indoor environmental quality evaluation of ...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS IN REGARD TO USER SATISFACTION 1* Filiz

Senkal Sezer, 2 Yasemin Erbil

1 Uludag University, Faculty of Architecture, Bursa 2 Bursa Orhangazi University, Faculty of Architecture and Design, Bursa (TURKEY) E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2015/7-4/A.1

ABSTRACT In this study the indoor physical environmental quality of four education buildings in Uludag University Gorukle Campus was assessed by taking the opinions of their users. In order to carry out the evaluation the factors that create the physical environmental quality have been defined by the authors of this study. The method of the study was composed of the following phases: In the first phase literature on physical environmental quality was analyzed to relevant concepts were defined as thermal comfort, acoustic comfort, visual comfort, and indoor air quality. A questionnaire was prepared to gather the opinions of the users related to these concepts and the results were evaluated. The purpose of this evaluation was to understand the level of satisfaction of students from the environment they used and to provide an opportunity to create the needed performance conditions of the building by making improvements. It has been found that for all the buildings the dissatisfaction of users were related to problems about thermal comfort caused by high indoor temperatures in the summer; inadequate indoor air quality and noise coming from outside. Other opinions were expressed as inadequate artificial lighting and natural ventilation. It can be possible to increase the desired indoor performance by taking into consideration the physical environmental criteria and measures during the design stage at the beginning of the project design. Keywords: educational buildings, post occupancy evaluation, indoor environmental quality 1. INTRODUCTION Education institutions are places where information is produced and shared. The ability to carry out sufficient research in these settings and to ensure a comprehensive education program is given relies both on the academic environment and also the environment created by the social setting. When evaluated in this context, ensuring that the comfort conditions are met by the higher education buildings related to education programs and that they provide social communication opportunities will support a better education environment. Determining the satisfaction levels of after the buildings are occupied is a method frequently utilized to use buildings more efficiently and to shape future designs. When viewed from this perspective the Post Occupancy Evaluation - POE system presented in the work entitled “Post-Occupancy Indoor Environmental Quality Evaluation of Student Housing Facilities” provides the following benefits; - Developing feedback related to building performance and space usage, - Cost saving during construction and lifecycle of buildings, - Long term improvements in building performance, - Creating an information source to improve databases, standards and criteria (Hassanain, M. A. 2007). Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) system provides valuable feedback for the planning, design, implementation phases of the designers, planners and facility managers of education buildings. User satisfaction surveys is a system that can also be used to increase the performance quality of education buildings in addition to all kinds of buildings. From this point of view in this study a research was made at Uludag University to find out the expectations of the users of the education buildings related to the physical environmental quality and how much their expectations were satisfied. In the scope of the study four different departments in Uludag University Gorukle Campus were selected. The data collected in the study is believed to provide assistance to buildings to be constructed in the campus and improvements to be made related to the current status. The research method of the study was composed of the following phases: - A literature research related to the subject analyzed and review of the buildings taking into consideration the requirements for indoor quality, - Defining the issues with a pilot study that users complain and/or feel uncomfortable in terms of the physical environment in the areas selected,

|5


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

-Preparation of a survey to collect feedback related to the user experience in the designed environment, -In order to understand the level of satisfaction, evaluation of the defined physical environmental requirements together with the survey results In the light of the data collected, various performance criteria (building performance requirements) were defined to establish the criteria that are important for the students and to assist in fulfilling the performance conditions required for the buildings. Evaluation criteria were defined as follows: Thermal comfort, audio comfort, visual comfort and indoor air quality. 2. LITERATURE ANALYSIS It is seen that the fulfillment of the comfort expectations of the users come to the forefront in studies related to user satisfaction in buildings. In the literature analysis on the subject it has been seen that some of the international studies examined thermal comfort conditions (Baker, 1982; Conceição and Lúcio, 2008; Filippín, 2005; Kwok and Chun, 2003). These studies have shown the importance of thermal comfort for providing indoor environment quality. Preservation and consumption of energy were other issues related to the fulfilment of thermal comfort conditions (Arena and De Rosa, 2003; Butala and Novak, 1999; Cooper, 1983; Desideri and Proietti, 2002; Erhorn et al., 2008; Harris et al., 1991; Hernandez et al., 2008; Nicolas and Poncelet, 1988; Rosa et al., 2000; Santamouris et al., 1994; Santamouris et al., 2007). The number of studies related to indoor air quality and ventilation is also high (Becker et al., 2007; Clay, 1903; Clements-Croome et al., 2008; Khedari et al., 2000; Sohn et al., 2009; Tippayawong et al., 2009). There are also studies on sound insulation, acoustic and noise (Avsar and Gonullu, 2005; Elmallawany, 1980; Elmallawany, 1983). Also humidity and moisture are also studied (Lappalainen et al., 2001; Meklin et al., 2002). There are also studies on environmental comfort conditions (Boneh, 1982; Collet da Graca et al., 2007). The importance of day light and natural lighting for providing optimum comfort conditions were also studies (Carter, 1984; Kruger and Dorigo, 2008). There are also studies on the satisfaction level of users (POE) in education buildings da (Hassanain,. 2007; Rock and Hillman, 1996). There are also sources giving specific examples on planning and academic achievement (Agraa and Whitehead, 1968; Chan, 2001; Cooper,1982; Ghaswala, 1968; Hawkins, 1886; Maitreya, 1979; Narucki, 2008; Sleegers et al., 2000). When these sources are examined it has been seen that they included planning principles of education buildings. 3. CASE STUDY The area selected for the field survey is in the Uludag University Gorukle Campus, which is the biggest campus in Bursa, the 4th largest city of Turkey. The buildings examined were the Architecture department building of the Faculty of Architecture, Mechanical Engineering building of the Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Industrial Engineering and Automotive Engineering buildings. These four buildings are located side by side at the same area of the campus and face the same direction. These buildings were selected because they were similar in terms of floor heights, plans and the direction they faced and also because they were side by side and had inner courts (Figure 1). The differences of the buildings are size of windows, clearance heights, facing tiles and other materials used in construction.

Figure 1. Uludag University Campus (Google Earth, 2015) The Architecture department building was opened in 1998. This concrete building has a ground floor and 2 storeys. The building faced four directions and the classrooms at the ground and garret story face east and west. There is an open courtyard in the middle of the building. There is also canteen in the building. The building has an elevator and a ramp outside (Figure 2).

6 | PART A. APPLIED AND NATURAL SCIENCES

ISSN: 2075-4124


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

Figure 2. Architecture Department Building The Industrial Engineering building was opened in 2006. This concrete building has a ground floor and 2 storeys. The classrooms in the building face north, south, east and west. There is an open courtyard in the middle of the building. There is no canteen in the building. There are no elevators, fire escapes or ramps in the building (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Industrial Engineering Department Building The Mechanical Engineering building was opened in 2010. This concrete building has a ground floor and 1 storeys. The classrooms in the building face north, south, east and west. There is an open courtyard in the middle of the building. There is no canteen in the building. There is an elevator in the building. There are no elevators or ramps in the building (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Mechanical Engineering Department Building The Automotive Engineering building was opened in 2012. This concrete building has a ground floor and 1 storeys. The classrooms and laboratory in the ground floor building face north, south, east and west. Similar to other department the rooms of the academicians are located in the first floor. There is an open courtyard in the middle of the building. There is no canteen in the building. There is an elevator in the building. There are no elevators or ramps in the building (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Automotive Engineering Department Building

|7


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

There are classrooms, lecture halls, computer halls, studying halls, conference halls and various laboratories in all buildings in the scope of the field study. There are rooms for teachers and administrative personnel, wet areas for common usage, staircases and circulation areas. The aim is to determine the level of satisfaction of users in terms of physical environment in education buildings and how much the expectations are fulfilled by looking at these four buildings. A “user satisfaction survey” was prepared for this field study in order to evaluate the indoor usage experiences of the students. The results obtained were analyzed to define the level of satisfaction of students. In the 2014-2015 education year there were 350 students in the Architecture Department, and 366, 672 and 226 students in the Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Automotive Engineering departments respectively. In order to facilitate understand and evaluate graphics a total of 400 students were reached, 100 from each department. The surveys were carried out between 12:00 – 16:00 during the day. The ages of the students participated in the survey was between 18-24. 4. FINDINGS When we look at the demographics of the surveys of the total participants of the survey 59% were females and 41% were males in the Architecture Department; 59% were males and 41% were females in Industrial Engineering Department; 74% were males and 26% were females in the Mechanical Engineering Department and 67 were males and 33% were females in the Automotive Engineering Department. In general of the 400 users participated in the survey 60% were males and 40% were females. After the key concepts for measuring the physical environmental quality were defined in the scope of the literature analysis a pilot study was carried out with 50 students in different parts of the campus using face to face interviews. The goal of this pilot study was to determine the physical environmental control factors that influence students' satisfaction levels from education areas in Uludag University. In the pilot study, four main headings came to the forefront and some of the key concepts found in the literature analysis were ruled out. Students were posed three questions for each of the thermal comfort, audial comfort, visual comfort and indoor air quality criteria and the result of were evaluated using a five point Likert scale. Thermal comfort is defined as heat parameters that enable a human being to be healthy and productive. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 55 defines the same as the satisfaction with the thermal environment. Factors that influence thermal comfort and are related to the indoor environment are air temperature, average radiant temperature and humidity. In the scope of the study related to the physical environmental control; with regard to “Thermal Comfort”; the opinions about the indoor air temperature and acclimatization of the classrooms in winter and summer were taken (Table 1). Table 1. User opinions related to thermal comfort Elements of Performance (Thermal Comfort)

indoor temperature in summer

indoor temperature in winter

air conditioning use

Evaluation Terms neither dissatisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied

very dissatisfied

can't choose

42

43

0

19

38

22

4

39

2

33

18

0

28

17

26

23

0

2

9

12

36

41

0

7

35

20

27

9

2

Mechanical Eng.

27

53

14

4

2

0

Automotive Eng.

8

38

19

21

14

0

Architecture

3

11

20

34

32

0

Industrial Eng.

9

38

16

29

4

4

Mechanical Eng.

41

25

20

2

8

4

Automotive Eng.

24

59

11

4

2

0

very satisfied

satisfied

Architecture

0

8

7

Industrial Eng.

8

9

Mechanical Eng.

8

Automotive Eng.

6

Architecture Industrial Eng.

Students indicated that the ambient temperatures in summer months were not acceptable and unsatisfactory. All buildings have central heating systems. Although students have indicated satisfaction with artificial air conditioning devices they have also expressed that the devices for insufficient for cooling in summer months.


ISSN: 2075-4124


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

Audial comfort indicates the satisfaction of the acoustic conditions (Navai and Veitch, 201). Audial comfort is not achieved by solely creating a “good acoustic environment” and it also includes determining all factors that “prevent audial comfort". Acoustic comfort, indoor noise and noise from outside were taken into consideration in terms of “Audial Comfort”. Table 2. User opinions related to audial comfort Elements of Performance (Audial Comfort)

indoor acoustical comfort

plumbing noise

outdoor noisy


very dissatisfied

can't choose

17

12

0

29

4

4

43

8

8

2

11

15

9

0

37

24

15

10

4

38

20

22

5

11

4

13

61

13

1

6

6

8

57

20

15

0

0

10

33

25

24

8

0

9

15

29

11

36

0

8

20

29

10

33

0

4

26

26

36

8

0

very satisfied

satisfied

Architecture

4

42

25

Industrial Eng.

9

38

16

Mechanical Eng.

8

31

Automotive Eng.

