Abstract
The aim of the research is to compare KGBCC-certified apartments, to verify the effect of the certification, and to suggest directions for improvements in terms of residents' satisfaction levels. For this study, two apartments with KGBCC certification were selected, and a questionnaire concerning the awareness of the KGBCC, satisfaction level, and cause of dissatisfaction on KGBCC assessment indicators were carried out on the residents in question. Finally, a comparative study and analysis of the survey with the certification scores were conducted. Based on the synthetic analysis result, assessment indicators were arranged into four groups based on the average of the total satisfaction level and scoring rate, and the effect and directions concerning improvement to the KGBCC were found. Keywords: Green Building Certification System; residents' satisfaction level; assessment standard; KGBCC 1. Introduction residents selected from two certified apartments. The 1.1 Background and Aim of the Research questionnaire responses ranged from 'very dissatisfied' (-3 points) to 'very satisfied' (3 points) on a 7-point scale, At a time when recognition of the international and if the respondents checked 'dissatisfied' (-3~-1), the environmental crisis is becoming more serious, and after many attempts by the world's architectural sector to cause of dissatisfaction was also surveyed. The survey rectify the situation, the KGBCC (Korean Green Building data was analyzed with the data analysis program, 'SPSS statistics 17.0'. Correlation analysis was carried out on the Certification Criteria) was launched in the same way and satisfaction level by certification indicators, dissatisfaction has operated in Korea since 2002. However, there have not been enough studies in the last 7 years about the overall response rate, and certification scoring rate (percentage satisfaction level of residents in certified apartments, so of the achieved points per allotted points), and based on it, the mean, percentage, and t-test results by indicators the necessity of studies regarding the effect of certification were analyzed. Moreover, the effect and improvement and the improved direction for the certification system based on residents' opinions is becoming stronger. directions were also verified. With this background, the aim of the research is to 2. Research Trends compare KGBCC-certified apartments, to verify the effect of the certification, and to suggest improvements in Recent studies concerning KGBCC include 'The terms of residents' satisfaction levels. For this study, two Introduction of the KGBCC and Present Condition' (Kim, apartments with KGBCC certification were selected, and 2007), 'The Present Condition and Means of Improvement to the KGBCC' (Jo, 2007), and 'The Present Condition of a questionnaire concerning awareness of the KGBCC, satisfaction level, and cause of dissatisfaction regarding National and International Green Building Certification KGBCC assessment indicators were taken by the residents Systems' (Jo et al., 2007)', which studied the present in question. Finally, a comparative study and analysis condition and improvement direction of the KGBCC focused on the system. After that, there were studies of the survey with the certification scores were carried out, and the effect and directions of improvement to the that focused on making improvements to the system by KGBCC were found. case studies such as 'A Study on the Post Occupancy 1.2 Methodology Evaluation of the Environment-Friendly Certification Apartment Complex in Korea' (Kang, 2006), 'A Study of A satisfaction level questionnaire concerning the assessment indicators of the KGBCC was conducted with Case Analysis on Green Building Certification Criteria for Advanced Methods' (Mo et al., 2008), 'Comparative Research of Residents' Satisfaction Level between Green *Contact Author: Yeom Dongwoo, Ph.D. Candidate, Building-Certified Apartment Complexes and general Department of Architecture, Ajou University Apartment Complexes in Korea' (Lee et al., 2009), 'The Sanhakwon614, San 5, Woncheon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Research on the Improvement Direction of KGBCC by Suwon 443-749, South Korea Residents' satisfaction Level in the KGBCC Certified Tel: +82-31-219-2412 Fax: +82-31-219-2945 Apartment' (Lee et al., 2009), and 'Comparative Analysis E-mail: dongwoo.yeom@hanmail.net of Evaluation Items in Green Building Certification ( Received April 8, 2010 ; accepted November 21, 2011 ) Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/May 2012/62 55 in the Case of Apartment Housing' Kim et al., 2010). Additionally, there were also studies which focused on the improvement of assessment items such as 'A Comparative Study on the Assessment Items of Korea's Apartment Building Certification Systems' (Jung et al., 2010) and 'A St u d y o n t h e L u m i n o u s E n v i r o n m e n t E v a l u a t i o n Factors of Green House Building Certification Systems for Apartment Houses' (Jung et al., 2009). Finally, there were research projects conducted on the economic effect Fig.1. [Top Left] The Number and Ratio of Certified Apartments of KGBCC certification which include the 'Impact of the to General Ones Green Building Rating System on Apartment Housing Fig.2. [Top Right] The Present Condition of KGBCC Price' (Song et al., 2010) and 'A Basic study on the Cost Certification for Apartments Impact of Environment-friendly Residential Buildings' (Kim et al., 2010). The percentage of certified apartments to general ones In this research report, POE was conducted on the was insignificant until 2004 (Fig.1.); however, starting residents of two KGBCC certified apartments who have from 2006, it increased to 10.4% and showed a rapid lived in their apartments for at least one or more years. increase to 28.06% (Lee et al., 2009). This verifies that Additionally, more than former studies