Abstract
Communication of building project designs to stakeholders is important for successful implementation, but it is often difficult to get feedback from the future occupants of buildings. Yet, there is a growing trend in development of visualization tools to enhance participation of the public by effectively providing building information to stakeholders. However, we lack research evaluating the effectiveness of different building model visualization tools, and their performance with gathering feedback from future building occupants. This study compares the effectiveness of three visualization tools—360° panorama, virtual reality and augmented reality applications—with eliciting feedback from future occupants of a Living Building Challenge project at the Georgia Tech campus compared to more conventional 2D visualizations. The effectiveness comparison was conducted across the seven performance categories defined by the Living Building certification program. The results indicated that the visualization tools had significant differences in communicating information in the Equity, Energy, Health and Happiness, Place, and Water performance areas. This study provides a quantitative perspective on the effectiveness of visualization technologies across the virtuality continuum, and has implications for pre-occupancy surveys by exploring new feedback mechanisms that encourage users to participate in building design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Carvajal, A.: The use of visualization technologies for the integration of building end-user perspectives, a managerial approach. Computing in Civil Engineering (2005), pp. 1–11. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA (2005)
Kim, M.J., Oh, M.W., Kim, J.T.: A method for evaluating the performance of green buildings with a focus on user experience. Energy Build. 66, 203–210 (2013)
Shen, W., Zhang, X., Shen, G.Q., Fernando, T.: The user pre-occupancy evaluation method in designer-client communication in early design stage: a case study. Autom. Constr. 32, 112–124 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.01.014
Shin, S., Jeong, S., Lee, J., Hong, S.W., Jung, S.: Pre-occupancy evaluation based on user behavior prediction in 3D virtual simulation. Autom. Constr. 74, 55–65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.005
Yetim, F., Stevens, G., Draxler, S., Wulf, V.: Fostering continuous user participation by embedding a communication support tool in user interfaces. AIS Trans. Human-Comput. Interact. 3, 1–25 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5121/ijfcst.2014.4403
Heydarian, A., Carneiro, J.P., Gerber, D., Becerik-Gerber, B., Hayes, T., Wood, W.: Immersive virtual environments versus physical built environments: a benchmarking study for building design and user-built environment explorations. Autom. Constr. 54, 116–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2015.03.020
Lee, S., Ha, M.: Customer interactive building information modeling for apartment unit design. Autom. Constr. 35, 424–430 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.026
Skov, M.B., Kjeldskov, J., Paay, J., Husted, N., Nørskov, J., Pedersen, K.: Designing on-site: facilitating participatory contextual architecture with mobile phones. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 9, 216–227 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2012.05.004
Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E77, 1–15 (1994)
Hammad, A., Asce, M., Wang, H., Mudur, S.P.: Distributed augmented reality for visualizing collaborative construction tasks. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 23, 418–428 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801
Herbert, G., Chen, X.: A comparison of usefulness of 2D and 3D representations of urban planning. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 42, 22–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2014.987694
Francisco, A., Truong, H., Khosrowpour, A., Taylor, J.E., Mohammadi, N.: Occupant perceptions of building information model-based energy visualizations in eco-feedback systems. Appl. Energy 221, 220–228 (2018)
Koramaz, T.K., Gulersoy, N.Z.: Users’ responses to 2D and 3D visualization techniques in urban conservation process. Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Vis. IV, 543–548 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2011.22
Bowman, D.A., Ray, A.A., Gutierrez, M.S., Mauldon, M., Dove, J.E., Westman, E., Setareh, M.: Engineering in three dimensions: immersive virtual environments, interactivity, and 3D user interfaces for engineering applications. Geo Congress 2006, pp. 1–17. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA (2006)
Stirbu, V., Belimpasakis, P.: Experiences building a multi-display mobile application for exploring mirror worlds. In: 2011 Fifth International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies, IEEE, pp 1–6 (2011)
Guerra, P.J., Pinto, M.M., Beato, C.: European scientific journal. European Scientific Institute (2015)
Xiao, D.Y.: Experiencing the library in a panorama virtual reality environment. Libr. Hi. Tech. 18, 177–184 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830010333572
Fukuda, T., Sun, L., Resch, B.: Mobile Panorama-based virtual reality capability for on-site architectural and urban visualization. Proc. 37th Symp. Comput. Technol. Inf. Syst. Appl. 37, 133–138 (2014)
Wang, X., Dunston, P.S.: Potential of augmented reality as an assistant viewer for computer-aided drawing. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 20, 437–441 (2006)
Lu, Y., Li, Y., Skibniewski, M., Wu, Z., Wang, R., Le, Y.: Information and communication technology applications in architecture, engineering, and construction organizations: A 15-year review. J. Manag. Eng. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000319
Al-Kodmany, K.: Visualization tools and methods for participatory planning and design. J. Urban Technol. ISSN 8, 1–37 (2001)
Wergles, N., Muhar, A.: The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—a comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91, 171–182 (2009)
International Living Future Institute: Living building challenge 3.1: a visionary path to a regenerative future. Living Futur. Inst. 31, 1–82 (2016)
Albaum, G.: The Likert scale revisited: an alternate version. J. Mark Res. Soc. 39, 331–332 (1997)
Beasley, T.M., Schumacker, R.E.: Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: post hoc and planned comparison procedures. J. Exp. Educ. 64, 79–93 (1995)
Šidák, Z.: Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62, 626–633 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10482935
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ha, S. et al. (2019). Exploring Future Stakeholder Feedback on Performance-Based Design Across the Virtuality Continuum. In: Mutis, I., Hartmann, T. (eds) Advances in Informatics and Computing in Civil and Construction Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00220-6_50
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00220-6_50
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00219-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00220-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)