Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran

Bonyad, R; Hamzenejad, M and Khanmohammadi, M (2020) Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9(1), pp. 27-37. ISSN 2046-6099

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to propose a hierarchically structured system of regenerative architecture indicators for assessing research-educational building projects. Design/methodology/approach: First, based on a literature review of the historical roots of regenerative design and related approaches and the interviews held with experts of the related field, the paper proposes a structured framework of architectural indicators suitable for the context of Tehran. Later, the importance of criteria is estimated by the analytic hierarchy process method based on a survey of experts. Finally, the results clarify the order of indicators' importance for enhancing research-educational buildings with the aim of developing regenerative design in the context. Findings: The rankings revealed that, in the environmental dimension, “Design of site & building” and “Site & context considerations” are the top priorities of learning spaces in Tehran followed by “Water management,” “Energy management” and “Materials & waste management” ranked as less significant, but still important indicators. In the social dimension, “Design for people & human health” was considered much more important than “Social interaction” and “Interaction with nature,” and in the cultural dimension, “vernacular & historical features of design” was more important than “Aesthetic feature.” In the economic dimension, “Energy storage & production” indicator was ranked highest followed by “Adaptability & multiplicity of design solutions” and “Using waste to produce new resources.” Generally, for achieving regenerative architecture in learning spaces, the environmental criterion was given the highest weight among all dimensions. After that, the higher rank was given to social dimension; while cultural and economic dimensions took the third and fourth place. Research limitations/implications: The paper has limitations because of the limited number of experts in the field of regenerative approach. Originality/value: This research seeks to answer the following question: what is the ranking of regenerative architecture indicators in the design of research-educational building projects in the context of Tehran? To answer this question, the indicators of regenerative design in the architectural field are explored through a detailed study of literature and interview with experts of the related field; later, they are ranked based on a survey approach that investigates the opinions of experts. The final results are then explained based on logical analysis to obtain a comprehensive understanding. The prioritization of indicators actually provides a simple framework for designers and architects to have a clear path in developing an architectural regenerative project when different contexts vary in influential features. The selection and prioritization of indicators in this research depended mainly on their relevance to the conditions of Tehran and can be used for regions with similar conditions as well.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: ecological design; regeneration; regenerative architecture; regenerative design; sustainability; sustainable environment
Index terms: methodology, adaptability, waste management, literature review, survey, interview, human health, ecological design, educational building, interaction, energy storage, dimension, energy management, social interaction, architect, aesthetic, learning space, designer, Tehran, regenerative design, water management
Subjects: behavioral psychology, sociology, Geography, research methods, public and environmental health, factor and component analysis, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, sustainability and energy, environmental resource management, waste management, user focus, profession, construction type, data collection methods
Topics: Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here