such as satisfaction the KGBCC certification for apartments is increasing, level analysis and improvement direction, this study and that the KGBCC system is settled as a standard in the compared and analyzed certification scores, satisfaction construction market in Korea. levels, and the cause of dissatisfaction. It also presented detailed directions for improvement, so this research is 4. Analysis Items of Questionnaire quite valuable. Survey items were compiled and a survey carried out to assess the residents' satisfaction level. The preliminary 3. The Present Condition of the KGBCC survey was carried out on 11 residents for G apartment and The KGBCC was introduced in 2001, and updated 10 for M apartment. Assessment indicators which attained in 2006 and 2010. The background of the first update zero points were excluded from the survey. Thus, after the was that there were applicability problems because the preliminary survey, indicators that residents had difficulty certification standards were higher than the construction in answering were excluded from the questionnaire. The technologies at that time, and the excessive amount of excluded assessment indicators are shown in Table 1. assessment papers were also changed and simplified. Table 1. Excluded Assessment Standard and Reason for Exclusion Also, a remodeling item was added, and exclusion of The Reason for some qualitative standards and adjustment of various Excluded Assessment Standard Exclusion items according to legal changes were accomplished. Interference with Daylight to Adjacent Properties Connection of Pedestrian Pathway to the Outer Pedestrian Network In the second update, categories were removed from Minimal Use of Furniture the former system which consisted of 4 categories and Using Rainwater 9 items, and 6 mandatory indicators (7 for apartments) Top-Soil Reuse Ratio Indicators which Establishment of Connected Green Axis were added. Additionally, a minimum rating system was were not scored Terrestrial Biotope Planning in the certification presented to intensify the certification standard. Also, the Green Space Area Ratio in Balcony certification class was subdivided from 'Excellent' and Design Plan for the Weak and Elderly Using Alternative Energy 'Good' to 4 classes: 'Excellent' (Above 74 points), 'Very Installation of Grey Water Use System Good' (Above 66 points), 'Good' (Above 58 points), and Preservation Ratio of Existing Natural Features 'General'(Above 50 points), and the certification process Amount of Energy Consumption Residents were Using Eco-Friendly-Certified Materials for Resource Recycling was strengthened through adjustment of the certification not given correct information when Application of Eco-Friendly Methods of Construction or New Technology achievement period, reduction of the certification period, they moved in Noise Environment in Apartment and an increase in the number of judges. Floor Space Index Residents have difficulty Interference with Daylight to Adjacent Properties From 2002 to December 2009, based on counting one understanding Ecological Value of Site if a certain building achieved both pre-certification and Residents Establishment of Systematic Urban Planning certification, 1,047 buildings achieved KGBCC pre- had difficulty Reuse of Existing Structure evaluating (The certification, and of these 466 (44.5%) were apartments. Reuse of Existing Non-Bearing Wall standards related Reduction of CO2 Emissions to the level of Certification was not active in the early period; however, Rational Site Management Plan for Considering Environment planning and the number of certification instances increased from 2004 construction) Providing Documents and Guidelines for Maintenance and Management and appeared to rapidly increase as 138 pre-certifications in 2006. For 2006, 3% of the construction fee was added A t o t a l o f 1 9 i n d i c a t o r s o u t o f 4 4 wh i c h a r e as an incentive to sales prices for KGBCC-certified suitable for surveying both apartments were used to apartments followed by the new incentive policy, which determine the residents' satisfaction level. Also, for the accelerated the certification process. After 2008, as new dissatisfaction cause analysis, when respondents answered construction projects decreased because of a construction 'dissatisfaction' (-1~-3), the reasons were surveyed through slowdown, so the number of pre-certifications also additional questions. To improve the understanding of the decreased. However, the number of certification respondents, the technical terms on the questionnaire were achievements by existing pre-certification apartments translated into general terms. increased steadily (Fig.2.). 56 JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee Table 4. KGBCC Certification Indicators and Scores 5. Summary of the Research Cases Scored For the selection of the research cases, certified Category Item Assessment Indicator Allotted G M apartments with a high score were surveyed and analyzed, Land use and Land Use and Ecological Value of Site 2 2 2 Transpor- Changes of Soil and G apartment in the Dongtan district, Hwasung and Establishment of Systematic Urban Planning 2 2 2 tation Condition Floor Space Index 6 4.01 0.003 M apartment in the Samsan district, Incheon were chosen Light Environment Interference with Daylight to Adjacent Properties 2 0 0.8 because both apartments are in the capital region and the Transportation Distance to Public Transportation 2 1.6 1.6 residents had lived there for more than one year. The basic Distance to the Local Center and City Center 2 2 2 Installation of Bicycle Path and Bicycle Parking Lot 2 2 2 information of the research cases is shown in Tables 2. and Establishment Establishment of Pedestrian Pathway 3 3 3 3., and the KGBCC certification indicators and scores are of Residential Connection of Pedestrian Pathway to the Environment 1 0 1 shown in Table 