13

52

Architecture

10

Industrial Eng. Mechanical Eng. Automotive Eng. Architecture Industrial Eng. Mechanical Eng. Automotive Eng.

Visual comfort is defined as a subjective condition determined by the visual environment. This definition takes into consideration of the psychological aspect of comfort but also contains physical features that influence visual comfort. Visual comfort parameters are the amount of daylight, distribution of brightness, amount of reflection, color of light, rate of light flickering, and level of brightness (Frontczak and Wargocki, 2011). Visual comfort quality is determined by the quality and quantity of the light source and the radiance it provides to its immediate surroundings. The quality of the colors in the environment and light sources with improper angles creates glares that negatively influences vision thus creates inadequate lighting levels. Nonetheless adequate window openings and correct position of windows provides adequate lighting throughout the day and eliminates glares. In the scope of this study the “Visual comfort" criteria was evaluated from the viewpoint of sufficient or insufficient natural lighting, conditions of artificial lighting and the wall linings of classrooms and their color and their suitability to enable concentration of students to the lessons (Table 3). Table 3. User opinions related to visual comfort Elements of Performance (Visual Comfort)

natural lighting

lighting

colour selection


very dissatisfied

can't choose

22

4

4

7

31

56

2

26

34

20

2

2

24

51

2

16

6

1

28

35

14

13

10

0

9

15

29

11

36

0

45

37

12

6

0

0

0

8

18

42

32

0

3

28

44

14

8

3

7

35

20

27

9

2

Mechanical Eng.

6

39

18

27

8

2

Automotive Eng.

9

54

13

17

7

0

very satisfied

satisfied

Architecture

4

41

25

Industrial Eng.

0

4

Mechanical Eng.

16

Automotive Eng. Architecture Industrial Eng. Mechanical Eng. Automotive Eng. Architecture Industrial Eng.

|9


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

Due to the small windows, students in the Industrial Engineering building indicated that they were not satisfied both with the natural and artificial lighting conditions, and students in the Automotive Engineering building indicated that the artificial lighting fixtures were insufficient. A natural lighting level, which is one of the important conditions for visual comfort, is also important for sustainable and ecologic building design. Maximum usage of daylight, giving highest priority to natural ventilation, natural ventilation and when lighting is not sufficient using technologic products that cause the minimum amount of damage to the environment are among important parameters for education buildings. However because the buildings examined in general were similar in their directions, locations, shading, the impact on visual comfort was caused by the size of windows, the glasses used and the opening methods of windows. Indoor air quality is defined by the dissatisfaction of users (odor, sensory issues) (CEN, 1998). ASHRAE (1989) Standard 62 defines indoor air quality as inside air that does not contain harmful contaminants and that does not cause dissatisfaction for 80% or more of its users. Acceptable “indoor air quality” is met when 80% or more of the exposed people do not express dissatisfaction and that there are no harmful concentrations that pollute the air (Frontczak, 2011). When indoor air quality is at acceptable levels it has positive impact on human health, while its inacceptable levels create long and short term health problems. Bad air quality creates various health problems caused by the indoor air conditions. Health problems caused by the indoor air quality can be classified as biologic and psychologic impacts. Biologic impact can be expressed as eye; nose and throat irritation, skin irritation, itching, dryness, oversensitivity, asthma and similar symptoms, changes in smell and taste sensations; and psychologic impact can be expressed as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, mental fatigue, loss of memory and lack of concentration. The importance of these problems increases for students receiving education. In the scope of the study, natural ventilation condition, satisfaction with indoor air quality and odor problems in wet areas were taken into consideration for “indoor air quality” (Table 4). Table 4. User opinions for indoor air quality Elements of Performance (Indoor Air Quality)

natural ventilation

fresh air quality

odor in wetsuits


very dissatisfied

can't choose

24

13

0

29

15

32

0

25

31

8

0

28

8

39

13

0

8

11

35

38

8

0

9

19

36

22

10

4

4

26

32

29

9

0

9

39

0

11

41

0

8

36

29

19

8

0

27

36

19

11

5

2

49

17

14

12

4

4

1

29

11

44

15

0

very satisfied

satisfied

Architecture

7

29

27

Industrial Eng.

