more
system, this framework argues that the user’s experi- comprehensive and dynamic basis for their theoretical
ence of the built environment is central. It shows how approach, find the deterministic paradigm falling short
the user’s perspective provides insight into both (Clements-Croome, 2006; Hillier, 2008). Theorists
process (how it is created) and product (its impact, seeking to advance more interactive and dynamic fra-
once built) theories of the environment. Studying the meworks have proposed more complex frameworks
233
Vischer

that aim to incorporate the mutually interactive effects might also be users of spaces created outside the enclosing
of the built environment and its occupants. One of the architectural elements (gardens, streets, stairs, hospi-
early theorists in Environmental Psychology articu- tal rooms, office buildings, etc.). There is likely more
lated the concept of the ‘Behaviour Setting’ as a unit than one homogenous user group in a given situation,
of study, namely the micro-event or situation in and their interests may clash. For example, users of
which the use made of an environmental element was prisons include offenders – who would prefer more
by definition part of that element and could be built freedom of movement – and guards – who prefer
on, such that a complex environment such as a that movement of the prison population be restricted –
school was formed of an accumulation of ‘settings’ as well as visitors and administrative staff whose activi-
where the place where the behaviour occurred is itself ties may not be considered at all.
defined in part by that behaviour (Barker, 1968).
This is closely connected to a gestalt framework, used There are also moral issues associated with defining
to frame studies of how people move through space, users. Are gangs that use darkened urban alleys to
for example, and how they simultaneously experience attack and rob pedestrians legitimate users of built
from within and observe from without the spaces space? An ethical perspective must be applied to a
they occupy (Perin, 1972; Thiel, 1997). user-centred definition of the built environment: some
users have no merit because the use to which they put
Others, intent on avoiding determinism and favouring built space is immoral. Furthermore, one might have
a more interactive theory, have taken a systems to determine whether or not some users should have
approach to the building in use (Marans and Spreckel- more priority than others in ranking the relative
meyer, 1981; Vischer, 1985), where the physical fea- importance of their activities. For example, are patients
tures of place and the actions of the user are or staff more meritorious users in hospitals? Are chil-
interactive and mutually independent, but can be dren or old people more meritorious users of urban
observed and described as separate and interdepen- parks? Although contextual information will help
dent. Moving even further away from cause –effect make such decisions in practice, invoking ethical prin-
relationships, the phenomenology of ‘place’ aims to ciples provides generic guidance within the user-
dispense with any notion of duality and instead centred theoretical framework.
defines space or place in terms of the users experience
only. Finding its roots in the Life Space theory of Over the life of a building or built space, users may
Lewin and the phenomenological approach developed change. In North America, planned suburbs built in
by Moles, phenomenologists have focused on the the post-war years for families with young children
quality of the users’ experience in relation to place in are now ‘used’ by a mix of young and old families,
both the built and natural environment, and its households without children, and older people who
relationship to memories, emotions, and other psycho- have a greater need for health services than for
logical phenomena (Lewin, 1951; Moles and Rohmer, schools (Vischer, 1987). In fact, time is a factor in
1990; Altman and Low, 1992). defining the built environment for all users. In office
buildings, companies seek out the most flexible office
In spite of surface differences, what all these theoretical layout to accommodate the ever-present moves and
approaches have in common is the centrality of the user changes characteristic of modern business. Does one
as operator, active agent and consumer of the built then need to anchor down one point in time to
environment, and of the user’s experience as the ‘measure’ the user’s experience, and determine the
measure of its effects and effectiveness. Their emphasis degree to which user activities are supported or accom-
on the user and the user’s experience indicates that modated by the built environment? And if we agree to
user-centred thinking is already well-established in do so, then is the ‘truth’ of the user–built space
studies of the built environment. However, no single relationship being falsified by finding an answer that
overarching theoretical framework yet exists to create only fits one point in time, thus fixing both user and
a coherent user-centred theory. environment and thereby rendering them artificial?
These questions will be returned to below.

Second, if the users’ experience is the route to learning

De¢ning elements of the user-centred theory about the built environment, one needs to agree on
The first postulate of a theory centred on users’ experi- what is meant by experience. Many building use
ence is that the built environment exists to support the studies focus on sensory experiences, using methods bor-
activities of users that it shelters. The way to analyse, rowed from studies of perception and cognitive psychol-
understand and evaluate ways in which it does this is ogy. How do users perceive different features and
to explore systematically and in detail the user’s experi- conditions of the built environment, and how do they
ence. This is a complex task. First of all, there needs to process the information received and make sense of it
be agreement on who are the users. They may be carry- using memory and learning? Conventional perception
ing out activities inside the built environment, and they studies tend to focus on one sensory mechanism at a
234
 Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment

time; thus visual perception, auditory perception and meant by experience, and how to define the built
sometimes olfactory and even kinaesthetic experience environment. Doing this creates effective links not
are studied. In doing so we fail to learn about the only to the micro view focusing on the user’s experi-
whole experience, to understand how users experience ence, but also to the macro view of the economic,
their environment when they are seeing, hearing, societal and technological forces that affect how the
smelling and touching all at once. Efforts to do so are built environment is created (Koskela et al., 2002).
readily condemned as ‘subjective’ by conventional
social science; but as qualitative methods become more One way to do this is to focus on one type of built
sophisticated this may be the best route to understanding environment, thereby anchoring down who the users
the gestalt of the user’s environmental experience. are, how time is defined, and what is meant by the
users’ experience. However, an issue that arises in
Third, one needs to decide how to define usefully the reviewing research on users in environmental categories
built environment. The phenomenological perspective such as housing, offices, libraries, parks and the like is
places the user at the centre of a series of concentric the evaluative connotation of results. Studies that
rings starting with the immediate ‘personal space’ of measure outcomes such as user satisfaction ipso facto
the individual and enlarging out like layers of an pronounce on building quality: users feel positive
onion to indicate semi-private or shared space, social about good-quality built space, whereas if they are ‘dis-
space, public space, geographical space and universal satisfied’ the place under study is not performing or has
space. Another way to identify the built environment somehow failed. An effective user-centred theory needs
creates an ontological debate about man and nature. to be clear about what is being measured when users
While man and nature are typically defined in contra- are asked about their experience of the built environ-
distinction to one another, it is also understood that ment. Measuring the occupants’ experience provides
man is part of nature. Thus, the underlying ambiguity information both about product – how spaces affect
of any theory based on man versus nature arguments. behaviour in different situations, the effects of building
Similarly, the user is by definition part of the built systems on comfort – and about psychological pro-
environment, and only separated artificially as a func- cesses – how people feel about and respond to the
tion of a need to apply a logic to questions about spaces they occupy, as well as about process. The
what it is and how it comes into being. But even if implicit evaluation of built space – of quality – that is
the user is experiencing the built environment as some- inherent in users’ judgements links the user-centred
thing separate from him, thus allowing one to study his approach to the process, that is, the macro approach
experience, he is part of the built environment occupied that encompasses the supply side. Feedback from users
by other users, and vice versa. can and sometimes does inform the design, construc-
tion, management and disposition of buildings.
The user-centred approach must therefore address the
complexity of the fact that the user–environment The environmental category proposed in this paper to
relation is dynamic and interactive. It is reciprocal: that help focus on one type of built environment is work-
is to say that part of the user’s environmental experience space. User studies of work environments show how
includes the consequences of any user behaviour that a user-centred theory can be applied to the knowledge
may occur. The user is not a passive receptacle experien- that has resulted from research, as well as indicate how
cing the built environment statically, as input. The user current and future studies might be guided by a theory
moves her chair, closes the drapes, paints the walls, centred on users’ experience. Moreover, feedback from
puts up signs, talks, and in fact can be seen as continually users of office buildings can be applied to supply side
acting on her environment. Thus, the user’s experience of decisions to ensure that the user’s experience is rep-
the environment is itself transformed by the activities she resented in the process of building delivery.
is performing in that environment, is in fact a continuing
process of transformation. To refer to the previous discussion, how are the users,
the built environment and the users’ experience to be
defined in the context of workspace? Users can be rela-
tively simply defined as the people who come into the
An example: studies of environments for building on a daily basis and carry out more or less
work the same types of activities while they are there. They
The next step is to connect a user-centred theory of the do not all do the same work, but their activities resemble
built environment to the macro perspective referred to and relate to each other. They are organized hierarchi-
at the beginning of this paper, in which each stage of cally in most organizations, with some having manage-
the production, delivery, occupancy and disposition rial responsibilities all the way up to the executives who
of the built environment is incorporated into a single run the organization. Others perform skilled technical
inclusive theoretical framework. It is necessary to and administrative work; and a small number are in
anchor and operationalize each of the parameters dis- unskilled positions performing mailroom and janitorial
cussed above – namely, who the users are, what is duties. Some organizations that interact with the
235
Vischer

