Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 19 results ...
Almås, A-J, Lisø, K R, Hygen, H O, Øyen, C F and Thue, J V (2011) An approach to impact assessments of buildings in a changing climate. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 227–38.
Bruhns, H and Wyatt, P (2011) A data framework for measuring the energy consumption of the non-domestic building stock. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 26.
Candel, M, Karrbom Gustavsson, T and Eriksson, P (2021) Front-end value co-creation in housing development projects. Construction Management and Economics, 39(03), 245–60.
Daud, M N, Adnan, Y M, Mohd, I and Aziz, A A (2011) Developing a model for Malaysia's office classification. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 301–13.
Egbelakin, T K, Wilkinson, S, Potangaroa, R and Ingham, J (2011) Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 286–300.
Eromobor, S O, Das, D K and Emuze, F (2021) Influence of building and indoor environmental parameters on designing energy-efficient buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(03), 507-24.
Foruzanmehr, A and Vellinga, M (2011) Vernacular architecture: questions of comfort and practicability. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 274–85.
Geng, S, Chau, H W, Yan, S, Zhang, W and Zhang, C (2021) Comparative analysis of hospital environments in Australia and China using the space syntax approach. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(03), 525-46.
Häkkinen, T and Belloni, K (2011) Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 239–55.
Lützkendorf, T and Lorenz, D (2011) Capturing sustainability-related information for property valuation. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 256–73.
Loosemore, M, Osborne, J and Higgon, D (2021) Affective, cognitive, behavioural and situational outcomes of social procurement: a case study of social value creation in a major facilities management firm. Construction Management and Economics, 39(03), 227–44.
Møller, J L, Kines, P, Dyreborg, J, Andersen, L L and Ajslev, J Z N (2021) The competences of successful safety and health coordinators in construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 39(03), 199–211.
Marques, N L, Bastian-Pinto, C d L and Brandão, L E T (2021) Crossing the Brownian Bridge: valuing infrastructure capacity expansion policies as real options. Construction Management and Economics, 39(03), 261–76.
Murakami, S, Kawakubo, S, Asami, Y, Ikaga, T, Yamaguchi, N and Kaburagi, S (2011) Development of a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City. Building Research & Information, 39(03), 195–210.
Rockow, Z R and Ross, B E (2021) An areal openness model (AOM) for quantifying the “openness” of floor plans. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(03), 470-89.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: adaptability; adaptation; demolition; floor plans; model; openness
- ISBN/ISSN:
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-04-2020-0032
- Abstract:
Purpose: This paper aims to describe and demonstrate a quantitative areal openness model (AOM) for measuring the openness of floor plans. Creation of the model was motivated by the widely reported but rarely quantified link between openness and adaptability. Design/methodology/approach: The model calculates values for three indicators: openness score (OS), weighted OS (WOS) and openness potential (OP). OS measures the absence of obstructions (walls, chases, columns) that separate areas in a floor plan. WOS measures the number of obstructions while also accounting for the difficulty of removing them. OP measures the potential of a floor plan to become more open. Indicators were calculated for three demolished case study buildings and for three adapted buildings. The case study buildings were selected because openness – or lack thereof – contributed to the owners’ decisions to demolish or adapt. Findings: Openness indicators were consistent with the real-world outcomes (adaptation or demolition) of the case study buildings. This encouraging result suggests that the proposed model is a reasonable approach for comparing the openness of floor plans and evaluating them for possible adaptation or demolition. Originality/value: The AOM is presented as a tool for facility managers to evaluate inventories of existing buildings, designers to compare alternative plan layouts and researchers to measure openness of case studies. It is intended to be sufficiently complex as to produce meaningful results, relatively simple to apply and readily modifiable to suit different situations. The model is the first to calculate floor plan openness within the context of adaptability.
Sandberg, R, Löwstedt, M and Räisänen, C (2021) Working in a loosely coupled system: exploring practices and implications of coupling work on construction sites. Construction Management and Economics, 39(03), 212–26.
Shaikh, A Y, Osei‐Kyei, R and Hardie, M (2021) A critical analysis of safety performance indicators in construction. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(03), 547-80.
Spoormans, L and Pereira Roders, A (2021) Methods in assessing the values of architecture in residential neighbourhoods. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(03), 490-506.
Wu, J (2021) Optimization design of building isolation structure based on sustainable benefit analysis. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(03), 461-9.