IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i6p1473-d1359635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on Occupant Satisfaction in Commercial Buildings: A Comparison of Building Expert Opinions and Residents’ Experiences

Author

Listed:
  • Fatemeh Mokhtariyan Sorkhan

    (Department of Art and Architecture, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman 7616913439, Iran)

  • Soheil Roumi

    (School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia)

  • Mohammad Soltanzadeh Zarandi

    (Department of Art and Architecture, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman 7616913439, Iran)

  • Mohammad Ali Ashraf Ganjouei

    (Department of Art and Architecture, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman 7616913439, Iran)

Abstract

This paper investigates the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors influencing occupant satisfaction in commercial buildings in Iran, contrasting the views of building experts (architects and engineers) with those of building occupants. Employing the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP), this study focuses on the four primary IEQ factors: thermal comfort, indoor air quality, visual comfort, and acoustic comfort. The study aims to bridge the gap between expert evaluations and occupant perceptions of IEQ factors in commercial buildings in Iran. By examining the disparities in prioritising IEQ factors between these two groups, the study sheds light on the complexities of IEQ assessment and highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives in optimising indoor environments. Our methodology includes a survey conducted among 30 building experts (15 architects and 15 building engineers) and 102 occupants, employing FAHP to derive the relative importance weights of each IEQ factor. The results highlight significant disparities between architects, engineers, and occupants in prioritising these factors. Architects emphasise visual comfort (42%), while engineers and occupants view thermal comfort (53% and 41%) as the most crucial factor for occupant satisfaction. The study underscores the complexity of IEQ in commercial buildings and the diverse perspectives influencing its assessment. It contributes to the broader discourse on optimising IEQ, emphasising the need for a comprehensive approach that encompasses both technical expertise and occupant experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Fatemeh Mokhtariyan Sorkhan & Soheil Roumi & Mohammad Soltanzadeh Zarandi & Mohammad Ali Ashraf Ganjouei, 2024. "The Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on Occupant Satisfaction in Commercial Buildings: A Comparison of Building Expert Opinions and Residents’ Experiences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:6:p:1473-:d:1359635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/6/1473/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/6/1473/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nasrollahi, Nazanin & Shokri, Elham, 2016. "Daylight illuminance in urban environments for visual comfort and energy performance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 861-874.
    2. Favero, Matteo & Kloppenborg Møller, Jan & Calì, Davide & Carlucci, Salvatore, 2022. "Human-in-the-loop methods for occupant-centric building design and operation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    3. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    4. Soheil Roumi & Fan Zhang & Rodney A. Stewart, 2022. "Global Research Trends on Building Indoor Environmental Quality Modelling and Indexing Systems—A Scientometric Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Kumar, Pradeep & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2015. "Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 375-390.
    6. Awasthi, Anjali & Govindan, Kannan & Gold, Stefan, 2018. "Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 106-117.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Puppala, Harish & Peddinti, Pranav R.T. & Tamvada, Jagannadha Pawan & Ahuja, Jaya & Kim, Byungmin, 2023. "Barriers to the adoption of new technologies in rural areas: The case of unmanned aerial vehicles for precision agriculture in India," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Marta Negri & Enrico Cagno & Claudia Colicchia & Joseph Sarkis, 2021. "Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 2858-2886, November.
    3. Dan-Ping Li & Li Xie & Peng-Fei Cheng & Xiang-Hong Zhou & Cheng-Xun Fu, 2021. "Green Supplier Selection Under Cloud Manufacturing Environment: A Hybrid MCDM Model," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    4. Liu, Wu & Hui, Longxuan & Lu, Yuting & Tang, Jinsong, 2020. "Developing an evaluation method for SCADA-Controlled urban gas infrastructure hierarchical design using multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    5. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    6. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    7. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    8. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    9. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2022. "Probabilistic Approach to Multi-Stage Supplier Evaluation: Confidence Level Measurement in Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 1051-1096, October.
    10. Abdullah Yıldızbaşı & Cihat Öztürk & Deniz Efendioğlu & Serol Bulkan, 2021. "Assessing the social sustainable supply chain indicators using an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods: a case study of Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 4285-4320, March.
    11. Xu, Jiuping & Song, Xiaoling & Wu, Yimin & Zeng, Ziqiang, 2015. "GIS-modelling based coal-fired power plant site identification and selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 520-539.
    12. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Toly Chen & Chin-Hau Huang, 2020. "A Piecewise Linear FGM Approach for Efficient and Accurate FAHP Analysis: Smart Backpack Design as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Jamshed Raza & Yuxin Liu & Jianwei Zhang & Nan Zhu & Zohaib Hassan & Habib Gul & Sikander Hussain, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Management Practices and Sustainability Performance: The Dynamic Capability Perspective," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    14. Nataša Šprah & Mitja Košir, 2019. "Daylight Provision Requirements According to EN 17037 as a Restriction for Sustainable Urban Planning of Residential Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    15. Wang, H., 2015. "A generalized MCDA–DEA (multi-criterion decision analysis–data envelopment analysis) approach to construct slacks-based composite indicator," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 114-122.
    16. Tian Chen & Ting-Hsin Hsu & Kuen-Suan Chen & Chun-Ming Yang, 2022. "A Fuzzy Improvement Testing Model of Bank APP Performance," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, April.
    17. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    18. Alireza Arshadi Khamseh, 2021. "A Time-Dependent Sustainable–Flexible Supplier Selection Considering Uncertainty and TODIM Method in Iranian Dairy Industries," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(2), pages 113-126, June.
    19. Raut, Rakesh D. & Gardas, Bhaskar B. & Narwane, Vaibhav S. & Narkhede, Balkrishna E., 2019. "Improvement in the food losses in fruits and vegetable supply chain - a perspective of cold third-party logistics approach," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 6(C).
    20. Esra Boz & Sinan Çizmecioğlu & Ahmet Çalık, 2022. "A Novel MDCM Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare System in the Era of Logistics 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:6:p:1473-:d:1359635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.