public include visitors as building users. Other users one example – the built environment of the office build-
might be the office cleaners and maintenance staff. Simi- ing – it can be argued that there are two if not three
larly, the built environment in which people work is to ‘user’ units: the individual worker, the team, and the
some degree standardized in the form of offices. organization (Vischer, 2007b). Identifying the organiz-
Modern offices resemble each other in most areas of ation as a legitimate building user provides an opportu-
the planet, and the same kinds of activities take place nity to make a connection between space use and
in them, whatever their various shapes and forms. The organizational culture and goals.
users’ experience in studies to date tends to focus on
the interior environment and the conditions that affect
user comfort. Because user satisfaction has little validity Assessing the user experience
as an outcome measure for user-centred research – The next component of the theory is addressed through
whether they like their offices or not is but one small how the data on the user experience are assessed. Data
and not necessarily useful datum in the context of the yielded by assessment tools, whether in the context of
complexity of the user–building relationship – it is pro- post-occupancy evaluation, design and environmental
posed instead that the built environment mediates quality indicators, or building-in-use assessment, can
between the workers and the tasks and activities they be analysed both for what they state about the users’
are there to perform. How it does this is as legitimate experience as well as what they say about building per-
an object of study as how well it does it: the degree to formance (Craik and Zube, 1976; Gann et al., 2003;
which workers and other users are supported in their Vischer, 1989). According to the theory, if users indi-
tasks indicates the effectiveness of the built environment cate that environmental features or conditions
they occupy. The notion of support incorporates not just support people and what they are doing, the built
receiving support from, but also being able to act on the environment is effective and functional: ‘functionally
environment to achieve a desired, supportive result. The comfortable’. However, users do not assess their func-
inverse is also true: where workers’ have to struggle to tional comfort on the basis of simple physical comfort.
perform their tasks because the built environment is pro- They bring feelings, memories, expectations, and pre-
blematic, the built environment has failed. And this may ferences into their assessment, and this increases the
be attributable to any number of possible causes in the complexity of the outcomes being measured. Some of
long and complex chain of events that led to this organ- these psychological processes are personal and individ-
ization being in this building at this particular time. ual, but many are shared and indeed are a function of
the values and habits of the culture in which we live
How is then one to determine how built space affects as a society. Thus, as well as physical comfort and func-
users’ activities, as well as the degree to which users’ tional comfort, psychological comfort is included in
activities are supported or not? Especially in light of the rating of how well the built environment performs.
the complex nature of the user–environment relation- These three levels of environmental support form an
ship which, as shown, transforms over time and as a analytic framework that can usefully be applied to
function of mutually interactive effects. One response the three units of user: individual, group and organiz-
to this question is to go directly to users and question ation, as suggested in Figure 2.
them on their own view and definition of their own
experience, making use of subjective user experience In situations where workers do not feel supported, and
and using an objective approach to doing so. The struc- indeed have to make an extra effort to ‘deal’ with
ture and form of the way users are approached and the
data they are required to yield needs to be precise and
standardized. The results yielded by this approach
provide a rich and diverse basis for understanding the
user experience (Vischer, 1996, 2005; Leaman and
Bordass, 2001; Whyte and Gann, 2003; Zagreus
et al., 2004).