9

15

Mechanical Eng.

4

32

Automotive Eng.

12

Architecture Industrial Eng. Mechanical Eng. Automotive Eng. Architecture Industrial Eng. Mechanical Eng. Automotive Eng.

Because the opinions did not provide a satisfaction level of 80% it has been concluded that the indoor air quality was inadequate. When education buildings are designed it has to be taken into consideration that such buildings will be used by many people, windows that can provide sufficient fresh air should be created inside the building, and windows should have adequate mechanisms that can suck in fresh air. Opinions on floor heights, which is related to the amount of indoor air, has shown that 3,5 to 4 meters was sufficient for storey height according to 76% of users. In accordance with these data the level of comfort score was voted within -2 and +2. In this regard the findings from this study is summarized below (Table 5).


ISSN: 2075-4124


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

Table 5. Evaluation results of building usage of students Elements of Performance

Architecture S

thermal comfort audial comfort

visual comfort

D

Industrial Engineering S D

Mechanical Engineering S D

Automotive Engineering S D

-57

-14

-32

indoor temperature in summer

-120

indoor temperature in winter

-105

4

99

5

air conditioning use

-81

19

89

99

indoor acoustical comfort

9

19

23

45

plumbing noise

22

69

74

58

noisy outdoor

13

-50

natural lighting

19

-139

34

lighting

58

-50

121

colour selection

4

natural ventilation indoor air fresh air quality quality odor in wetsuite

17

4

-40

-18 71 -98

8

41

-7

-46

-7

-13

-27

-5

-13

-36

69

95

-43

very satisfied 2, satisfied 1, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0, dissatisfied -1, very dissatisfied -2, can't choose: 0

5. CONCLUSIONS In the scope of this study, defining the issues that students are dissatisfied with is very important for establishing design criteria for new buildings to be designed and setting basic targets for the planning of the campus in general. In terms of thermal comfort, for all buildings users are dissatisfied with the high heat in the summer. Insufficient insulation, direction problems and inappropriate capacity of the air conditioning systems can be given as some of the reasons. In the Architecture Department, problems related to the floor heating system, large windows and insufficient insulation of the building create dissatisfaction with the indoor thermal quality in winters. Also the air conditioning units, which were not considered during the initial design stages and which have not been selected with proper capacity create a negative impact on comfort. Reviews of 33 studies carried out between1977-2009 have shown that thermal comfort conditions predominated other comfort conditions such as audial comfort, visual comfort and indoor air quality (Frontczak and Wargocki, 2011). Therefore, ensuring thermal comfort conditions are met should be taken as a priority. In terms of audio comfort students of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Automotive Engineering have indicated dissatisfaction with the noise from outside. The reasons for this are high number of students, and their preference of using outside of the building instead of the inner courtyard. In terms of visual comfort students of the Industrial Engineering Department have indicated discomfort with both natural and artificial lighting. The reason for this is the smaller size of windows when compared with the other buildings. The reason for inadequate lighting in the Automotive Engineering Department has been found as the inadequate lighting fixtures selected. Students from all buildings were dissatisfied with indoor air quality. One of the factors behind poor indoor air quality is the initial design of classrooms for a fewer number of students, which in time has increased and overcrowded classrooms. The environmental factors stated above are relevant for the evaluation of the indoor quality of their users and strongly influence comfort. It can be possible to increase the desired indoor performance by taking into consideration the physical environmental criteria and measures during the design stage at the beginning of the project design. REFERENCES 1. 2.

3. 4.

