Alzaed, A and Boussabaine, A H (2012) A conceptual model for user-centred passive building design. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The integration of end user factors (EUFs) into passive building design processes is suggested to be of major importance for improving mental health and wellbeing of the building’s end-user (E-U). Currently, there is a lack of a robust approach that helps the designer to integrate these factors into the design processes. There is also a need to understand what the most relevant E-U factors are and how to integrate them into passive design processes. Hence, the thesis of this work is to address this challenge by proposing a systemic conceptual E-U centred passive building design model
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conceptual modeling; passive building design; quantity surveying; user-centred design; user factors |
| Index terms: | end user, building design, user-centred design, surveying, well-being, integration, designer, mental health, conceptual modelling, passive design, design process |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, health conditions and diseases, design methods, sustainability and energy, profession, architectural design, health monitoring assessment and metrics, user-centred design, organizational analysis, stakeholder, mental health and wellbeing |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Design Practice, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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