4. Outer Pedestrian Network Connection to the Surrounding Stream 2 2 2 or Mountains Table 2. Apartment G Establishment of Community Center or Address 3-5 Block, Dongtan District, Hwasung, Kyoung-gi-do 3 3 1.5 Facility Planning Site Plan Units 727 Energy Energy Amount of Energy Consumption 12 5.34 4.37 Site Area (m ) 56,467.00 Resources Resources Saving Design Plan for Life Cycle Change 3 1.8 3 and Environ- Building Coverage (%) 11.93% Using Eco-Friendly-Certified Materials 2 2 0.8 mental Load for Resource Recycling Floor Space Index (%) 179.93% Minimal Use of Furniture 1 0 0 Structure B1 ~ 25F Application of Eco-Friendly Methods of Number of Building 11 3 1 0 Construction or New Technology Unit type (m²) 130,41,157,42 Environmental Reduction of CO Emissions 3 3 3 Heating System District Heating Pollution Load Separate Living Waster Collection for Recycling 1 0.7 1 Heating Resources Cogeneration Food Waste Reduction 1 1 1 Moving-in Date 2007.12 Water Resources Reduction Plan for Daily Water Use 3 3 3 Using Rainwater 2 0 0 Table 3. Apartment M Reduction of Rainwater Load 3 3 3 Address 3 Block, Samsan-dong, Bupyoung-gu, Incheon, Korea Management Rational Site Management Plan for 1 1 1 Site Plan Units 1,030 Considering Environment Site Area (m²) 68,847 Providing Documents and Guidelines for 2 2 2 Maintenance and Management Building Area (m²) 9,156.56 Building coverage ratio 13.1% Providing User Manual 1 1 1 Floor Space Index 219.95% Validity of Information and Communication 3 3 3 Equipment and High-tech Facility Structure B1 ~ 20-25F Ecological Natural Resource Use Top-Soil Reuse Ratio 1 0 0 Number of Building 14 Environment Construction of Application of Artificial Green Space Plan 4 2.19 2 127.49, 156.77, 178.02, Unit type (m ) Green Space 180.63, 180.73, 201.87 Green Space Area Ratio 5 3.59 1.404 Heating System District Heating Establishment of Connected Green Axis 2 0 1 Heating Resources Cogeneration Aquatic Biotope Planning 3 2.55 2.5 Establishment of Living Moving-in Date 2005.05. Space for Creatures Terrestrial Biotope Planning 3 0 3 Indoor Atmosphere Use of Low-Toxic Materials 3 3 0 Environment Environment 6. Analysis of Survey Results Level of Ventilation Plan 3 2.4 1.2 Thermal Environment Installation of Thermostatic System 2 2 2 6.1 General Information of the Respondents Noise Environment Sound Absorption Level of Walls 3 2.25 1.5 A residents survey was carried out from 25 April to 31 Indoor Space Green Space Area Ratio in Balcony 2 0 1.2 May 2008 for M (Preliminary on 12 April 2008) and from Design Plan for the Weak and Elderly 1 0 1 Sub-Total A number of Indicators: 38 100 67.43 60.88 11 to 30 August 2009 for G (Preliminary on 1 August Additional Noise Environment in Apartment 3 0.6 0 2009), and except for those that were disqualified, 70(G) Category Using Alternative Energy 3 0 0 and 111(M) the questionnaires were analyzed. Installation of Grey Water Use System 4 0 4 The reliability of questionnaires was verified with Preservation Ratio of Existing Natural Features 3 0 0 Sound Absorption Level of Floor 3 1.14 2.25 Cronbach Alpha coefficient, and the result showed 0.87 Daylight Ratio 4 4 4 for G and 0.85 for M which are very reliable. Sub-Total A number of Indicators: 6 20 5.73 10.25 The number of respondents was 52 (male) and 129 Total The total number of Indicators: 44 120 73.16 71.13 (female) which showed that female respondents are twice as many as male. The majority of the respondents were concerning respondents' apartments, most of the residents in their 40s (38.7%) and 30s (37%), while the others of G were aware of certification (Certified: 80%, Not- were in their 20s (12.7%), 50s (9%), and over 60 (2.7%). Certified: 20%) while almost half of the residents of M Seventy three point six percent of the respondents were did not know about it (Certified: 46.8%, Not-Certified: educated with more than an undergraduate degree, and 5.4%, Don't know: 46.8%). Ninety point nine percent of 57.5% answered 'more than $4,000 in income per month', the respondents answered that the certification system which are high standards. Regarding the number of family is necessary, and many residents thought that it had a members, 4 was the majority (63%), and 81.8% of the positive effect on real estate value (G: 62.8%, M: 83.8%). respondents owned their own home. Ninety five point To the question whether certification was considered five percent of the respondents have been living in their when choosing apartments, many respondents in both apartments for more than one year which is long enough apartments answered it was considered (G: 44.3%, for POE (Post Occupancy Evaluation). M: 42.3%). However, for M apartment, 42.3% of the 6.2 Residents' Understanding of the KGBCC respondents did not know whether their apartment was The analysis results concerning the awareness of the certified or not, which showed a difference in awareness KGBCC were: G Aware: 67.1% and Unaware: 32.9%) and regarding the certification process. To the question M (Aware: 47.7% and Unaware: 51.4%), which shows whether they will consider certification when they choose that residents of G were more aware of the KGBCC. to move, 85.6% answered that they will consider, so the Regarding the awareness of KGBCC certification certification affects the choice of apartment. JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee 57 Assessment Distance Distance to Installation Establish Establish Design Plan Separate Food Waste Reduction Reduction Providing Application Green Aquatic Level of Installation of Sound Sound Daylight Ratio Indicator to Public the Local of Bicycle -ment of -ment of for Life Living Reduction Plan for of Rainwater User of Artificial Space Area Biotope Ventilation Thermostatic Absorption Absorption Transpor- Center and Path and Pedestrian Community Cycle Waste Daily Water Load Manual Green Ratio Planning Plan System Level of Level of tation City Center Bicycle Pathway Center or Change Collection Use Space Plan Walls Floor Parking Lot Facility for Planning Recycling Fig.4. The Total Satisfaction Level by Indicator 6.3 Analysis Results only so that it easily achieved a higher score than other 6.3.1 Total Satisfaction Level and Satisfaction Level by categories, which also needs to be improved. 