Individual Priority Weights of Indoor Environmental Performance to Sanction a Safe and Healthy Work Environment

第 55 卷 第 3 期

2020 年 6 月

JOURNAL OF SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY

Vol. 55 No. 3

June 2020

ISSN: 0258-2724 DOI：10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.3.17

Research article

Environmental Science

I

NDIVIDUAL

P

RIORITY

W

EIGHTS OF

I

NDOOR

E

NVIRONMENTAL

P

ERFORMANCE TO

S

ANCTION A

S

AFE AND

H

EALTHY

W

ORK

E

NVIRONMENT

室内环境绩效对保护安全和健康工作环境的个人优先权

N. Khalil a, *, S.N. Kamaruzzaman b, A.A.M. Bohari c, H.N. Husin a, I. Othman d

a

Department of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA

Perak Branch 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia, natas582@uitm.edu.my

b _{Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya}

Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia, syahrulnizam@um.edu.my

c _{Department of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi}

MARA

Sarawak Branch 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia, asmahalia@uitm.edu.my

d

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi Petronas 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia, idris_othman@utp.edu.my

Received: March 7, 2020 ▪ Review: May 16, 2020 ▪ Accepted: May 30, 2020

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Abstract

This article presents a new idea to improve crucial ecological issues that arise due to the poor performance of indoor environments during the occupancy phase to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for building residents. Using the Delphi technique via a focus group discussion, the authors identified seven attributes that are associated with occupants’ health and safety, namely, cooling (thermal comfort), artificial lighting (visual comfort), natural lighting (visual comfort), acoustic comfort, waste reduction, ventilation, and cleanliness. We illustrate the use of Delphi in ensuring a safe and healthy working environment via two-round stages involving 22 respondents, which include building energy experts from green and environmental organizations in Malaysia. The first round confirms the suitability of the attributes while the second determines the individual priority weights of the attributes. Our method allows improving building residents’ safety and health by focusing on improving their indoor environment, where the top attributes are ventilation (30.3%), cleanliness (17.1%), and cooling (7.4%). This new method of effectiveness evaluation is based on the calculation of the individual priority weight, which is derived from the analytical hierarchy process. In this method, respondents are made to rate the importance of each attribute in pair-wise comparison during the second round. The results of this study aid in improving the indoor environment during the occupancy phase; these results can also be used for prioritizing elements that should perform well in the performance evaluation.

Keywords: Indoor Environmental Performance, Safety, Health, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Individual

摘要 本文提出了一种新的想法，以改善由于占用阶段室内环境表现不佳而引起的重要生态问题， 以确保建筑物居民安全健康的工作条件。通过焦点小组讨论，使用德尔斐技术，作者确定了与乘 员的健康和安全相关的七个属性，即冷却（热舒适），人造照明（视觉舒适），自然照明（视觉 舒适），声学舒适，减少废物，通风和清洁。我们通过两个阶段的 22 个参与者（包括马来西亚绿 色和环保组织的建筑能源专家）分两个阶段说明了德尔斐在确保安全和健康的工作环境中的用法 。第一轮确认属性的适用性，第二轮确定属性的各个优先级权重。我们的方法通过专注于改善室 内环境来改善建筑居民的安全和健康，室内环境的主要特征是通风（30.3％），清洁度（17.1％） 和制冷（7.4％）。这种有效性评估的新方法是基于对各个优先级权重的计算，该权重是从层次分 析法得出的。在这种方法中，让受访者在第二轮配对评估中对每个属性的重要性进行评分。这项 研究的结果有助于在入住阶段改善室内环境。这些结果还可以用于对应该在性能评估中表现良好 的元素进行优先级排序。 关键词: 室内环境性能，安全性，健康性，层次分析法，个人优先权

I. I

NTRODUCTION

The high performance of environmental elements and sustainability are closely connected in the field of green study. The high performance of indoor environmental and green elements is described as the foundation of sustainable construction development [1]. A building with such elements is also known as an “environmentally-sound” building or a “sustainable building”. Sustainability refers to the capacity to endure [2]. This word explains the process by which biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived wetlands and forests are examples of healthy sustainability. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of well-being based on three main dimensions: society, environment, and economy [2]. Therefore, performance evaluation is one of the areas in which cities and constructed environments can achieve sustainability.

Architects emphasize sustainability concerns in office buildings during the initial design and construction phases. These concerns are also important during occupancy. Designers' team, building management and operations must address crucial concerns of sustainability during the building operation to ensure the occupants’ comfort. They must also ensure that the structure is suitable for its users. Employees are often more satisfied and productive when they feel healthy, safe, and comfortable [3]. Indoor environmental performance depends on a building’s lifespan as well as changes in the physical requirements and activities of the occupants. [4] supported that most of the environmental impact is due to high energy consumption in buildings. High pollution energy sources and high usage equipment are

examples of such consumption. Efficiency and staff productivity may decrease in a poorly performing building environment.

An office building survey [5] revealed that 47 percent of its respondents indicated that their work productivity decreased because of a poor indoor environment. Their continuous exposure to inadequate ventilation and indoor air pollutants elevated the risk of potential health problems [6]. Increased attention from stakeholders, developers, building owners, manufacturers, and investors in public or private sectors has prioritized sustainability in the development of construction practices. [7] stated that environmental problems are becoming social issues in need of solutions because of rapid industrial development. The social issues also include safety and health aspects, comfort, perceived needs, and satisfaction.

