From 'What-is' to 'What-if' in Human-Factor Analysis: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation Case
This addresses methodological mismatches in human-centric systems like building science or ergonomics, offering a systematic approach for optimization and decision-making, though it is incremental in applying existing causal methods to a new domain.
The paper tackles the problem of human-factor analysis relying on descriptive methods that are insufficient for causal questions, and demonstrates that applying causal inference frameworks reveals intervention hierarchies and directional relationships missed by traditional analysis.
Human-factor analysis typically employs correlation analysis and significance testing to identify relationships between variables. However, these descriptive ('what-is') methods, while effective for identifying associations, are often insufficient for answering causal ('what-if') questions. Their application in such contexts often overlooks confounding and colliding variables, potentially leading to bias and suboptimal or incorrect decisions. We advocate for explicitly distinguishing descriptive from interventional questions in human-factor analysis, and applying causal inference frameworks specifically to these problems to prevent methodological mismatches. This approach disentangles complex variable relationships and enables counterfactual reasoning. Using post-occupancy evaluation (POE) data from the Center for the Built Environment's (CBE) Occupant Survey as a demonstration case, we show how causal discovery reveals intervention hierarchies and directional relationships that traditional associational analysis misses. The systematic distinction between causally associated and independent variables, combined with intervention prioritization capabilities, offers broad applicability to complex human-centric systems, for example, in building science or ergonomics, where understanding intervention effects is critical for optimization and decision-making.