Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 1 results ...

Bonyad, R, Hamzenejad, M and Khanmohammadi, M (2018) Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9(01), 27–37.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Regeneration; Sustainable environment; Regenerative design; Sustainability; Ecological design; Regenerative architecture;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 2046-6099
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2018-0054
  • Abstract:
    The purpose of this paper is to propose a hierarchically structured system of regenerative architecture indicators for assessing research-educational building projects. Design/methodology/approach First, 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. Findings The 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/implications The paper has limitations because of the limited number of experts in the field of regenerative approach. Originality/value This 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.