Numerous studies (e.g.,

[13], [29], [30])

focus on newly constructed buildings, with a goal of green remodelling to achieve green-certified buildings with a low carbon zero impact. However, performance optimization cannot take into account qualitative objectives such as aesthetics and constructability [8]. Therefore, optimizing the performance of buildings calls for environmental risk management for their occupants, visitors, and passers-by [9]. It also demonstrates the need to address occupants’ social issues in indoor environmental performance evaluations.

This study intends to determine the attributes of indoor environment performance enabling a safe and healthy workability living of the building users/occupants. This study also prioritizes the elements of indoor environment for performance evaluation that may resonate

with aspects of occupants’ safety and health. Health can be defined as the likelihood of negative health consequences due to specific building conditions impacting on human health. Safety aspects can be defined as the likelihood of harmful consequences to the building users related to safety or security, such as injury, death, crime, theft, nuisance or burglary.

II. I

NDOOR

E

NVIRONMENTAL

P

ERFORMANCE

:

T

HE

C

ONCERNS ON

G

REEN AND

S

USTAINABILITY

Towards achieving an advanced Malaysian economy by 2020, the country has come out with a momentous milestone, namely the Eleventh Malaysia Plan (2016-2020). It features six strategic thrusts and game-changers, whereby one of them is focusing on pursuing green growth for sustainability and resilience. This calls for the country to embark upon green growth for it to be a way of life for all Malaysians. Aside from the public and government sectors that are encouraged to respond at initiatives geared towards developing a green environment and culture, private companies and non-government organizations are also targeted. For instance, the prime objective of the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (MESTECC) is enhancing the green technology and environment. Meanwhile, the Malaysia Green Technology Corporation (MGTC) has been established to enact the legal mechanisms for regulating and enforcing green technology, as well as define the role of every governmental agency involved in its implementation in the country [10]. This shows that Malaysia has noticed and is moving towards environmentally sustainable living with the prominent need of energy efficiency, water efficiency, sustainability and planning management, material and resources, indoor environmental quality, and new innovation.

Malaysia is one of the tropical countries located in the South China Sea, and lies at the coordinates of latitude 3.12 °N and longitude 101.55 °E [11]. The tropical region is a particularly uncomfortable climate zone that receives a large amount of solar radiation, has a high temperature, a high level of relative humidity, and long periods of sunny days all throughout the year [12]. [5], in their study, also described Malaysia’s location within the tropical climate region, which is naturally hot and humid. Moreover, the rapid growth of the urban population has led to it experiencing a regional rise in urbanization, especially in the developed countries of Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia

[12]. Due to such a landscape, the majority of office buildings in Malaysia have air conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems to maintain a thermally comfortable indoor environment. Besides, rapid development of office buildings that are normally located in the city area leads to various issues in terms of cleanliness, and noise and air pollution.

Theoretically, the elements of the indoor environment in building performance poses a more instant and direct impact on building users compared than attributes of the external environment. They are often related to safeguarding the health of a building and its occupants or users. [3] explained that the social aspect of occupants’ lives are directly affected by these environments. This includes the period of time spend in the building, their experiential aspects on the building conditions and also indoor environmental quality. Possible synergistic effects of criteria in the performance elements may affect from one to another. According to [13], Considerations of the maintenance management of facility at the planning and design stage are of utmost importance for the facility’s future performance attributes. Hence, to assess the performance indoor environmental attributes or parameters, the determinants of the attributes are firstly required to satisfy the viability in the context of local climate and building requirements.

Based on review analysis of green performance and indoor environmental elements, the performance is closely related to parameters of noise comfort, visual comfort, thermal comfort, cleanliness, ventilation, sick building syndrome and waste reduction [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Lighting is also important parameter in environmental performance in office buildings. Office Building lighting is much more than LED. Beyond LED, a green solution for office lightings also depends on the orientation, daylight and lighting control system. These aspects was clearly determined during the initial design of building. It was found that indoor environmental elements are appropriate for assessing social aspects in meeting demands for reducing risk to building users.

Based on the review, the initial construct of the indoor environmental elements had listed nine (9) attributes, namely; i) thermal comfort (heating), ii) thermal comfort (cooling), iii) visual comfort (artificial lighting), iv) visual comfort (natural lighting), v) waste disposal, vi) building ventilation, vii) humidity level, viii) acoustic comfort and ix) level of cleanliness. The attributes were relatively compiled from the

literature, the existing green rating tools, and some precedent studies concerning risk in building performance [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. In the current study, the indoor environmental attributes are depicted as predictor variables of the impact on occupants’ safety and health, which are social factors. A reduction of the performance of the indoor environmental elements would generally expose the building occupants to safety and health hazards. Therefore, prioritizing the abovementioned attributes is needed to improve the performance assessment during the building operation stage.

III. M

ETHODOLOGY

This research adopted the quantitative approach using a structured questionnaire that consisted of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as the main instrument. The AHP is a measurement theory by means of pair comparisons and relies on expert judgments to derive priority scales [24], [25], [26], [27]. In the AHP, the weight score showing the importance of each criterion is assigned to all criteria or parameters. The AHP approach has been widely adopted as a decision-making tool in the fields of green and energy [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. In the current study, the indoor environmental attributes were confirmed using a Delphi technique via a focus group discussion (FGD) workshop. The workshop was carried out in two-round stages and attended by 22 individuals with building energy expertise from leading organizations related to green and environmental performance, including Malaysia Green Technology Corporation (MGTC); Energy Commission (ST); SIRIM QAS International; and Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment, and Climate Change (MESTECC). First, consensus among these participants was required to determine the suitability of the indoor environmental elements for the performance assessment. The list of attributes was presented to the participants during the FGD, which was associated with occupants’ health and safety and initially constructed to provide guidance to the respondents. Next, the final set of the weights assigned for each indicator was presented at the end stage, during which the data obtained were crucial for this survey and the study alike. Hence, each respondent was briefed by the researcher regarding the procedure for rating the importance scale of the AHP.

