An exploration of experts' views on the relative importance of indoor-environmental quality parameters

Mahdavi, A; Mino-Rodriguez, I; Berger, C; Martínez-Muñoz, I and Wagner, A (2025) An exploration of experts' views on the relative importance of indoor-environmental quality parameters. Building Research & Information, 53(1-2), pp. 3-18. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

Indoor-environmental quality (IEQ) assessments must consider multiple aspects and domains. In this context, common IEQ building evaluation and rating schemes frequently apply conjoint indicators to aggregate these different aspects via importance or significance ranking formalisms involving, for instance, points, scores and weights. However, the reasoning for the specific selection of variables and the sources of their assigned weights are not necessarily disclosed as a matter of course. In the present contribution, we investigate one of the paths to the provision of such reasoning that leans on experts' views. Online feedback from a small sample of IEQ experts provided the basis for the illustration of this path and the kinds of principal insights that it can offer, including the degree of consistency among experts and the potential factors that could influence their judgment. Moreover, the study also exemplified the process of deriving relative importance weightings (i.e. coefficients applied to various domain and sub-category variables) and how such processes can be applied toward a total IEQ measure. The study's findings underscore the need to improve the transparency of the processes through which such schemes and their constitutive ingredients are arrived at.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: expert views; indoor-environmental quality; relative importance; survey; weighting schemes
Index terms: transparency, environmental quality, building evaluation, aggregate, judgment, exploration, survey, reasoning, relative importance
Subjects: sustainability assessment, asset management, cognitive psychology, materials science, environmental resource management, professional development, risk assessment, data collection methods, dispute resolution
Topics: Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy
Descriptive scope: 3 PCE

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