Agraa, O. M. and Whitehead, B. (1968) A study of movement in a school building, Building Science, 2(4), 279-289. Arena, A. P. and De Rosa, C. (2003) Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in Mendoza-Argentina: Arena, Building and Environment, 38(2), 359–368. ASHRAE. (2003) Thermal environment conditions for human occupancy. ASHRAE Standard 55-1992. Avsar, Y.and Gonullu, M. T. (2005) Determination of safe distance between roadway and school buildings to get acceptable school outdoor noise level by using noise barriers, Building and Environment, 40(9), 1255-1260.

| 11


5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30.

31. 32. 33.

Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

Baker, N. (1982) The influence of thermal comfort and user control on the design of a passive solar school building-Locksheath primary school, Energy and Buildings, 5(2), 135-145. Becker, R. and Goldberger, I. and Paciuk, M. (2007) Improving energy performance of school buildings while ensuring indoor air quality ventilation, Building and Environment, 42(9), 3261-3276. Boneh, M. (1982) Environmental comfort in educational buildings — Influence of windows and other openings, Energy and Buildings, 4(3), 239-243. Butala, V. and Novak, P. (1999) Energy consumption and potential energy savings in old school buildings, Energy and Buildings, 29(3), 241-246. Carter, D. J. (1984) The lighting of the St. Mary's School, Wallasey, Building and Environment, 19(4), 209-215. CEN. (1998). Ventilation for Buildings: Design criteria for the indoor environment. european committee for standardization. CR 1752. Chan, F. (2001) Public school, public building: The role of the school in building the city, Cities, 18(3), 193-197. Clay, F. (1903) The ventilation of school buildings, The Lancet, 161, 760 Clements-Croome, D.J. and Awbi, H.B. and Bakó-Biró, Zs and Kochhar, N. and Williams, M. (2008) Ventilation rates in schools, Building and Environment, 43(3), 362-367. Collet da Graca, V. A. and Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. and Diego Petreche, J. R. (2007) An evaluation method for school building design at the preliminary phase with optimization of aspects of environmental comfort for the school system of the State São Paulo in Brazil, Building and Environment, 42(2), 984-999. Conceição, E.Z.E. and Lúcio, M.M.J.R. (2008) Thermal study of school buildings in winter conditions, Building and Environment, 43(5), 782-792. Cooper, I. (1982) Design and use of British primary school buildings: an examination of governmentendorsed advice, Design Studies, 3(1), 37-44. Cooper, I. (1983) Heating standards or energy conservation? A review of British legislation for school buildings, Applied Energy, 15(4), 247-272. Desideri, U. and Proietti, S. (2002) Analysis of energy consumption in the high schools of a province in central Italy, Energy and Buildings, 34(10), 1003–1016. Elmallawany, A. (1983) Field investigations of the sound insulation in school buildings, Building and Environment, 18(1-2), 85-89. Elmallawany, A. (1980) Minimum acoustical requirements for school buildings, Applied Acoustics, 13(2), 137-144. Erhorn, H. and Mroz, T. and Mørck, O. and Schmidt, F. and Schoff, L. and Thomsen, K. E. (2008) The Energy Concept Adviser—A tool to improve energy efficiency in educational buildings, Energy and Buildings, 40(4), 419-428. Filippín, C. (2005) Thermal response of solar and conventional school buildings to design- and human-driven factors, Renewable Energy, 30(3), 353-376. Frontczak, M. (2011). Human comfort and self-estimated performance in relation to indoor environmental parameters and building features. Department of Civil Engineering Technical University of Denmark. Frontczak, M., Wargocki, P. (2011). Literature survey on how different factors influence human comfort in indoor environments. Building and Environment. 46(4):922-937. Ghaswala, S. K. (1968) School Buildings : Karl Otto Vol. 1, 248 pp., Vol. 2, 312 pp. 95s. each. Illffe, London, 1966, Building Science, 3(2), 110 Harris, D. J. and Probert, S. D.and Nwokonkor and I. (1991) ‘Passive-solar’ schools in the UK, Applied Energy, 39(2), 145-171. Hassanain, M. A. (2007) Post-occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of student housing facilities, Architectural Engineering And Design Management, 3, 249–256. Hawkins, C. (1886) The School Buildings Of William Hunter, The Lancet, 127, 951. Hernandez, P. and Burke, K. and Lewis, J. O. (2008) Development of energy performance benchmarks and building energy ratings for non-domestic buildings: An example for Irish primary schools, Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 249-254. Khedari, J. and Boonsri, B. and Hirunlabh, J. (2000) Ventilation impact of a solar chimney on indoor temperature fluctuation and air change in a school building, Energy and Buildings, 32(1), 89-93. Kruger, E. L. and Dorigo, A. L. (2008) Daylighting analysis in a public school in Curitiba, Brazil Renewable Energy, 33(7), 1695-1702. Kwok, A. G. and Chun, C. (2003) Thermal comfort in Japanese schools, Solar Energy, 74(3), 245252. Lappalainen, S. and Kähkönen, E. and Loikkanen, P. and Palomäki, E. and Lindroos, O. and Reijula, K. (2001) Evaluation of priorities for repairing in moisture-damaged school buildings in Finland, Building and Environment, 36(8), 981-986.