IV. R

ESULTS AND

D

ISCUSSION

A. Administration of the Delphi and AHP Survey via a Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

The indoor environmental attributes were confirmed using a Delphi technique via an FGD workshop. The workshop was carried out in two-round stages and attended by 22 building energy experts. In the first round, consensus among the respondents was required to determine the suitability of the indoor environmental attributes for the performance assessment. The list of attributes was presented to the respondents during the FGD, which was associated with occupants’ health and safety and initially constructed to provide guidance to the respondents. During the first round of the process, the respondents were asked to assess whether the attribute was suitable or irrelevant for the performance assessment of office buildings (“Yes” if relevant or “No” if irrelevant).

In the first-round results, seven attributes received more than 50% consensus, while the two attributes of heating (thermal comfort) and humidity level received a low consensus (less than 50%). Hence, the two attributes were removed from the list for the second-round process. Table 1 depicts the results of the first round. Next, the second-round process showed that all seven attributes attained 100% consensus from the respondents, thus confirming their suitability as contributing factors to occupants’ health and safety (Table 2).

Table 1.

Delphi result of consensus – first round

No Indoor environmental

attributes

Consensus of respondents

1 Heating (thermal comfort) 25% consensus 2 Cooling (thermal comfort) 94% consensus 3 Artificial lighting (visual

comfort)

94% consensus

4 Natural lighting (visual comfort)

72% consensus

5 Waste reduction 100% consensus 6 Building ventilation 100% consensus 7 Humidity level 47% consensus 8 Acoustic comfort (noise) 83% consensus 9 Cleanliness level 89% consensus

Table 2.

Delphi result of consensus – second round

No Indoor environmental

attributes

Consensus of respondents

1 Cooling (thermal comfort) 100% consensus 2 Artificial lighting (visual

comfort)

100% consensus

3 Natural lighting (visual comfort)

100% consensus

4 Waste reduction 100% consensus 5 Building ventilation 100% consensus

6 Acoustic comfort (noise) 100% consensus 7 Cleanliness level 100% consensus

The respondents were then asked to rate the importance of the confirmed attributes by pair wise comparison. A 9-point scale of importance was used in the AHP survey by [24]. Figure 1 depicts the scale of importance ranging from 1 to 9. The importance of the attributes was compared to each criterion in the indoor environmental performance. The results of the rating are presented in Table 3. The weightings were extracted from the calculation of individual priority weights (IPW) with the aid of the AHP computer software package, the Expert Choice 11.

Figure 1. AHP scale of importance [24]

Table 3.

Method of rating the pair wise comparison

B. The Results of the AHP

The IPW of each attribute were established using a square matrix structure. The weights were calculated by the geometric mean of the values from the questionnaires filled by all respondents. The final step in the process combined the ratings of the criteria to form an overall rating for each decision alternative. The numerical pair wise comparison and the IPW obtained by combining the overall judgment from the respondents are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. To obtain the priority weight, the distributive mode was chosen, as it normalized the alternative scores under each criterion so that they summed up to one (1.00). This created a dependency on how well all other alternatives performed, thus allowing the potential for rank reversal. It showed that the internal consistency ratio (CR) was .02, whereas in the AHP, the CR must be less than 0.1 (10%) [25]. Therefore, the data were reliable and achieved consistency.

Figure 2. Pair wise comparison of the attributes using the Expert Choice 11

Figure 3. Individual priority weight of the attributes using the Expert Choice 11

Next, the weights were multiplied to 100 (%) to obtain the percentage distribution of the attributes. This is illustrated in Table 4, wherein the weightings show that ventilation is ranked as the most important attribute with a weight of 30.3%. It is followed by cleanliness level (17.1%), cooling (7.4%), waste disposal (12%), acoustic comfort (10.6%), artificial lighting (8.4%), and natural lighting (6.6%). The dimensions of the attributes have been supported by previous researchers [34], [35], [36], who highlighted ventilation, temperature, lighting, and cleanliness as the factors that affect the quality of the indoor environment the most. Furthermore, this result suggested that three attributes, that is, ventilation, cleanliness level, and cooling, are the most important factors influencing the results of indoor environmental performance assessments. This is due to their potential capacity to generate a larger impact on occupants’ health and safety. Focusing on the indoor environmental performance and social aspects related to ventilation would be more significant than that for the remaining six attributes.

Table 4.

Summary of individual priority weights for indoor environmental attributes Indoor environmental attributes Individual priority weight (%) Rank

Thermal comfort (cooling) 15.0 3 Visual comfort (artificial

lighting)

8.4 6

Visual comfort (natural lighting) 6.6 7 Waste disposal 12.0 4 Ventilation 30.3 1 Acoustic comfort 10.6 5 Cleanliness level 17.1 2 C. Discussion of Findings

From the AHP results, the summation scores of the indoor environmental attributes identified the top three priorities: in the order of their ranking, the top three attributes were ventilation (30.3%), cleanliness level (17.1%), and cooling (15%). Figure 4 shows the performance dimension of the indoor environmental attributes using a radar chart.

Figure 4. Performance dimensions of the indoor environmental attributes

The discussion of result is therefore focusing on the top three ranked attributes, whereby ventilation is revealed as the top priority for performance assessment as it poses a larger impact to the occupants’ health and safety. This suggests that this attribute is more significant than the remaining seven attributes and for it to be prioritized in the focus upon building performance and occupants’ safe and health. Ideally, poor ventilation can cause occupants to experience further health effects, such as flu-like symptoms, dermatitis, irritation, systemic toxicity, headache, fatigue, and chest tightness [37]. This is supported by [17], who underlined the poor quality of ventilation in indoor air will affect individual wellbeing and constitutes as a risk of accident in a work place. Other than that, health effect resulted from the exposure to indoor air contaminants was sick building syndrome and it was a major potential risk that can be happened to all building users [6]. Thus, it affects the safety and health of building occupants. It also influences the work productivity and urge the staff to opt for sick leave frequently and cause recurring health disorders. It is recommended by [6] that installation of effective ventilation system was essential to maintain healthy indoor air quality.

The second-ranked attribute in indoor environmental performance is cleanliness level. The result supported the importance of providing a clean environment in office buildings. Infections and cleanliness are closely related to hygiene [38], which does not merely generate hygienic environment; it also prevents a direct exposure to the occupants’ health. [39] described that the cleanliness of a building or complex impacts the health of its occupants since a clean and healthy environment is a representation of the building’s image and its community. An unhygienic environment not only creates nuisances to its occupants, it is also conducive to pest problems and the growth of micro-organisms

that further leads to the spread of infectious diseases [40].

The next priority ranked for the indoor environmental attribute is thermal comfort. Poor cooling performance generates health and safety issues for occupants. [41] states it also leads to faulty indoor environmental performance, and [42] adds the discomfort aspect to occasions when there is no prevailing cool breeze. Furthermore, a study by [43] shows that people who are exposed to poor thermal comfort and low indoor environmental quality could have different symptoms, which include short term memory and work performance reduction, due to the improper working conditions. Besides, [44] highlights that buildings should provide socially acceptable levels of health, safety, welfare, and amenity for the inhabitants, which have to be accomplished through regulatory controls on the building operation. Buildings have a long service life, during which end users’ expectations should be met, including thermal comfort, [45]. [35] supports that sustainable buildings are to be expectedly designed with "breathable” strategies that accommodate occupants with thermal comfort without the use of any mechanical ventilation system.

Moreover, the empirical findings of this study indicate that the experts’ criteria, knowledge, and experience ensure that their judgment is collectively reliable and able to justify the acceptance of the subsequent results on health and safety impact. To summarize, the attained significance of indoor environmental performance suited the support from academic theories and literature.

V. C

ONCLUSION

The prioritized statistics provide important information regarding the safety, health, and overall livelihood of the occupants, who are considered the entity or group of individuals affiliated with the building operation stage. The range of the article covers office buildings, where it was found that the integration of well-designed and maintained office buildings could help the creation of sustainable environmental performance and promising public health interventions. This research thus suggests that performance optimization sanctioning to the building users’ safety and health is to be further enhanced in terms of economics, life cycle costing, procurement, incentives, and capacity development strategies. The findings also indicate that the reliability of using expert judgment has been shown in similar studies to assess the significance in the development of

green and indoor environmental performance tools. Concerning the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG), the ability to provide good health and well-being is clearly highlighted in SDG No. 3 and No.4, and it is also emphasized that the certainty and promotion of healthy lives of all ages are essential to sustainable development.

A

CKNOWLEDGMENT

The study did not operate from any sort of external funding sources. The authors wish gratitude to the respondents who have participated and supported for this research.

R

EFERENCES

[1]

SAMARI,

M.,

GODRATI,

N.,

ESMAEILIFAR, R., OLFAT, P., and

SHAFIEI, M.W.M. (2013) The Investigation

of the Barriers in Developing Green Building

in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science, 7 (2),

pp. 1-10.

[2]

VUJOŠEVIĆ, M. (2011) About

Sustainable Architecture – A Definition.

Available

from

http://e-

science.amres.ac.rs/TP36035/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/Milica-Vujosevic-PRE-Solun-2012.pdf.

[3]

SEDISO, B.G.R. and LEE, M.S.I.K.

(2016) Indoor environmental quality in

Korean green building certification criteria

— certified office buildings — occupant

satisfaction and performance. Science and

Technology Built Environment, 22 (5), pp.

606-618.

[4]

CAMARA, T., KAMSU-FOGUEM,

B., DIOURTE, B., and MAIGA, A.I. (2016)

Experience feedback for risk assessment in

aeronautic buildings. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 137, pp. 1237-1245.

[5]

KHALIL, N. and HUSIN, H.N.

(2009) Post Occupancy Evaluation towards

Indoor

Environment

Improvement

in

Malaysia’ s Office Buildings. Journal of

Sustainaible Development, 2 (1), pp. 186-191.

[6]

ZAMANI, M.E., JALALUDIN, J.,

and SHAHAROM, N. (2013) Indoor Air

Quality and Prevalence of Sick Building

Syndrome Among Office Workers in Two

Different Offices in Selangor. American

Journal of Applied Science, 10 (10), pp.

