Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose a hierarchically structured system of regenerative architecture indicators for assessing research-educational building projects.Design/methodology/approachFirst, based on a literature review of the historical roots of regenerative design and related app...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 2020-03, Vol.9 (1), p.27-37 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose a hierarchically structured system of regenerative architecture indicators for assessing research-educational building projects.Design/methodology/approachFirst, 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.FindingsThe 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/implicationsThe paper has limitations because of the limited number of experts in the field of regenerative approach.Originality/valueThis 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 |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2046-6099 2046-6102 |
DOI: | 10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054 |