Ranking the regenerative architecture indicators for assessment of research-educational building projects in Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose 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.

Prioritizing infill structure indicators in a historical context: in terms of economic sustainability- the vicinity zone of Tabriz historic bazaar

“…It addresses issues such as utilizing local facilities, water and energy efficiency, waste management, environmental pollution reduction, and many other issues that deal with the methods of reaching maximum output through minimum input or concern short term returns and long term benefits. Considering all the scattered factors about economic sustainability, it has been recognized that they can be all categorized into three main principles: Efficiency, Flexibility and Strength (Armaghan and Gorji-Mahlabani, 2009;Otegbulu, 2011;Bonyad et al, 2018):…”

“…It addresses issues such as utilizing local facilities, water and energy efficiency, waste management, environmental pollution reduction, and many other issues that deal with the methods of reaching maximum output through minimum input or concern short term returns and long term benefits. Considering all the scattered factors about economic sustainability, it has been recognized that they can be all categorized into three main principles: Efficiency, Flexibility and Strength (Armaghan and Gorji-Mahlabani, 2009; Otegbulu, 2011; Bonyad et al , 2018): Efficiency: Efficiency means the most desirable degree of exploitation regarding the available resources or personal and social life management based on the existing facilities that lead to saving resources and thus, reducing ultimate costs. In fact, this feature tries to demonstrate all the practical efforts made to obtain maximum efficiency for users indicating the consequences of controlling the waste of money.…”

Developing a building performance score model for assessing the sustainability of buildings

“…Also, health, hygiene, cleanliness, basic facilities and safety with respect to the construction worker's dwelling place are major aspects in protecting the social well-being of the workers. This aspect adds up to the social sustainable performance of any building during its construction stage (Bonyad et al, 2018;Sharma, 2018). Survey results indicated that 94% of the participants have considered construction workers' health and safety as an important factor to be incorporated into the assessment model.…”

“…energy annually, thereby becoming a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Sovacool and Brown, 2010;Bonyad et al, 2018). The building sector of India alone is responsible for 15%-18% of comprehensive CO 2 emission and about 30% of sulfur dioxide emissions.…”

“…The existing environmental assessment tools are considered scanty in presenting a sustainable model for the construction industry. Most of the existing tools give importance to assessing some predetermined objectives, but they do not give required importance to social and economic aspects of constructing a building in a habitat (Bonyad et al, 2018). Sustainability needs a three-legged approach, with each leg giving importance to the social, economic and environmental impact of the building.…”