Roulet, C A; Flourentzou, F; Foradini, F; Bluyssen, P; Cox, C and Aizlewood, C (2006) Multicriteria analysis of health, comfort and energy efficiency in buildings. Building Research & Information, 34(5), pp. 475-482. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
In order to comply with sustainable development policy, the minimum that buildings should achieve are a healthy, comfortable and energy-efficient environment. Criteria for individually assessing each of the many criteria are known: the occupant's perceived health; the provided thermal, visual and acoustical comfort; and the indoor air quality and energy efficiency. A methodology is proposed to perform a global evaluation of a building with regard to all these criteria. This methodology is applied to a sample of 96 apartment buildings and 64 office buildings to determine a set of best buildings and a set of buildings that are not acceptable in terms of comfort, perceived health and energy use. Some significant differences between these two groups of buildings are presented. The very existence of the first set shows that it is possible to design and build office and apartment buildings that are simultaneously energy efficient, healthy and comfortable.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building assessment; comfort; energy efficiency; health; indoor environment; multicriteria analysis; occupant perception; satisfaction |
| Index terms: | design and build, energy use, comfort, indoor air quality, methodology, office building, indoor environment, occupant perception, multicriteria analysis, sustainable development, apartment building, satisfaction, energy efficiency, building assessment |
| Subjects: | sustainability and energy, contractual arrangements, energy systems, environmental science, project delivery, construction type, health behaviours and lifestyles, occupational health and safety management, asset management, decision analysis, environmental health, research methods, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Procurement, Sustainability, Risk Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety |
| 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