1140-1147.

[7]

PARK, S.J. and KIM, M.J. (2018) A

Framework for Green Remodeling Enabling

Energy Efficiency and Healthy Living for the

Elderly. Energies, 11 (8), pp. 2031-2040.

[8]

OSTERGARD, T., JENSEN, R.L.,

and MAAGAARD, S.E. (2017) Early

Building Design: Informed Decision-Making

by Exploring Multidimensional Design

Space Using Sensitivity Analysis. Energy

Buildings, 142, pp. 8-22.

[9]

AMARATUNGA, D. and BALDRY,

D. (1999) Building Performance Evaluation

In Higher Education Properties: Towards A

Process Model. In: Proceedings of the

Construction

and

Building

Research

Conference (COBRA), Salford, December

1999,

pp.

45-56.

Available

from

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/30823/.

[10]

ABDUL RAHMAN, S.R., AHMAD,

H., and ROSLEY, M.S.F. (2013) Green

Roof: Its Awareness Among Professionals

and Potential in Malaysian Market. Procedia

- Social and Behavioral Science, 85, pp.

443-453.

[11] MIRRAHIMI, S., MOHAMED, M.F.,

HAW, L.C., IBRAHIM, N.L.N., YUSOFF,

W.F.M., and AFLAKI, A. (2016) The effect

of building envelope on the thermal comfort

and energy saving for high-rise buildings in

hot – humid climate. Reneweable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, pp.

1508-1519.

[12]

AL-OBAIDI, K.M., ISMAIL, M., and

RAHMAN, A.M.A. (2014) Passive cooling

techniques through reflective and radiative

roofs in tropical houses in Southeast Asia: A

literature review. Frontiers of Architectural

Research, 3 (3), pp. 283-297.

[13]

CHEW, M.Y.L., CONEJOS, S., and

ASMONE, A.S. (2017) Developing a

research

framework

for

the

green

maintainability of buildings. Facilities, 35

(1/2), pp. 39-63.

[14]

LOW, S.P., LIU, J.Y., and OH, K.H.

(2008)

Influence

of

total

building

performance, spatial and acoustic concepts

on buildability scores of facilities. Facilities,

26 (1/2), pp. 85-104.

[15]

SALLEH,

N.M.,

KAMARUZZAMAN, S.N., RILEY, M.,

ZAWAWI, E.M.A., and SULAIMAN, R.

(2015) A quantitative evaluation of indoor

environmental

quality

in

refurbished

kindergarten buildings: A Malaysian case

study. Building and Environment, 94, pp.

723-733.

[16]

VILCEKOVA, S., MECIAROVA, L.,

BURDOVA,

E.K.,

KATUNSKA,

J.,

KOSICANOVA, D., and DOROUDIANI, S.

(2017) Indoor environmental quality of

classrooms and occupants’ comfort in a

special education school in Slovak Republic.

Building and Environment, 120, pp. 29-40.

[17]

SULAIMAN,

R.,

KAMARUZZAMAN, S.N., HANIF, N.R.,

and SALLEH, N.M. (2013) Regression of

perceived indoor environmental quality

(IEQ) and prevalence sick building syndrome

in museum environment. Advanced Science

Letter, 19 (10), pp. 3107-3110.

[18]

SALLEH, N.M., SALIM, N.A.A.,

and KAMARUZZAMAN,

S.N.

(2016)

Occupant Expectations on the Main IEQ

Factors at Workspace: The Studies of Private

Preschool Buildings. MATEC Web of

Conferences, 66, 00120.

[19]

ALMEIDA, N., SOUSA, V., DIAS,

L.A., and BRANCO, F. (2010) A framework

for

combining

risk-management

and

performance-based

building

approaches.

Building Research & Information, 38 (2), pp.

157-174.

[20]

LÜTZKENDORF, T. and LORENZ,

D.P. (2006) Using an integrated performance

approach in building assessment tools.

Building Research & Information, 34 (4), pp.

334-356.

[21]

MEACHAM,

B.J.

(2010)

Risk-informed performance-based approach to

building regulation. Journal of Risk Research,

13 (7), pp. 877-893.

[22]

MEINS,

E.,

WALLBAUM,

H.,

HARDZIEWSKI, R., and FEIGE, A. (2010)

Sustainability and property valuation: a

risk-based approach. Building Research &.

Information, 38 (3), pp. 280-300.

[23]

WOLSKI, A., DEMBSEY, N.A., and

MEACHAM, B.J. (2000) Accommodating

perceptions of risk in performance-based

building fire safety code development. Fire

Safety Journal, 34, pp. 297-309.

[24]

SAATY,

T.L.

(2008)

Decision

making with the analytic hierarchy process.

International Journal of Services Science, 1

(1), pp. 83-98.

[25]

SAATY, T.L. (1990) How to make a

decision: The analytic hierarchy process.

European Journal of Operational Research,

48, pp. 9-26.

[26]

ALEXANDER, M. (2012)

Decision-Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP) and SAS/IML®. Available

from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d3e/354df2

2a09bde5f115ff1da573073ca00a47.pdf?_ga=

2.250513925.2024169042.1589311379-1335596136.1560356921.

[27]

ISHIZAKA, A. and LABIB, A.

(2009) Analytic Hierarchy Process and

Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations. OR

Insight, 22 (4), pp. 201-220.

[28]

ALI, H.H. and AL NSAIRAT, S.F.