6.3.2 Satisfaction Level by Assessment Indicators and Categories The total satisfaction level concerning KGBCC Analysis on Cause of Dissatisfaction assessment indicators appeared as 1.1 for G and 0.7 for M, The analysis result of the residents' satisfaction level concerning KGBCC assessment indicators showed that which determined that G apartment showed a significantly higher satisfaction level (t = -7.666, p = 0.000). the satisfaction level of G is slightly higher than that of Regarding the correlation analysis between satisfaction M (Fig.4.). Especially, the satisfaction level concerning level by category and scoring rate (Table 5.), the the 'Land Use and Transportation' category, assessment indicators related with environmental pollution in 'Energy satisfaction level and dissatisfaction answer rate showed a negative correlation. However, the satisfaction level and Resources and Environmental Load' category and noise related assessment indicators in the 'Additional Category' scoring rate appeared to be barely correlated so that the showed a big difference. For the G apartment, the effect of the certification score on residents' satisfaction 'Establishment of Pedestrian Pathway' of 'Land Use and level appeared to be minor. Transportation' (2.23) and 'Green Space Area Ratio' (2.16) Table 5. Correlation Analysis Result of the 'Ecological Environment' category showed the Dissatisfaction Answer rate Scoring Rate Correlation Analysis highest satisfaction level, and for the M apartment, 'Green G G M M Correlation Coefficient -0.864 - 0.860 0.105 - 0.121 Space Area Ratio' appeared to be 1.94 as the highest Satisfaction Level Significance 0.000 0.669 0.000 0.0.621 satisfaction level, which determined the satisfaction level concerning the plan by 'Green Space Area Ratio' in KGBCC, which appeared to be high. However, the 'Sound Absorption Level of Floor' showed the lowest rating as 0.23 of G and -0.68 of M in both apartments, which means this assessment indicator needs to be upgraded. The specific analysis results concerning assessment indicators by category are as follows. 1) Land Use and Transportation The analysis results by assessment indicators of the 'Land Use and Transportation' category are shown in Fig.3. Satisfaction Level by Category Fig.5. and Table 6. As an analysis result, except for 'Installation of For the satisfaction level by categories (Fig.3.), the Bicycle Path and bicycle Parking Lot' which found no satisfaction level regarding 'Ecological Environment' difference by t-test (t= -0.626, p= 0.532), satisfaction category showed the highest point as 1.46 for both level concerning other indicators appeared to be higher apartments, which means that residents are satisfied with in the G apartment. However, indicators that showed the it. However, the scoring rate compared to allotted points same scoring rate, 'Distance to the Public transportation', appeared relatively low (G: 70.67%, M: 53.8%), which 'Distance to the Local Center and City Center', and showed the opposite result for satisfaction level. This 'Establishment of Pedestrian Pathway', also showed a category includes the planning elements which residents big difference in satisfaction level. These indicators easily come in contact with during daily living so that are evaluated by physical distance and the installation the satisfaction level appeared to be relatively high. of facilities. However, regarding the analysis result of Regarding the difference between apartments, 'Land dissatisfaction, a major cause of dissatisfaction appeared to Use and Transportation' category showed the biggest be opposite to the evaluation contents of KGBCC, so these difference and 'Additional Category' also showed a big need to be reflected in the final assessment standard. Also difference in the satisfaction level. Also, the 'Energy if the scoring rates are the same, the satisfaction level can Resources and Environmental Load' category appeared to appear to be different by the basic condition of location so have a relatively low satisfaction level compared to the that the indicators need to be more precise and evaluate high scoring rate. Most of the assessment indicators of this in detail the actual contents of the plan and conditions of category evaluate the installation of the planning elements the site. For the 'Installation of Bicycle Path and Bicycle 58 JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee Fig.6. Satisfaction Level in Energy Resources and Environmental Road Fig.5. Satisfaction Level in Land Use and Transportation For 'Reduction Plan of Rainwater Load' and 'Reduction Parking Lot', the scoring rate of both apartments are 100% Plan for Daily Water Use' which achieved full marks, the while the satisfaction level appeared as 0.77 for G and 0.63 satisfaction level was found to be the same by the t-test. To for M, which determined that the plan needs to be much improve these, for 'Reduction Plan for Daily Water Use', stronger. 