Determining indoor environmental criteria weights through expert panels and surveys

Rohde, L; Steen Larsen, T; Jensen, R L; Larsen, O K; Jønsson, K T and Loukou, E (2020) Determining indoor environmental criteria weights through expert panels and surveys. Building Research & Information, 48(4), pp. 415-428. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

A growing focus on occupant comfort, health and wellbeing has resulted in attempts to quantify indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and to determine the relative contributions of single IEQ aspects to an overall IEQ index. The recently developed IV20 tool assesses potential IEQ to label overall IEQ, and assign separate scores for the main indoor environment (IE) areas: thermal, visual, acoustic and air quality. In the absence of objective, universally applicable IEQ weights, this paper develops and executes a methodology asking regional experts with different backgrounds to make relative comparisons between related IE aspects. The authors hypothesize that wide-ranging subjective evaluations can be combined into useful relative weights (best operational solution based on the current status of IE literature). This paper presents results from an IE expert survey on relative IE aspect weights using simple percentile prioritization and the Analytic Hierarchy Process pairwise comparison. Results are compared to expert panel judgements to ensure validity. The advantages of this combined weight determination method are (1) that the expert survey ensures a broad spectrum of opinions and allows for input from different built environment disciplines, and (2) that the expert panel has tool-specific insight, methodology awareness and state of the art knowledge.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: ahp; comfort; dwelling; health; indoor environmental quality; multiple-attribute decision-making
Index terms: survey, health and wellbeing, state of the art, methodology, decision-making, validity, indoor environment, built environment, indoor environmental quality, comfort, air quality
Subjects: environmental science, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, research dissemination and communication, mental health and wellbeing, climate science, occupational health and safety management, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental health, research methods
Topics: Urban Studies, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Risk Management
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