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!
|
container_end_page | 37 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 27 |
container_title | Smart and Sustainable Built Environment |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Bonyad, Roya Hamzenejad, Mahdi Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali |
description | 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 |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2532994594</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2532994594</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9109f9cef20df4b3c620ed6ff590b24aab05c57e01dd57c068a41c92168bd6e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kE1LAzEQhoMoWGr_gKeAV1cn2c8ca6laKAi2npdsMmlT292aZIX-e7NWL_MB7zwMDyG3DB4Yg-pxNV09zRMGCQdWJQB5dkFGHLIiKRjwy_8ZhLgmE-93AMCgLEWajcjpXbaftt3QsEXqcIMtOhnsN1Lp1NYGVKF3SG2rrZKhc56azlHpPXp_wDbQzsQzj0M6Qd3HkO1auadNb_d6AB9dt4sUHxl0jVsn23u6iPWGXBm59zj562Py8Txfz16T5dvLYjZdJiplZUgEA2GEQsNBm6xJVcEBdWFMLqDhmZQN5CovEZjWeamgqGTGlOCsqBpdYJGOyd2ZGx_56tGHetf1Lr7oa56nXIgsF1lM8XNKuc57h6Y-OnuQ7lQzqAfL9a_lYRss14Pl9Ae82HJl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2532994594</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran</title><source>Emerald Complete Journals</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Bonyad, Roya ; Hamzenejad, Mahdi ; Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</creator><creatorcontrib>Bonyad, Roya ; Hamzenejad, Mahdi ; Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[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 explained based on logical analysis to obtain a comprehensive understanding. The prioritization of indicators actually provides a simple framework for designers and architects to have a clear path in developing an architectural regenerative project when different contexts vary in influential features. The selection and prioritization of indicators in this research depended mainly on their relevance to the conditions of Tehran and can be used for regions with similar conditions as well.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 2046-6099</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2046-6102</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Adaptability ; Analytic hierarchy process ; Architecture ; Building construction ; Context ; Cultural factors ; Culture ; Design ; Economics ; Education ; Energy management ; Energy storage ; Indicators ; Learning ; Literature reviews ; Nature ; Polls & surveys ; Project engineering ; Questions ; Ranking ; Social behavior ; Social factors ; Sustainability ; Waste management ; Water management</subject><ispartof>Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2020-03, Vol.9 (1), p.27-37</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited 2018</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9109f9cef20df4b3c620ed6ff590b24aab05c57e01dd57c068a41c92168bd6e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9109f9cef20df4b3c620ed6ff590b24aab05c57e01dd57c068a41c92168bd6e63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,967,21695,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bonyad, Roya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamzenejad, Mahdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</creatorcontrib><title>Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran</title><title>Smart and Sustainable Built Environment</title><description><![CDATA[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 explained based on logical analysis to obtain a comprehensive understanding. The prioritization of indicators actually provides a simple framework for designers and architects to have a clear path in developing an architectural regenerative project when different contexts vary in influential features. The selection and prioritization of indicators in this research depended mainly on their relevance to the conditions of Tehran and can be used for regions with similar conditions as well.]]></description><subject>Adaptability</subject><subject>Analytic hierarchy process</subject><subject>Architecture</subject><subject>Building construction</subject><subject>Context</subject><subject>Cultural factors</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Energy management</subject><subject>Energy storage</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Nature</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Project engineering</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Ranking</subject><subject>Social behavior</subject><subject>Social factors</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Waste management</subject><subject>Water management</subject><issn>2046-6099</issn><issn>2046-6102</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kE1LAzEQhoMoWGr_gKeAV1cn2c8ca6laKAi2npdsMmlT292aZIX-e7NWL_MB7zwMDyG3DB4Yg-pxNV09zRMGCQdWJQB5dkFGHLIiKRjwy_8ZhLgmE-93AMCgLEWajcjpXbaftt3QsEXqcIMtOhnsN1Lp1NYGVKF3SG2rrZKhc56azlHpPXp_wDbQzsQzj0M6Qd3HkO1auadNb_d6AB9dt4sUHxl0jVsn23u6iPWGXBm59zj562Py8Txfz16T5dvLYjZdJiplZUgEA2GEQsNBm6xJVcEBdWFMLqDhmZQN5CovEZjWeamgqGTGlOCsqBpdYJGOyd2ZGx_56tGHetf1Lr7oa56nXIgsF1lM8XNKuc57h6Y-OnuQ7lQzqAfL9a_lYRss14Pl9Ae82HJl</recordid><startdate>20200302</startdate><enddate>20200302</enddate><creator>Bonyad, Roya</creator><creator>Hamzenejad, Mahdi</creator><creator>Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200302</creationdate><title>Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran</title><author>Bonyad, Roya ; Hamzenejad, Mahdi ; Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-9109f9cef20df4b3c620ed6ff590b24aab05c57e01dd57c068a41c92168bd6e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adaptability</topic><topic>Analytic hierarchy process</topic><topic>Architecture</topic><topic>Building construction</topic><topic>Context</topic><topic>Cultural factors</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Energy management</topic><topic>Energy storage</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Nature</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Project engineering</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Ranking</topic><topic>Social behavior</topic><topic>Social factors</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Waste management</topic><topic>Water management</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bonyad, Roya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamzenejad, Mahdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Smart and Sustainable Built Environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bonyad, Roya</au><au>Hamzenejad, Mahdi</au><au>Khanmohammadi, Mohammadali</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran</atitle><jtitle>Smart and Sustainable Built Environment</jtitle><date>2020-03-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>27</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>27-37</pages><issn>2046-6099</issn><eissn>2046-6102</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[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 explained based on logical analysis to obtain a comprehensive understanding. The prioritization of indicators actually provides a simple framework for designers and architects to have a clear path in developing an architectural regenerative project when different contexts vary in influential features. The selection and prioritization of indicators in this research depended mainly on their relevance to the conditions of Tehran and can be used for regions with similar conditions as well.]]></abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2046-6099 |
ispartof | Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2020-03, Vol.9 (1), p.27-37 |
issn | 2046-6099 2046-6102 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2532994594 |
source | Emerald Complete Journals; Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection |
subjects | Adaptability Analytic hierarchy process Architecture Building construction Context Cultural factors Culture Design Economics Education Energy management Energy storage Indicators Learning Literature reviews Nature Polls & surveys Project engineering Questions Ranking Social behavior Social factors Sustainability Waste management Water management |
title | Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T17%3A33%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ranking%20the%20regenerative%20architecture%20indicators%20for%20assessment%20of%20research-educational%20building%20projects%20in%20Tehran,%20Iran&rft.jtitle=Smart%20and%20Sustainable%20Built%20Environment&rft.au=Bonyad,%20Roya&rft.date=2020-03-02&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=27&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=27-37&rft.issn=2046-6099&rft.eissn=2046-6102&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2532994594%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2532994594&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |