11 Sirochmanova
Yüklə 133,07 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Order According to median According to modus According to variance According to
- First line of research Second line of research Order Main domains Order
|
Specific criteria
Frequency of response* Descriptive characteristic for determining the order of importance median modus variance mean value weighs of importance 1 2 3 4 5 A1 33
12 9 3 9 1,5
1 2,06
2,14 0,86
A2 12
27 9 9 9 2 2 1,71 2,64
0,36 B1
12 12
9 21
12 3,5
4 1,97
3,14 -0,05
B2 27
21 6 3 9 2 1 1,91 2,18
0,81 B3
42 12
6 6 0 1 1 0,97 1,64 1,36
B4 33
6 6 9 12 1,5
1 2,65
2,41 0,31
B5 18
15 15
6 12
2,5 1 1,98 2,68 0,59
B6 30
21 15
0 0 2 1 0,64
1,77 1,23
B7 30
27 3 3 3 2 1 1,07 1,82
1,18 C1
18 24
15 0 9 2 2 1,62 2,36 0,63
C2 27
18 6 6 9 2 1 2,05 2,27
0,72 - 10.1515/sspjce-2016-0011 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:12:12PM via free access SSP - JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2016 103
D1
36 18
3 3 6 1 1 1,62 1,86 1,14
D2 45
18 0 0 3 1 1 0,81 1,45
1,55 D3
33 24
6 0 3 1,5 1 0,94 1,73 1,27
E1 21
30 6 9 0 2 2 0,97 2,05
0,96 E2
6 27
21 12
0 2,5
2 0,80
2,59 0,41
*1 – very important, 2 – important, 3 – neither important, 4 – not important, 5 - unimportant
The lowest value according to the median, modus, variance and mean value represents the highest importance. By analysis with weighs of importance the highest value is the best. In table 5 are presented orders of importance the specific criteria in relation to the used descriptors characteristics. Table 5: The orders of importance by specific criteria of residential constructions
1. B3,D1,D2 A1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6, B7,D1,D2,D3,C2 B6
D2 D2
2. A1,B4,D3 A2,C1,E1,E2 E2
B3 B3
3. A2,B2,B6,B7,C1,C2,E1 B1 D2
D3 D3
4. B5, E2
- D3
B6 B6
5. - - B3,E1 B7
B7 6.
- - B7 D1 D1
7. - - C1,D1 E1
E1 8.
- - A2 A1 A1
9. - - B2 B2
B2 10.
- - B1 C2 C2
11. - - B5 C1
C1 12.
- - C2 B4 B4
13. - - A1 E2
E2 14.
- - B4 A2 A2
15. - - - B5
B5 16.
- - - B1 B1
By selection the descriptive characteristic which accurately determined the order of importance ranking by median and modus don’t takes into account our requirements to set out prioritization criteria (since in one place are several criteria). Even by the order according to the variance was not reached explicit order (fifth and seventh were placed criteria by which calculation reached the same value). Ranking by main value and weighs of importance sets out the same order of specific criteria of residential buildings. Therefore, this order will be taken as terminative. 3.3 Comparison of the results from the research lines In previous chapters were determined orders of importance in main domains and specific criteria of residential constructions based on the results of the descriptors characteristics. Now it is necessary to examine the relationship between the orders of importance in main domains and specific criteria (see table 6). Shades in the tab. 6 shown an association of domains to the specific criteria of residential building. The above table shows recognition that if respondents were not directly asked about - 10.1515/sspjce-2016-0011 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:12:12PM via free access Lenka Sirochmanová, Mária Kozlovská and Renáta Bašková
104
specific requirements which affect their decision to buy an apartment in new building, as the most important area was energy area for them. They consider that if they live in residential house with the highest energy standards and the lowest power consumption, advantage for them will by lower operating costs. The least important domain for them was structure domain. However, when respondents were directly asked about specific criterion, we can see in table 6 that at the first five places are criteria from structure domain (3 criteria) and cost domain (2 criteria). Energy criteria are seventh and twelfth (while the energy domain was for respondents the first).
buildings First line of research Second line of research Order Main domains Order Specific criteria 1. E Energy
1. D2 - Operating costs 2. B3 - Orientation of apartment 3. D3 - Total cost of apartment 2. D Costs 4. B6 - Number of habitable rooms 5. B7 - Floor area of the apartment 6. D1 - Price per m 2 of floor area 3. C Time 7. E1 - Energy certificate 8. A1 - Material base 9. B2 - Internal disposition of the apartment 10. C2 - Speed of moving into an apartment 4. A Material 11. C1 - Construction time 12. B4 - Number of floors 13. E2 - Status of green building 5. B
14. A2 - Use of natural materials 15. B5 - Number of apartments per floor 16. B1 - Construction system of apartment house
We can conclude that the order of importance of the claims of future users of housing clearly indicates the ranking according to specific criteria of residential building. The questionnaire survey has also monitored the corresponding age of respondents. They were categorized by four age groups. Thus, we can determine the order of importance of the specific construction criteria of residential building with respect to the age of the respondents. Will be used the order according to weighs of importance. From age group 51-60 and above 60 answered just one respondent, that these responses are not applicable for evaluating. We set the order of criteria importance for the age group of 20 to 34 respondents and respondents 35- 50 years old. The results are shown in table 7. Table 7: Orders of specific construction criteria importance for two different age groups
*1.g.