Although it has been argued that office building occu-

pants can be considered a relatively homogenous user
group, research on the user experience yields an import-
ant distinction in the way user feedback is applied to the
question of environmental support. The unit of activity
in an office building can be the individual or the work
group (team). User–environment interaction is not the
same for these two units. If the purpose of environ-
mental support is better task performance, individual
tasks depend on a different set of environmental charac- Figure 2 Analytic framework for assessing the user’s
teristics than group or team tasks. Thus, simply in this experience

236
 Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment

environmental barriers or problems in order to get draw on the experience to prepare workers better for
their work done, the lack of support may be considered future moves. And in a third example, feedback from
stressful. Work environments can be physically, func- users on privacy, a complex and ambiguous term,
tionally or psychologically stressful; the definition of leads to drill-down studies with a more psychological
stress in this model is the degree to which users have orientation. Such research elucidates how workers
to compensate and expend their own energy perform- define and use privacy in the built environment, how
ing their activities in adverse environmental conditions environmental conditions affect perception of privacy,
(Vischer, 2007a). Any and all built environments can and a greater understanding of likely meanings of this
be placed somewhere on the continuum ranging from culturally loaded concept.
completely functionally comfortable to completely
dysfunctional and stressful, using feedback from users Over time the accumulation of feedback from building
at a given point in time. users provides useful insights into not only the relation-
ship between office buildings and work performance,
To summarize: the building user is at the centre of this but also more generally into the ways individuals,
approach to a theory of the built environment. Users groups and organizations use the built environment.
are defined according to their use of the built environ- One indication of a useful theory is its generalization.
ment, and thus the users’ experience becomes a Can knowledge generated about how people use the
measure of its effectiveness – one might say, quality. built environment for work be useful in other contexts,
User units in an office building are the individual either in relation to other building types – housing,
worker, the team or workgroup, and the organization. health care, schools – or in relation to other theories
Each interacts with the built environment at a different of the built environment, such as Building Performance
level and thus the measure of environmental effective- Evaluation, lean construction, or supply chain
ness varies for each unit. However, unlike some more management?
complex built environments, such as prisons and hospi-
tals, these user units are not necessarily in conflict nor A user-centred theory of the built environment that is
do priorities have to be set on their relative importance. focused on the user’s experience incorporates the inter-
Indeed there is considerable overlap in the ‘built active effects of both how occupants are affected and
environment’ each one occupies. how they act on and respond to the environment. As
all buildings have users who are influenced by the
The heuristic value of the user-centred theory is evident spaces they occupy and who also act on them, the
in the ways in which its applications in research suggest theory is widely generalizable. Moreover, the principle
and generate other kinds of built environment research. of a supportive user–building relationship should be –
Analysis of feedback from buildings users determines and is – applicable across a wide range of buildings
the degree to which the built space they are using sup- and environments. As more becomes known about
ports their activities (functional comfort) and the the conditions and dynamics of a mutually supportive
degree to which they have to overcome environmental user–building relationship, so this knowledge will in
barriers (environmental stress) to perform their tasks. turn affect theories of the built environment that are
Once this assessment is made, the causes and determin- not user centred. The weak link for many theories of
ing events that have created the situation under study the built environment is the failure to identify and
can be traced, yielding different kinds of data. Thus, account for the human use factor. As knowledge of
for example, users who are uncomfortable with their the reciprocity between user and built space increases,
indoor air quality may lead to studying the operation this can be incorporated into financial, construction,
of the air handling systems. If these are, say, sized ecological and technology-focused theories.
incorrectly, then finding out why may lead to procure-
ment issues and supply chain research. More detailed Using carefully monitored and controlled feedback
feedback from users – such as whether they are con- from built environment users is an approach that can
cerned about odours, or warm or stuffy air – can work in all buildings, even those in which users
orient research into measuring levels of contaminants cannot understand and respond to questioning. In
in indoor air. If such analyses are systematically environments where users are not articulate, such as
pursued, results will have value for researchers in con- spaces occupied by very small children, animals, and
struction and in environmental quality, as well as for people who are too ill or handicapped to provide
engineers and project managers. data, their feedback has to be collected in other ways,
such as observing users’ activities on site and question-
In another example, users may express discomfort about ing key informants identified as valid spokespersons for
their office furniture that can be traced not to problems the users themselves (such as parents, caregivers et
with configuration or layouts but to their psychological cetera). This type of feedback is as valid and sometimes
discomfort at being moved out of offices and into more so than feedback elicited by direct questioning.
cubicles. Understanding this process is valuable to However, one may wonder whether all types and
managers and corporate decision-makers, who may styles of feedback from users are equally valuable in
237
Vischer