'Weak water pressure' (G: 80%) and 'Other– Not efficient For the 'Establishment of Community Center or enough, No installation, etc' (50%) were the major Facility Planning', it was analyzed that the difference considerations so that the installation performance needed of the planning area is reflected in the difference of the to be upgraded, and for 'Reduction Plan of Rainwater satisfaction level, and most of the respondents answered Load', 'Water absorption capability' was the majority for 'Not enough facilities and spaces' (G: 75%, M: 83%) so both G (63%) and M (50%), so the assessment standard that quantities appeared to be the first thing to consider in needs to be intensified. future updates. The 'Providing User Manual' achieved a full mark for Table 6. Cause of Dissatisfaction concerning Land Use and Transportation both apartments while the satisfaction level appeared to be The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M relatively low (G: 0.70, M: 0.48), so the planning contents 1.1 Distance to Public Transportation Bicycle parking lot is too far 0 3 Not close enough to reach on foot 64 38 Etc 0 4 need to be upgraded by elevating standards regarding the No shuttle or short line bus 36 51 1.4Establishment of Pedestrian Pathway Not close enough to reach by bicycle 0 3 Not planned 0 27 simplicity of manual contents (G: 67%) and convenience Etc 0 8 Planned but too narrow 0 9 1.2Distance to the Local Center and City Center Safety (from vehicle or crime) 0 18 concerning storing and reading (M: 64%). Not close enough to reach on foot 10 55 Disconnected in the middle 100 46 Not enough public transportation 70 45 Not connected with other facilities 0 0 Not close enough to reach by car 20 0 Etc 0 0 Table 7. Cause of Dissatisfaction Concerning Energy Resources Etc 0 0 1.5Establishment of Community Center or Facility Planning and Environmental Load 1.3Installation of Bicycle Path and Bicycle Parking Lot Not enough facilities and spaces 75 83 Not close enough to reach on foot 44 21 Not an easy location to use 25 3 The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M Not close enough to bicycle parking lot 11 21 Maintenance not well-managed 0 7 2.1 Design Plan for Life Cycle Change Etc 0 7 Safety from Robbery 17 27 Expensive price for use 0 0 2.4 Reduction Plan for Daily Water Not easy to change 13 67 Uneasy to ride cause of car and people 28 24 Etc 0 7 Use Original plan is not well- 75 22 Weak Water pressure 80 17 2) Energy Resources and Environmental Load matched with real life Not enough information about The analysis results by assessment indicators of 'Energy 12 11 Malfunction/hard to manage 20 33 planning Resources and Environmental Load' category are shown Etc 0 0 Etc 0 50 in Fig.6. and Table 7. 2.2 Separate Living Waste Collection 2.5 Reduction Plan of Rainwater Load for Recycling In the 'Energy Resources and Environmental Load' Limited number of separate 40 3 Water absorption capability 63 50 category, except for 'Separate Living Waste Collection collections Not well-managed, so it is for Recycling' and 'Food Waste Reduction', the other four 60 40 Not comfortable for walking 13 10 unsanitary indicators showed no significant differences. 'Design Plan The location is not appropriate 0 17 Not enough durability 20 20 for Life-Cycle Change' appeared to be the same in terms for use The number of separate Design of water absorption of satisfaction level in spite of the difference in scoring 0 23 0 0 collection facilities pavement rates (G: 60% and M: 100%) so that indicators need to be Etc 0 17 Etc 0 20 2.3 Food Waste Reduction 2.6 Providing User Manual upgraded and more specific to improve the satisfaction The contents of manual are Scale of facility is not enough 15 5 67 29 level. The cause of dissatisfaction appeared as 'Original difficult to use Not well-managed, so it is Difference between manual plan is not well-matched with real life' (G: 75%) and 'Not 77 55 11 7 unsanitary and reality easy to change' (M: 67%), which needs to be changed. The location 0 5 Hard to store and read 22 64 The two indicators related with environmental load Uncomfortable to use 8 28 Etc 0 0 showed a big difference, although it achieved the same score, it showed a different satisfaction level ('Food Waste 3) Ecological Environment Reduction', G: 0.81, M: 0.07), and satisfaction level of The analysis results by assessment indicators of the G with a low certification score that appeared to be even 'Ecological Environment' category are shown in Fig.7. and higher ('Separate Living Waste Collection for Recycling', Table 8. G: 1.26, M: 0.47), so qualitative improvements are The 'Ecological Environment' category showed the necessary in terms of residents' overall satisfaction level. highest satisfaction level of all in both apartments, The major cause of dissatisfaction for both indicators was especially 'Green Space Ratio' showed 2.16 for G and 'Not well-managed, so it is unsanitary', and the assessment 1.94 for M which is the highest of all indicators, however, standard count is for the installation of related facilities the scoring rate appeared to produce the opposite results, only. As for improvements, the indicators for evaluating which are relatively low. the quality and a new indicator for maintenance and The 'Application of Artificial Green Space Plan for management need to be developed. JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee 59 Ecological Environment' and 'Green Space Area Ratio' was facilities' (G: 86%, M: 67%) for both apartments, which means analyzed as the same by the t-test. Both indicators showed there are improvement points in the actual performance of a relatively high satisfaction level, more than 1 point ventilation facilities. The present certification standard consists of (a little satisfaction), but a low scoring rate. The major a 5 grade ranking system to evaluate, 1-3 grade for the installation cause of dissatisfaction was 'Not well-managed, so it is of facilities and 4-5 grade for window area ratio. Therefore, not clean' (G: 75%) and 'Not good looking' (M: 56%) for other than just installation or area, indicators to evaluate 'Application of Artificial Green Space Plan for Ecological actual ventilation performance are also required. Environment', and for 'Green Space Area Ratio', In the case of 'Installation of Thermostatic System', 'Insufficient green space' (G: 100%) and 'Monotonous there were no differences between G and M (t=0.549, green space' (M: 63%) which were expressed by some of p=0.445) and it