4.7 Article

Spatial mapping of occupant satisfaction and indoor environment quality in a LEED platinum campus building

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 124-137

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.029

关键词

Post-occupancy evaluation; Spatial mapping; Occupant satisfaction; Indoor environment quality; Geographic information system (GIS)

资金

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports a post-occupancy evaluation study of a LEED Platinum building on a university campus. A multiple-tool POE approach with GIS-based spatial mapping method was used to analyze and visualize the survey results of building occupant satisfaction and the measured indoor environment quality. The occupants were overall satisfied with the indoor environment in their workspaces in the building of study, though thermal comfort was comparatively low with high percentage of occupants reporting their workspaces too cold. Air movement was found to be lower than preferred by the occupants, especially in interior offices where CO2 level was also predominantly higher. Light levels in the building were found higher than preferred. Electric lighting power density installed did not reflect the fact that daylight is available for most of the lab and office spaces. Satisfaction with speech privacy was found lower in individual offices related to the construction detail of the connection between curtain wall and interior walls. Linking performance outcomes with spatial information improves POE data management. Spatial mapping allows reasons that cause occupant discomfort and dissatisfactory measured performance to be identified more intuitively and makes it potentially easier to communicate POE results with architects, engineers and facility management professionals, in order to engage them in the collaborative effort of continuous building performance improvement. (C) 2014 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