D2 B6
B3 D1
B7 D3
C2 E1
E2 A1
B2 B4
C1 A2
B5 B1 **2.g. B3 D2 D3
A1 D1
B7 E1
B6 B5 B2 C1
A2 B4 C2 B1 E2 *1.g – group of age 20 – 34 **2.g. – group of age 35- 50 D2, B3, D3 ... are explained in 3.2
Younger age group (which usually resolves buying their first apartment and where it is assumed that it will have to deal with a mortgage or loan to buy an apartment) gives highest - 10.1515/sspjce-2016-0011 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:12:12PM via free access SSP - JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Vol. 11, Issue 1, 2016 105
importance on monthly operating costs (D2). The second important criterion for them is the number of rooms in the apartment (B6) and the third in order of importance is the flat orientation (B3). This structure criterion is particularly important to them because they do not want to have windows on the cold north side, causing an increase in heating costs in the winter time. Almost irrelevant is for them structural criterion relating to the construction system of the apartment building (B1). For the older age group the orientation (B3) is even the most important criterion. The second important criterion for them is the amount of monthly operating costs (D2), and the third is the total price of the apartment (D3). This group of respondents can compare their "old" living with "new". Therefore the time criteria are for them generally less substantial than for example structure criteria. Criterion about green building (E2) is for the older age group at last place. Probably they don’t know (or they don´t care) about the benefits of green buildings. They are interested only if their new apartment eliminated deficiencies which they have in the old apartment.
Paper deals with determining the orders of importance of the criteria on residential buildings from the perspective of future users. Analysis was made in two lines of research with the use of online questionnaire. The first line deals with setting the order of importance by main domains of residential buildings. The second line deals with setting the order of importance by specific criteria of residential building. If we don’t take into account the age of the respondents, the most important criterion has become the height of monthly operating costs. But different age groups have different orders of importance of their criteria (which has an impact on their decision about buying an apartment. Younger group of age (20-34) where is potential to buy their first new housing (where it is expected that they will have to deal with a mortgage or loan to buy an apartment) gives highest importance of monthly operating costs.
Second important criterion for them is the number of rooms in the apartment and the third is the apartment orientation. For the second group of respondents over 35 years of age (it is expected that they housing already has and wants to obtain a new apartment) is the most important criterion the apartment orientation. This group of respondents can compare the old apartment with potential of new apartment. The second important criterion for them is the monthly operating costs, and the third in order of importance is total price of apartment.
The article presents a partial research result of project VEGA - 1/0677/14 „Research of construction efficiency improvement through MMC technologies”.
[1]
Tkáč, Š. & Vranayová, Z. (2013). The use of the water element in the energetics of micro-urban development in Slovak Republic and Taiwan R.O.C. CESB 13 - Central Europe Towards Sustainable Building . Sustainable building and refurbishment for Next Generations, 1-10. ISBN 978-80-247-5018-7.
- 10.1515/sspjce-2016-0011 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:12:12PM via free access Lenka Sirochmanová, Mária Kozlovská and Renáta Bašková
106
[2]
Bayne, K. M. et al. (2005). Demonstrating New Zealand's future residential building. Smart and sustainable built environments, 3, 23-32. [3]
Spišáková, M. & Mačková, D. (2015). The use potential of traditional building materials for the realization of structures by modern methods of construction. SSP - Journal of Civil
[4]
Hong, T. et.al. (2015). An estimation methodology for the dynamic operational rating of a new residential building using the advanced case-based reasoning and stochastic approaches. Applied
[5]
Radziszewsja-Zelina, E. & Glen, M. (2014). Studies of the prefabricated housing construction market in Poland. SSP - Journal of Civil Engineering: Selected scientific papers, 9(2), 13-26. ISSN 1338-7278. [6]
efficiency buildings. SGEM 2013: 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference: Nano, bio and green - technologies for a sustainable future. 677-684. ISBN 978-619-7105-06-3. [7]
Improving the efficiency of construction through MMC technologies: Proceedings of scientific papers 2015. April 2015, 111-117. Košice: TU. ISBN 978-80-553-2294-0 [8]
Palkovič, J. (2016).
Popisné charakteristiky.
Retrieved June 10,
2016, from
http://spu.fem.uniag.sk/cvicenia/ksov/palkovic/statistikaB/prednasky/charakteristiky.pdf [9]
Kozlovská, M., Bašková, R., Sirochmanová, L. &
Spišáková, M. (2015). Economic, environmental and social aspects of living in apartment buildings. SGEM 2015. 229-234. Sofia: STEF92 Technology. ISBN 978-619-7105-41-4. [10]
construction. IOP Conference Series, 71(1), 1-6. - ISSN 1757-8981. [11]
Kozlovská, M., Struková, Z., & Tažiková, A. (2014). Integrated assessment of buildings quality in the context of sustainable development principles. Kvalita Inovácia Prosperita, 18(2), 1-16. ISSN 1335-1745. [12]
uláková, M., Vilčeková, S., Katunská, J. & Krídlová Burdová, E. (2013). Multicriteria decision analysis of material selection of high energy performance residential building. SSP - Journal of Civil Engineering: Selected scientific papers, 8(2), 103-114. ISSN 1338-7278.
[13] Somorová, V. (2015). Influence of Builidng Materail Solution of Structures of Effectiveness of Real Estate Development. Journal of Civil Engineering: Selected scientific papers, 10(2), 49- 60. ISSN 1338-7278.
- 10.1515/sspjce-2016-0011 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:12:12PM via free access Yüklə 133,07 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|