(2008)

Developing

a

green

building

assessment tool for developing countries –

Case of Jordan. Building and Environment,

44 (5), pp. 1053-1064.

[29]

CHEN, Z., CLEMENTS-CROOME,

D., HONG, J., LI, H., and XU, Q. (2006) A

multicriteria

lifespan

energy

efficiency

approach to intelligent building assessment.

Energy and Buildings, 38, pp. 393-409.

[30]

POVEDA, C.A. and LIPSETT, M.

(2012)

A

Review

of

Sustainability

Assessment

and

Sustainability/Environmental Rating Systems

and Credit Weighting Tools. Journal of

Sustainable Development, 4 (6), pp. 36-55.

[31] HSIEH, T., LU, S., and TZENG, G.H.

(2004) Project Fuzzy MCDM Approach for

Planning and Design Tenders Selection in

Public

Office

Buildings.

Inernational

Journal of Project Management, 22, pp.

573-584.

[32]

MOHAMED

GHAZALI,

F.E.,

ZAKARIA, R., AMINUDIN, E., LEE, Y.S.,

ALQAIFI, G., ABA, D.N., ABIDIN, N.I.,

and SHAMSUDDIN, S.M. (2017) The

Priority Importance of Economic Motivation

Factors Against Risks for Green Building

Development in Malaysia. MATEC Web of

Conferences, 138, 02011.

[33]

LI, Y., O’DONNELL, J.,

GARCÍA-CASTRO, R., and VEGA-SÁNCHEZ, S.

(2017) Identifying stakeholders and key

performance indicators for district and

building

energy

performance

analysis.

Energy and Buildings, 155, pp. 1-15.

[34]

EL MANKIBI, M. (2009) Indoor air

quality control in case of scheduled or

intermittent

occupancy

based

building:

Development of a scale mode. Building and

Environment, 44 (7), pp. 1356-1361.

[35]

CHUNG,

L.P.

and

AHMAD,

M.H.B.H. (2014) Application of CFD in

Prediction of Indoor Building Thermal

Performance as an Effective Pre-Design Tool

Towards Sustainability.

World

Applied

Science Journal, 30 (Innovation Challenges

in Multidiciplinary Research & Practice), pp.

269-279.

[36]

MUMOVIC,

D.,

DAVIES,

M.,

RIDLEY, I., ALTAMIRANO-MEDINA, H.,

and

ORESZCZYN,

T.

(2009)

A

methodology for post-occupancy evaluation

of ventilation rates in schools. Building

Services

Engineering

Research

&

Technology, 30 (2), pp. 143-152.

[37]

HESS-KOSA, K. (2011) Indoor Air

Quality: The Latest Sampling and Analytical

Methods. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

[38]

HUISMAN, E.R.C.M., MORALES,

E., HOOF, J.V., and KORT, H.S.M. (2012)

Healing environment: A review of the impact

of physical environmental factors on users.

Building and Environment, 58, pp. 70-80.

[39]

DARKWA, I. (2006) Post-occupancy

evaluation of state-subsidised housing units

in Kayamandi, Stellenbosch. PhD. thesis,

University of Stellenbosch.

[40]

HO, D.C.W., LEUNG, H.F, WONG,

S.K., CHEUNG, A.K.C., LAU, S.S.Y.,

WONG, W.S., LUNG, D.P.Y., and CHAU,

K.W. (2004) Assessing the health and

hygiene performance of apartment buildings.

Facilities, 22 (3/4), pp. 58-69.

[41]

SHALABI, F. and TURKAN, Y.

(2016) IFC BIM-Based Facility Management

Approach to Optimize Data Collection for

Corrective

Maintenance.

Journal

of

Performance Constructed Facilities, 31 (1),

pp. 04016081-1 - 04016081-13.

[42]

MILLER, T.C., CIPRIANO, M., and

RAMSAY, R.J. (2012) Do auditors assess

inherent risk as if there are no controls?

Managerial Auditing Journal, 27 (5), pp.

448-461.

[43]

HANCOCK, P.A., ROSS, J.M., and

SZALMA, J.L. (2007) A meta-analysis of

performance

response

under

thermal

stressors. Human Factors, 49, pp. 851-877.

[44]

MEACHAM,

B.,

BOWEN,

R.,

TRAW, J., and MOORE, A. (2005)

Performance-based

building

regulation:

current situation and future needs. Building

Research & Information, 33 (2), pp. 91-106.

[45]

SOARESA, N., BASTOS, J., DIAS

PEREIRA, L., SOARES, A., AMARAL,

A.R.,

ASADI,

E.,

RODRIGUES,

E.,

LAMAS, F.B., MONTEIRO, H., LOPES,

M.A.R., and GASPAR, A.R. (2016) A

review on current advances in the energy and

environmental performance of buildings

towards a more sustainable built environment.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

77, pp. 845-860.

参考文:

[1] SAMARI ， M. ， GODRATI ， N. ，

ESMAEILIFAR ， R. ， OLFAT ， P., 和

SHAFIEI，M.W.M.（2013）对马来西亚发

展绿色建筑的障碍的调查。现代应用科学，

7（2），第 1-10 页。

[2] VUJOŠEVIĆ，M。（2011）关于可持

续 建 筑 的 定 义 。 可 从

http://e-

science.amres.ac.rs/TP36035/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/Milica-Vujosevic-PRE-Solun-2012.pdf 获取。

[3] SEDISO，B.G.R。和 李 LEE（2016）

韩国绿色建筑认证标准中的室内环境质量

-认证的办公建筑-居住者的满意度和性能。

科学与技术建筑环境，22（5），第

606-618 页。

[4] CAMARA，T.，KAMSU-FOGUEM，

B. ， DIOURTE ， B., 和 MAIGA ， A.I.

（2016）在航空建筑中进行风险评估的经

验反馈。清洁生产杂志，137，第

1237-1245 页。

[5] KHALIL ， N. 和

HUSIN ， H.N.