terms of assessing environmental support. It has been generate ongoing renewal of the built environment
argued elsewhere that no type or style of feedback experience that is being studied.
from users should be dismissed. However, the more
carefully designed the tools for gathering and analysing A key element in this viewpoint is discovering the con-
reliable user feedback, the more valid the data collected stants of the user –building relationship. Expanding
and the more useful the results of the analysis. knowledge of how people generically use and relate
to built space is a valid goal of this field of study.
Such knowledge can be understood in and applied to
any and all built environment contexts, but more
Applying the user-centred approach work is needed for this to happen. If the conventional
The user-centred theory of the built environment uses social science research paradigm is applied, one must
support to human activities as a measure of built learn to measure more than user satisfaction as the
environment effectiveness – or quality – and outcome variable and indicator of environmental effec-
thereby assumes that inadequate support to users con- tiveness. There is more to learn about how exactly the
stitutes a negative situation. On the other hand, it is physical environment supports the activities and beha-
clear that a wide range of influences affect how users viours it has been designed for, and more to learn about
feel about and use space, including their memories, the stress caused in the human mind and body when the
expectations, emotions and beliefs. All user units – physical environment is not appropriate and not amen-
individual, group and organization – are susceptible able to change. Applying an interactive systems frame-
to non-environmental influences that affect the work to research yields more knowledge about how
building – user relationship. Moreover, a space that cognitive and perceptual processes affect the user–
supports one user group may work less well for building relationship, for example, following up on
another for reasons unrelated to features of the the influence of the self schema as one determinant of
environment in question, because of the changing fea- how users feel about space (Fischer et al., 2004). One
tures of the users. For example, a different company area rich in theory but poor in empirical support is
may move into an office building that suited the pre- understanding the reciprocal effects on user units of
vious tenants, and find it non-supportive. Or one acting on their environment and changing it, such
user group may have different tools and resources that their experience of it is then itself changed.
from another; or individual users may be trained to
perform different tasks, or have different character- And finally, is it appropriate to assess the quality of the
istics such as age, gender and language. It is less built environment based solely on what users tell us?
reasonable in such circumstances to judge the built For example, some of the world’s examples of great
environment as failing than to assess the situation – architecture are appreciated by all sorts of people
that is, user experience in built space – as being at who have no experience as users and are unlikely to
the negative or stress-inducing end of the quality or have any: the Taj Mahal, for instance, or Angkor
comfort continuum. In practical terms, this may Wat, or, more recently, the Sydney Opera House.
provide a basis for intervening to change the situation These are examples of buildings beloved for reasons
for the better. As researchers, studying these situ- that have nothing to do with their original uses and
ations adds to our stock of knowledge about the users, although one could argue that today these
environment – behaviour relationship. examples of the built environment are effective
because they are icons for specific places and they
In this context, the knotty question of temporal change accommodate tourism-related activities.
and its effects on the user–building relationship comes
to mind. A generally held belief, not necessarily sup- The premise that the quality of the built environment
ported by empirical evidence, is that an effective or can be assessed in terms of the support provided to
‘good’ example of the built environment adapts to users’ tasks and activities is applicable to most building
changing uses over time. This suggests that ‘quality’ types, provided that tasks and activities are broadly
is an attribute that ought to transcend changing times defined. It cannot be refuted that efforts in all societies
and uses. However, by using the example of office and all eras to create a built environment have resulted
buildings as a way of pinning down unknowns such from the felt need to accommodate specific human
as how to define users, what is meant by experience, activities, from the caves and shelters of early man, to
and how the built environment is defined, we are in the churches, temples and cathedrals built for worship,
effect disagreeing with this viewpoint. The user- to the composition of communities and land use plan-
centred theory asserts that time has a direct effect on ning; and in each of these built environments user activi-
how well built space supports users, that the relation- ties being accommodated vary according to the unit of
ship between users and buildings changes over time, measure: individuals, groups and organizations. It
and that each situation must be studied and assessed seems unlikely that environments can be found that
on its own merits. According to this point of view, have been built not to accommodate human activities
changes in occupancy and occupants over time and for a purpose not related to human use.
238
 Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment

It is difficult then to comprehend the reasons why con- Altman, I. and Low, S.E. (eds) (1992) Place Attachment, Plenum,
temporary systems of delivering the built environment New York, NY.
Appleyard, D., Gerson., M. and Lintell, M. (1981) Liveable
appear to have lost touch with the user experience. A Streets, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
recent critique of the construction industry found it Barker, R.G. (1968) Ecological Psychology: Concepts and
was characterized similarly in a number of different Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior,
countries for its aversion to change, adherence to out- Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Barrett, P. (2007a) Revaluing Construction, Blackwell Science,
dated procedures and technology, emphasis on cost
Oxford.
rather than quality, and lack of a service ethic Barrett, P. (2007b) Revaluing construction: a holistic model.
(Barrett, 2007a and 2007b). Decisions about what, Building Research and Information, 35(3), 268 –286.
where and when to build in most modern societies are Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and
guided by conventional business drivers, which include Method, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Clements-Croome, D. (ed.) (2006) Creating the Productive
market conditions, financial profit, construction pro- Workplace, 2nd edn, Taylor & Francis, Oxford.
cesses and technology, and competitive advantage. In Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Lee, A., Wu, S., Fleming, A. and
some instances, they are also driven by aesthetic (archi- Kaglioglou, M. (2004) Process Management in Design and
tectural) considerations, building codes and standards Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Craik, K. and Zube, E. (1976) Perceiving Environmental Quality:
specifications (for example, hospitals), and, increas-
Research and Applications, Plenum, New York, NY.
ingly, by ecological environmental concerns; on rare Davis, G., Thatcher, C. and Blair, L. (1993) Serviceability
occasions, they are driven by users’ needs. User con- Tools, vols 1–5, International Center for Facilities,
siderations are rare and unfamiliar in conventional Ottawa, Ont.
building procurement processes, perhaps because they Eberhard, J. (2007) Architecture and the Brain: A New Knowl-
edge Base from Neuroscience. Greenway Communications,
appear complex and elusive in comparison to the rela- Östberg, Atlanta, GA.
tively simple and technology-oriented tools of the ‘Evidence-Based Design Symposium’, held at CABE, London,
builder’s trade. As a result, society often makes do UK, 23 November 2006.
with a built environment, the users’ experience of Fischer, G.N., Tarquinio, C. and Vischer, J.C. (2004) Self-schema
and the perception of space at work. Journal of Environ-
which represents a continual compromise between
mental Psychology, 24(1), 131– 140.
what is needed to perform activities well and what is Gann, D., Salter, A.S. and Whyte, J. (2003) Design Quality Indi-
occupied, faute de mieux. cator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Infor-
mation, 31(5), 318–333.
Developing the user-centred theory so that it can be ‘Healthcare Design 90’ Conference, organized by The
Center for Health Design, Chicago, IL, USA, 4–7 November
applied to a wider range of building types and projects 2006.
will increase environmental support for people’s activi- Hillier, B. (2008) Space and spatiality: what the built environ-
ties, and applying knowledge of the user experience ment needs from social theory. Building Research and Infor-
and building feedback from users into the supply mation 36(3), 216 –230.
Hillier, B. and Leaman, S.A. (1973) The man–environment
chain will eventually change the way the industry oper-
paradigm and its paradoxes. Architectural Design, August,
ates. Access to a transparent system for assessing built 507–511.
environments through the users’ experience will gener- Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2002)
ate information that should ultimately affect buildings’ The foundations of Lean Construction, in R. Best and
economic value. It is important, then to continue to G. De Valence (eds): Design and Construction: Building in
Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
develop and refine a user-centred theory of the built Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Univer-
environment designed around the users’ experience sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
and the inherent reciprocity of the user–building Lang, J. (1987) Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of
relationship. As this theoretical framework evolves, the Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Design, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
so applications to the practical world of producing
Leaman, A. and Bordass, W. (2001) Assessing building
buildings will become more apparent. In addition, the performance in use: the Probe occupant surveys and their
costs, both human and financial, of trying to function implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2),
well in environments designed for other purposes – 129–143.
or that are simply dysfunctional – will also become Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theor-
etical Papers, ed. D. Cartwright, Harper, New York, NY.
noticeably important, instead of being buried, as they Lutzkendorf, T. and Speer, T. (2005) Alleviating asymmetric
are now, in stories of business failure, societal break- information in property markets: building performance and
down, and human error. Ultimately, we all share the product quality as signals for consumers. Building Research
same ideal: a positive and supportive built environment & Information, 33(2), 182 –195.
Mann, T. (1924) The Magic Mountain, Vintage 1996 edn,
which enhances human activities and helps people fulfil
New York, NY.
their aspirations. Marans, R. and Spreckelmeyer, K. (1981) Evaluating Built
Environments: A Behavioral Approach, Survey Research
Center, Institute for Social Research, and Architectural
Research Laboratory, College of Architecture and Urban
Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
References Mead, G.H. (1962) Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint
Adams, D. (1979) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Del Rey of a Social Behaviourist, University of Chicago Press,
1997 edn, New York, NY. Chicago, IL.

239
Vischer

Milton, D., Glencross, P. and Walters, M. (2000) Risk of Vischer, J.C. (1989) Environmental Quality in Offices, Van
sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidifi- Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
cation and occupant complaints. Indoor Air, 10(3), Vischer, J.C. (1996) Workspace Strategies: Environment as a
287– 298. Tool for Work, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
Moles, A. and Rohmer, E. (1990) Les sciences de l’imprécis, Seuil, Vischer, J.C. (2005) Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace
Paris. Performance, Taylor & Francis/Routledge, Oxford.
Perin, C. (1972) With Man in Mind: An Interdisciplinary Pro- Vischer, J.C. (2007a) The effects of the physical environment on
spectus for Environmental Design, MIT Press, Cambridge, job performance: towards a model of workspace stress.
MA. Stress and Health, 23(3), 175–184.
Preiser, W.F.E. and Vischer, J.C. (eds) (2004) Assessing Building Vischer, J.C. (2007b) The concept of workplace performance and
Performance, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. its value to managers. California Management Journal,
Thiel, P. (1997) People, Paths and Purposes. University of 49 (2) Winter, 123– 135.
Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Whyte, J. and Gann, D. (2003) Design Quality Indicators:
Veitch, J., Charles, K., Newsham, G., Marquardt, C. and Geerts, work in progress. Building Research & Information, 31(5),
J. (2003) Environmental Satisfaction in Open Plan Environ- 387–398.
ments: 5. Workstation and Physical Condition Effects. Tech- Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C. and Arens, E. (2004) A web-based
nical Report No. IRC RR 154, 20 October. National POE tool for measuring indoor environmental quality,
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont. in Proceedings: Closing the Loop – Post-Occupancy
Vischer, J.C. (1985) The adaptation and control model of user Evaluation, The Next Steps, Windsor, UK, April – May
needs: a new direction for housing research. Journal of 2004.
Environmental Psychology, 5(3), 287–298. Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design: Environment/Behavior/
Vischer, J.C. (1987) The changing city suburb: an analysis of Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape and
environmental fit. Plan Canada, July, , 37– 44. Planning, 2nd edn, W. W. Norton, New York, NY.

240
View publication stats