4.7 Article

Well-Being index of super tall residential buildings in Korea

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 1184-1194

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.010

关键词

Well-being; Quality of life; Index; Super tall residential building

资金

  1. Korea government [R11-2005-056-04001-0]
  2. Super Tall Buildings Research and Business Development Center, Korea institute of Construction & Transportation Technology Evaluation and Planning (KICTEP)
  3. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [R11-2005-056-04001-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Super tall residential buildings (STRBs) are regarded as good quality housing in Korea because of their high economic value as well as convenient facilities. However, the buildings still have many issues in terms of residents' health and well-being because many people are worried that high-rise living may cause harmful effects on the residents. This study aims to establish a well-being index model that can be applied to the evaluation of STRB. This study has three stages. First, previous studies on the well-being of STRB residents have been thoroughly reviewed. Second, well-being indices have been derived from the expert surveys and factor analysis. Third, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) survey has been conducted to systemize all of the well-being indices. The purpose of the findings of the study is to systemize the residential quality factors of STRB into a well-being index: health, ecological environment, safety and security, and function and management. The well-being indices, which have been driven from an AHP weighting process, of STRB residents indicate that health is the most important index, followed by safety and security, ecological environment, and function and management in that order. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据