（2009）对马来西亚办公楼室内环境改善

的入住评估。可持续发展杂志，2（1），

第 186-191 页。

[6] ZAMANI，M.E.，JALALUDIN，J., 和

SHAHAROM，N.（2013）室内空气质量

和雪兰莪州两个不同办公室的上班族病态

建筑综合症患病率。美国应用科学杂志，

10（10），第 1140-1147 页。

[7] PARK，S.J。和 KIM，M.J.（2018）绿

色改造框架，旨在实现老年人的能源效率

和健康生活。能源，11（8），第

2031-2040 页。

[8] T. OSTERGARD ， R.L 。 JENSEN 和

S.E. MAAGAARD。（2017）早期建筑设

计：通过敏感性分析探索多维设计空间，

从而做出明智的决策。能源建筑，142，

第 8-22 页。

[9] AMARATUNGA，D。和 BALDRY，

D。（1999）在高等教育机构中建立绩效

评估：建立过程模型。见：1999 年 12 月，

索尔福德，建筑与建筑研究会议论文集

（ 眼 镜 蛇 ） ， 第 45-56 页 。 可 从

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/30823/ 获 得 。

[10] S.R. ABDUL RAHMAN ， H 。

AHMAD 和 M.S.F. ROSLEY。（2013）绿

色屋顶：其在专业人士中的意识和在马来

西亚市场的潜力。普罗迪亚 - 社会与行为

科学，85，第 443-453 页。

[11] MIRRAHIMI，S.，穆罕默德，M.F.，

HAW ， L.C. ， IBRAHIM ， N.L.N. ，

YUSOFF ， W.F.M., 和

AFLAKI ， A.

（2016）建筑围护结构对美国高层建筑的

热舒适性和节能的影响炎热–潮湿的气候。

可再生能源与可持续能源评论，53，第

1508-1519 页。

[12] K.M. AL-OBAIDI ， M. ISMAIL 和

A.M.A. RAHMAN。（2014）东南亚热带

房屋中通过反射和辐射屋顶的被动冷却技

术：文献综述。建筑研究前沿，3 (3)，第

283-297 页。

[13] M.Y.L. CHEW，S。CONEJOS 和 A.S.

ASMONE（2017）为建筑物的绿色可维护

性开发研究框架。设施，35（1/2），第

39-63 页。

[14] LOW，S.P.，LIU，J.Y., 和 OH，K.H.

（2008）总体建筑性能，空间和声学概念

对设施可建设性得分的影响。设施，26

（1/2），第 85-104 页。

[15]

N.M.

SALLEH

，

S.N

。

KAMARUZZAMAN ， E.M.A 。 ZAWAWI

和 E.M.A. RILEY ， R 。 SULAIMAN

（2015）翻新的幼儿园建筑室内环境质量

的定量评估：马来西亚案例研究。建筑与

环境，94，第 723-733 页。

[16] VILCEKOVA ， S. ， MECIAROVA，

L.，BURDOVA，EK，KATUNSKA，J.，

KOSICANOVA，D., 和 DOROUDIANI，S.

（2017）一所特殊教育学校的教室室内环

境质量和居住者的舒适度斯洛伐克共和国。

建筑与环境，120，第 29-40 页。

[17]

SULAIMAN

， R. ， S.N 。

KAMARUZZAMAN，N.R。HAN 和 N.M.

SALLEH（2013）博物馆环境中感知室内

环境质量（均衡器）和患病建筑综合症的

回 归 。 先 进 科 学 快 报 ， 19 （ 10 ） ， 第

3107-3110 页。

[18] N.M. SALLEH ， N.A.A 。 SALIM 和

S.N. KAMARUZZAMAN。（2016）对工

作区中主要均衡器因素的占用者期望：私

立学前教育建筑物的研究。马泰克会议网

络，66，00120。

[19] ALMEIDA，N.，SOUSA，V.，DIAS，

L.A., 和 BRANCO，F.（2010）结合了风

险管理和基于绩效的构建方法的框架。建

筑研究与信息，38（2），第 157-174 页。

[20] T. LÜTZKENDORF 和 D.P. LORENZ。

（2006）在构建评估工具中使用综合绩效

方 法 。 建 筑 研 究 与 信 息 ， 34 （ 4 ） ， 第

334-356 页。

[21] MEACHAM，B.J.（2010）基于风险

的基于绩效的建筑监管方法。风险研究杂

志，13（7），第 877-893 页。

[22] E. MEINS，H。WALLBAUM，R。

HARDZIEWSKI 和 A. FEIGE（2010）可

持续性和财产评估：基于风险的方法。建

筑研究与。情报，38（3），第 280-300 页。

[23] A. WOLSKI，N.A。DEMBSEY，和

B.J. MEACHAM（2000）适应基于性能的

建筑消防安全法规制定过程中的风险感知。

消防安全杂志，34，第 297-309 页。

[24] SAATY，T.L。（2008）使用层次分

析 法 进 行 决 策 。 国 际 服 务 科 学 杂 志 ， 1

（1），第 83-98 页。

[25] SAATY，T.L。（1990）如何做出决

定：层次分析法。欧洲运筹学杂志，48，

第 9-26 页。

[26] ALEXANDER，M.（2012）使用层次

分析法（层次分析法）和 SAS/IML®进行

决

策

。

可

从

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d3e/354df2

2a09bde5f115ff1da573073ca00a47.pdf?_ga=

2.250513925.2024169042.1589311379-1335596136.1560356921。

[27] ISHIZAKA ， A. 和

LABIB ， A.

