Integrating use-phase emissions and resident satisfaction for comparative sustainability assessment: A case study of UC Davis student housing

• RESide integrates per-capita use-phase emissions with resident satisfaction scores • Per-capita use-phase emissions varied by ∼30 × across six UC Davis housing types • Resident satisfaction scores differed by up to 35% between housing models • SCBI revealed 15–30% trade-offs between emissions reduction and satisfaction • RSI correlated with overall satisfaction (r = 0.89, p < 0.05) Sustainability in housing encompasses more than minimizing environmental footprints and must account for resident satisfaction. High-density, energy-efficient housing solutions can unintentionally undermine social and physical comfort dimensions. To address this gap, this study introduces RESide (Resident-Experience & Sustainability Integrated Design Evaluation) , an integrated approach that combines operational carbon footprint with resident satisfaction to assess housing sustainability through a case study at the University of California, Davis. Operational emissions were quantified through a resident-normalized life cycle assessment of energy and water use, expressed as an Environmental Excellence Index (EEI) . In parallel, a resident survey (n = 295) assessed resident perceptions across multiple dimensions, aggregated into a context-specific Resident Satisfaction Index (RSI) . The study develops the Sustainability-Comfort Balance Indicator (SCBI) , a descriptive construct to visualize trade-offs between environmental performance and resident satisfaction across six housing models (dormitories, apartments, and an ecovillage). The analysis revealed a divergence in performance, with a net-zero energy apartment complex achieving the highest environmental score (EEI = 4.88) but one of the lowest resident satisfaction ratings (RSI = 2.84). In contrast, the ecovillage demonstrated high performance on both indices (EEI = 4.47, RSI = 4.16), resulting in the highest overall SCBI, highlighting how conventional assessments can fail to capture a comprehensive view of sustainability. As the survey used non-probability sampling and limited socio-economic controls, the resulting scores are presented as exploratory indicators for comparative benchmarking within the housing portfolio, rather than statistically generalizable results. Broader transferability of this approach requires recalibration of emissions scoring and representative social sampling.