showed the satisfaction level as more than the respondents. While both indicators are evaluated by 'a little satisfaction (1 point)'. The Dissatisfaction answers distance and area ratio, dissatisfaction of residents focused were analyzed as 'Maintenance and Management Fee' on the contents of the plan, so new indicators to evaluate (G: 72%, M: 62%), so this needs to be improved for the the quality of the plan need to be developed and applied. performance upgrade of thermostatic systems. For 'Aquatic Biotope Planning', the satisfaction level The 'Sound Absorption Level of Walls' showed appeared to be different (G: 0.73, M: 1.25) in spite of the relatively low satisfaction level (G: 0.6, M: 0.15) in the similar scoring rate so that indicators need to be more 'Indoor Environment' category, and it needs to elevate the classified. The improvement directions were analyzed as quality of the plan by increasing standards and allotting strengthening the management (G: 55%, M: 35%) and points and adding certification indicators for performance establishment of actual habitation space (G: 30%, M: evaluation. 39%), so adding a new standard to the present indicators Table 9. Cause of Dissatisfaction Concerning Ecological Environment to evaluate area and technique and development of an The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M 4.1 Level of Ventilation Plan Maintenance and management fee 72 62 actual standard to derive a realistic plan for the habitation Performance of ventilation facilities 86 67 The malfunction of thermostatic system 0 7 Too much ventilation 0 0 Etc 14 0 of living things are needed. The location of windows and fans 14 25 4.3 Sound Absorption Level of Walls Etc 0 8 Noise fromneighbors 100 95 4.2 Installation of Thermostatic System Etc 0 5 Maintaining comfortable condition 14 31 5) Additional Category The analysis results by assessment indicators of the 'Additional Category' are shown in Fig.9. and Table 10. Fig.7. Satisfaction Level in Ecological Environment Table 8. Cause of Dissatisfaction for Ecological Environment The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M 3.1 Application of Artificial Green Space Plan for Etc 0 12 Ecological Environment Planned space is narrow 25 0 3.3 Aquatic Biotope Planning Not well-managed, so it is not clean 75 33 Not well-managed, so it is not clean 55 35 Not good looking 0 56 Not working as a habitation space 30 39 Etc 0 11 Small planned area 5 13 Fig.9. Satisfaction Level in Additional Category 3.2 Green Space Area Ratio Not enough aquatic plants and creatures 10 13 Insufficient green space 100 25 The number of aquatic biotope is few 0 0 Monotonous green space 0 63 Etc 0 0 Table 10. Cause of Dissatisfaction for Additional Category The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M The Cause of Dissatisfaction G M 5.1 Sound Absorption Level of Floor 5.2 Day Light Ratio Noise from upstairs 77 82 Short daylight time 33 20 Noise from downstairs 23 15 Short daylight time in winter 50 60 Etc 0 3 Etc 17 20 As a result of analysis, the 'Sound Absorption Level of Floor' showed the lowest satisfaction level (G: 0.23, M: -0.68) of all the indicators for both apartments, so it urgently needs to be upgraded. The M apartment especially showed lower satisfaction level in spite of having a higher score than G, which is not effective in terms of residents' satisfaction level. The present Fig.8. Satisfaction Level in Indoor Environment standard divides floor impact sound into 'light impact sound' and 'heavy impact sound', and evaluates it separately. However, the 4) Indoor Environment major cause of dissatisfaction was pointed out as 'Noise from The analysis results by assessment indicators of 'Indoor Upstairs' G: 77%, M: 82%), so active derivation of high quality Environment' category are shown in Fig.8. and Table 9. by an elevation of standards and weightings are necessary. The major cause of dissatisfaction for 'Level of natural 'Daylight Ratio' showed both high satisfaction levels ventilation plan' appeared to be 'Performance of ventilation (G: 1.61, M: 1.44) and a high scoring rate which analyzed 60 JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee Table 11. Synthetic Analysis Result Satisfaction Average of Total Satisfaction Level: 0.91 Scoring Rate Apart- Level Major Cause of Dissatisfaction ment Average of Total Scoring Rate: 83.51 G M G M Group A Establishment of Pedestrian Pathway 2.23 1.64 100 100 G, M Disconnected in the middle Satisfaction + Reduction of Rainwater Load 0.91 0.92 100 100 G, M Water absorption capability Scoring + Installation of Thermostatic System 1.29 1.14 100 100 G, M Maintenance and management fee Daylight Ratio 1.61 1.44 100 100 G, M Short daylight time in winter Establishment of Community Center or Facility Planning 1.71 100 G Not enough facilities and spaces Design Plan for Life Cycle Change 1.17 100 M Not easy to change Group B Distance to the Local Center and City Center 0.89 100 G Not enough public transportation Satisfaction - 0.13 100 M Not close enough to reach on foot Scoring + Installation of Bicycle Path and Bicycle Parking Lot 0.77 100 G Not close enough to reach on foot 0.63 100 M Safety from Robbery Food Waste Reduction 0.81 0.07 100 100 G, M Not well-managed, so it is unsanitary Reduction Plan for Daily Water Use 0.29 100 G Weak Water pressure 0.4 100 M Etc Providing User Manual 0.70 100 G The contents of manual are difficult to use 0.48 100 M Hard to store and read Aquatic Biotope Planning 0.73 85 G Not well-managed, so it is not clean Separate Living Waster Collection for Recycling 0.47 100 M Not well-managed, so it is unsanitary Group C Sound Absorption Level of Walls 0.61 0.15 75 50 G, M Noise from neighbors Satisfaction - Sound Absorption Level of Floor 0.23 - 0.68 38 75 G, M Noise from upstairs Scoring - Distance to the Public Transportation 0.09 80 M No shuttle or short line bus Establishment of Community Center or