（2009）层次分析法和专家选择：收益与

局限。或洞察力，22（4），第 201-220 页。

[28] ALI，H.H。和 AL NSAIRAT，S.F。

（2008）为发展中国家开发绿色建筑评估

工具

–约旦案例。建筑与环境，44（5），

第 1053-1064 页。

[29] CHEN Z.，CLEMENTS-CROOME，

D. ， HONG ， J. ， LI ， H. 和 XU ， Q.

（2006）一种用于智能建筑评估的多准则

寿命能效方法。能源与建筑，38，第

393-409 页。

[30] POVEDA ， C.A 。 和 LIPSETT ， M.

（2012）可持续发展评估与可持续发展/环

境评级系统和信用加权工具的回顾。可持

续发展杂志，4（6），第 36-55 页。

[31] HSIEH， T. ， LU ， S., 和 TZENG，

G.H.（2004）项目模糊 MCDM 方法，用

于在公共办公大楼中进行规划和设计投标

选择。国际项目管理杂志，22，第

573-584 页。

[32] MOHAMED GHAZALI ， F.E. ，

ZAKARIA，R.，AMINUDIN，E.，LEE，

Y.S. ， ALQAIFI ， G. ， ABA ， D.N. ，

ABIDIN ， N.I 。 ， 和 SHAMSUDDIN ，

S.M.（2017）针对马来西亚绿色建筑发展

风险的经济动机因素的优先重要性。马泰

克会议网络，138，02011。

[33] LI ， Y. ， O’DONNELL ， J. ，

GARCÍA-CASTRO ， R 。 和

VEGA-SÁNCHEZ，S。（2017）为区域和建筑能

源绩效分析确定利益相关者和关键绩效指

标。能源与建筑，155，第 1-15 页。

[34] EL MANKIBI，M.（2009）基于计划

或间歇性占用建筑物的室内空气质量控

制：比例模式的开发。建筑与环境，44

（7），第 1356-1361 页。

[35] CHUNG, L.P. 和 AHMAD，M.H.B.H。

（2014）差价合约在室内建筑热力性能预

测中的应用，作为实现可持续性的有效预

设计工具。世界应用科学杂志，30（多学

科研究与实践中的创新挑战），第

269-279 页。

[36] MUMOVIC ， D. ， DAVIES ， M. ，

RIDLEY，I.，ALTAMIRANO-MEDINA，

H。和 ORESZCZYN，T。（2009）一种

对学校通风率进行占用后评估的方法。屋

宇 装 备 工 程 研 究 与 技 术 ， 30 （ 2 ） ， 第

143-152 页。

[37] HESS-KOSA，K。（2011）室内空气

质量：最新采样和分析方法。佛罗里达州

博卡拉顿：CRC 出版社。

[38] HUISMAN，E.R.C.M.，MERALES，

E. ， HOOF ， J.V 。 和 KORT ， H.S.M 。

（2012）愈合环境：物理环境因素对使用

者的影响的综述。建筑与环境，58，第

70-80 页。

[39] 达瓦，I。（2006）斯泰伦博斯州卡亚

曼第，国家补贴住房单元的入住后评估。

博士论文，斯泰伦博斯大学。

[40] 何德华，梁福发，黄锡基，张文广，

刘振兴，黄德华，龙德成 和 周国荣。

（2004）评估公寓楼的健康和卫生表现。

设施，22（3/4），第 58-69 页。

[41] SHALABI ， F. 和 TURKAN ， Y.

（2016）国际金融公司基于 BIM 的设施

管理方法，为矫正性维护优化了数据收集。

高 性 能 建 筑 设 施 杂 志 ， 31 （ 1 ） ， 第

04016081-1-04016081-13 页。

[42] T.C. MILLER，M. CIPRIANO 和 R.J.

RAMSAY。（2012）审计师是否像没有控

制措施一样评估固有风险？管理审计杂志，

27 (5)，第 448-461 页。

[43] HANCOCK，P.A.，ROSS，J.M。和

SZALMA，J.L。（2007）对热应激条件

下性能响应的荟萃分析。人为因素，49，

第 851-877 页。

[44] MEACHAM ， B. ， BOWEN ， R. ，

TRAW，J., 和 MOORE，A.（2005）基于

绩效的建筑法规：现状和未来需求。建筑

研究与信息，33（2），第 91-106 页。

[45] SOARESA ， N 。 ， 巴 斯 托 斯 ， J. ，

DIAS PEREIRA ， L. ， SOARES ， A. ，

AMARAL ， A.R. ， ASADI ， E. ，

RODRIGUES ， E. ， LAMAS ， F.B. ，

MONTEIRO，H.，LOPES，M.A.R. ，以

及 GASPAR，A.R.（2016）回顾建筑物在

能源和环境性能方面的最新进展，以实现

更可持续的建筑环境。可再生能源与可持

续能源评论，77，第 845-860 页。