ISSN: 2075-4124


Vol. 7. No. 4. Iss.1. July, 2015

34. Maitreya, V. K. (1979) Integrated design for school buildings, Building and Environment, 14(2), 119124. 35. Meklin, T. and Reponen, T. and Toivola, M. and Koponen, V. and Husman, T. and Hyvärinen, A. and Nevalainen, A. (2002) Size distributions of airborne microbes in moisture-damaged and reference school buildings of two construction types, Atmospheric Environment, 36(39-40), 6031-6039. 36. Narucki, V. D. (2008) School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York city public schools: A mediation model, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 278-286. 37. Navai, M., Veitch, A. (2003). Acoustic satisfaction in open-plan offices: review and recommendations. Research Report RR-151. 2003, Ottawa, Canada: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada. Available at, http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/rr/rr151/rr151.pdf; (Accessed on: 01.11.2015) 38. Nicolas, J. and Poncelet, P. (1988) Solar-assisted heat pump system and in-ground energy storage in a school building, Solar Energy, 40(2), 117-125. 39. Rosa, C. and Basso, M. and Fernández, J.C. and Mitchell,J. and Esteves, A. and Pattini, A. and Arena, P. and Mesa, A. and Cantón, A. and Cortegoso, J.L. (2000) Energy efficient school buildings in Central-Western Argentina an assessment of alternative typologies for the classroom Tier World Renewable Energy Congress VI, 601-606. 40. Rock, B. and Hillman, C. (1996). Postoccupancy ındoor environmental quality evaluation of an institutional building. Jornal of Architectural Engineering, 2(3), 88–94. 41. Santamouris, M. and Balaras, C. A. and Dascalaki, E. and Argiriou, A. and Gaglia A. (1994) Energy consumption and the potential for energy conservation in school buildings in Hellas, Energy, 19(6), 653-660. 42. Santamouris, M. and Mihalakakou, G. and Patargias, P. and Gaitani, N. and Sfakianaki, K. and Papaglastra, M. and Pavlou, C. and Doukas, P. and Primikiri, E. and Geros, V. and Assimakopoulos, M. N. and Mitoula,R. and Zerefos, S. (2007) Using intelligent clustering techniques to classify the energy performance of school buildings, Energy and Buildings, 39(1), 45-51. 43. Sleegers, P. and van den Berg, R. and Geijsel, F. (2000) Building innovative schools: the need for new approaches, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 801-808. 44. Sohn, J. and Yang, W. and Kim, J. and Son, B. and Park, J. (2009) Indoor air quality investigation according to age of the school buildings in Korea, Journal of Environmental Management, 9(5), 348354. 45. Tippayawong, N. and Khuntong, P.and Nitatwichit, C. and Khunatorn, Y.and Tantakitti, C. (2009) Indoor/outdoor relationships of size-resolved particle concentrations in naturally ventilated school environments, Building and Environment, 44, 188-197.

| 13