Facility Planning 0.43 50 M Not enough facilities and spaces Level of Ventilation Plan 0.82 40 M Performance of ventilation facilities Group D Application of Artificial Green Space Plan 1.50 1.19 G Not well-managed, so it is not clean Satisfaction + 55 50 M Not good looking Scoring - Green Space Area Ratio 2.16 1.94 G Insufficient green space 72 28 M Monotonous green space Distance to the Public Transportation 0.94 80 G Not close enough to reach on foot Design Plan for Life Cycle Change 1.14 60 G Original plan is not well-matched with real life Separate Living Waster Collection for Recycling 1.26 70 G Not well-managed, so it is unsanitary Level of Ventilation Plan 1.23 80 G Performance of ventilation facilities Aquatic Biotope Planning 1.25 83 M Not working as a habitation space it is as running well, and 'Short Daylight Time in Winter' which includes 'Application of Artificial Green Space Plan' and 'Green Space Ratio' as common indicators, 4 (G: 50%, M: 60%) were the majority of the dissatisfaction indicators for G, and 'AquaticBiotope Planning' for M. answers, so the decreasing of dissatisfaction elements by This group was analyzed to require gradual planning adjusting incentives needs to be considered. quality upgrades by incentive adjustment or new grants, the development of new indicators to evaluate actual 7. Synthetic Analysis Result planning contents and performance, and lowering the The synthetic analysis result of assessment indicators adjustment of allotted points of some indicators. were arranged by the average of total satisfaction level (0.91) and scoring rate (83.5%) as shown in Table 11. 8. Conclusions The Group A are indicators that both the satisfaction The aim of the research is to determine the overall level and scoring rate appeared to be more than average, improvement direction in terms of resident's satisfaction level. which includes 4 common indicators, 'Establishment For this study, two apartments with KGBCC certification were of Community Center or Facility Planning' for G, and selected, and a questionnaire concerning the awareness of the 'Design Plan for Life Cycle Change' for M. These were KGBCC, satisfaction level, and cause of dissatisfaction on analyzed as running efficiently in general, and for the KGBCC assessment indicators were taken by the residents. improvement direction, the derivation of the gradual Finally, a comparative study and analysis about the survey with upgrade of planning contents are needed by incentive the certification scores were carried out, and the effect and the adjustment, indicator classification, and development of directions of improvement to the KGBCC were found. The final new indicators for detailed evaluation. conclusions of the study are as follows. The indicators belong to the Group B that showed a higher 1) Fifty five point two percent of residents were aware score rating and lower satisfaction level than the average which of the KGBCC, and 59.7% knew about the certification included 5 common indicators, 'Aquatic Biotope Planning' for of their apartment. Most of the respondents answered that G, and 'Separate Living Waste Collection for Recycling' for M. the KGBCC is necessary, and it appeared that certification These indicators, except for the 'Aquatic Biotope Planning' for G, affects the choice of an apartment. Seventy five point six achieved 100% allotted scores; however, satisfaction levels appeared percent of respondents answered that KGBCC certification to be low. Generally, improvements of planning contents by the positively affects real estate value, and 85.6% answered elevation of standards are necessary to increase the overall satisfaction that they will consider certification when they move to level. another apartment. As a result, it appeared that residents' Group C includes the 'Sound Absorption Level of Walls' and awareness concerning KGBCC and its effects are positive. 'Sound Absorption Level of Floor' as common indicators and 3 2) As an analysis result of the total satisfaction level on indicators for the M apartment. These indicators showed a lower assessment indicators from KGBCC, G was 1.1 and M 0.7 satisfaction level and scoring rate than the average, so these are the which are close to the 'A little satisfaction'. In analysis by first indicators to be considered for improvement. For upgrading category, the 'Ecological Environment' category showed directions, active planning derivations are needed by standard the highest satisfaction level at 1.46; however the scoring adjustment, increasing allotted points, and weighting, and especially rate appeared to be relatively low so that there are various 'Sound Absorption Level of Floor' requires quality improvement. improvement points. 'Land Use and Transportation' The indicators belong to Group D which shows a lower and 'Additional Category' showed big differences scoring rate and higher satisfaction level than the average, JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee 61 of satisfaction level, and the 'Energy Resources and KGBCC based on residents' survey. The research results Environmental Load' category showed a high scoring rate can be used as the basis for improving the assessment but relatively low satisfaction level, so the adjustment of indicators of apartments in the KGBCC. The limitation of the assessment standard is necessary. this research report is that the subjects of the study were 3) In the analys is res ults of s atisfaction level by limited to only two apartments. Thus, substantial follow- assessment indicators, 9 (G) and 7 (M) out of 19 indicators up research is needed with multiple data analysis, and appeared to be higher than 'a little satisfaction', however, with these additional research results, further research 'Satisfied' (2.0) appeared only in the G apartment for regarding an improved model of KGBCC standards for 'Establishment of Pedestrian Pathway' and 'Green Space apartments in Korea can be drawn up in the future. Ratio', and the indicators approaching 'very satisfied' (3.0) did not appear at all. This indicates that certification Acknowledgement standards and satisfaction levels need to be elevated. This work was supported by the Korea Science and Also, in certification evaluation, most of the assessment Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the standards evaluate the quantity such as area or the number Korea government (MEST) (NO. 20100000265) and by of installations, so the developments of new indicators to the National research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant assess the quality of the plan are required. funded by the Korea government (MEST) (NRF-2011- Additionally, in spite of two updates of KGBCC, it 0000866). focused on the system, not on detail standards, so the detailed contents of the plan were not evaluated by the References 1) Choi, H. and Shin, K. (2008) Analysis of Interior Features of KGBCC. As a result, the difference of score was not Indoor Community Facilities in the Apartment Complex. Journal coupled with the actual satisfaction level, and even of Korea Institute of Interior Design 2008, 17(5), pp.80-90. indicators with the same assessment score showed a 2) Han, K., Kim, A., and Kim, S. (2007) An Analysis of Domestic different satisfaction level. Therefore, major complements Environment-Friendly Building Design Certification. Workshop of with adjustment of the detailed standard and addition of the Korea Institute of Ecological Architecture and Environment, 13(11), pp.53-56. new indicators are necessary. 3) Kim, B. (2006) Introduction and the Present Condition of Korean Green 4) Based on the synthetic analysis result, the assessment Building Certification Criteria. Journal of Korean Association of Air indicators were arranged by the average of total Conditioning, Refrigerating and Sanitary Engineers, 23(7), pp.34-15. satisfaction level and scoring rate, and the improvement 4) Kim, C., Lim, T., and Kim, B. (2008) A Study of Comparison directions were indicated. between Green Building Certification Criteria and Ecological Area Rate System in Apartment Housing. The journal of the Society of The indicators in group A showed higher satisfaction Air-conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea, pp.1219- level and scores than the average which have a positive affect on residents' satisfaction level. For improvement, 5) Kim, C., Mo, J., Kim, G., and Kim, B. (2008) A Study of Green gradual quality elevations on general planning contents are Building Certification Criteria for Advanced Design in Curtain needed through classification and the new development of Walls of Residential Buildings. Journal of Korean Solar energy key indicators. Society, pp.155-160. 6) Kim, D., Lee, T., and Lee, S. (2008) A Development on a Simple Group B contains indicators with a high score and low Measuring Method for the Environment-friendly Extent of Office satisfaction that requires strengthening of the assessment Buildings. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 24(6), standard to improve planning contents and satisfaction pp.193-200. level. Also, in spite of the qualified quantities, the qualities 7) Kim, H. (2008) A Users' Preference Study of Design Elements for of the planning contents are still low, which decreased Environmentally-Friendly Apartment Housing in Korea. Journal satisfaction level. As a result, the additions of new of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 18(6), pp.27-36. indicators for quality evaluation are necessary. 8) Kim, M., Hwang, J., Park, K., and Son, W. (2008) A Study on Group C showed low on both the satisfaction level the Improvement of Assessment Criteria through Green Building Certification Cases for Apartment Houses. Journal of the Society and related scores, which are the first parts to improve. of Air-conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea, pp.563- Aggressive derivations of planning are needed for this group by expansion of the standard, allot points, and 9) Lee, H., Choi, C., and Jo, M. (2007) A Study on Comparing and weighting, and especially for 'Sound Absorption Level of Analyzing Items of Foreign Green Building certification Criteria. Floors', improvement of planning quality with adjustment Journal of the Korean Institute of Architectural Environment and of evaluation standards are strongly required. Building System, 1(2), pp.41-49. Group D includes indicators which are of a higher 10) Lee, K., and Lee, K. (2008) Analysis on Landscape Characteristics satisfaction level and lower scores than the average. of Entrance Spaces in the Apartment Complex – A case study of 'Award of Good Apartment Living. Journal of Korea Institute of The satisfaction level appeared to be relatively high but Ecological Architecture and Environment, 8(6), pp.47-56. absolute values are low, so there is a lot of room for 11) Lee, K., and Yeom, D. (2008) A Study on the Establishment improvement. As a result, it requires gradual quality of Weight for Sustainability Assessment Indicators and Test upgrades by incentive adjustment or new grants, Scoring for Super High-rise Apartment Complexes. Journal of the development of new indicators for planning contents and Architectural Institute of Korea, 24(3), pp.23-32. performance, and lowering adjustment of allotted points 12) Lee, K. and Yeom, D. (2009) Comparative Research of Residents' for some indicators. Satisfaction Level between Green Building-Certified Apartment The significance of this study is the verification of Complexes and General Apartment Complexes in Korea, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 8(2), pp.423-430. residents' understanding of the KGBCC, analyzing overall satisfaction levels, cause of dissatisfaction, and scores, and indicating the improvement directions of the 62 JAABE vol.11 no.1 May 2012 Kyu-In Lee
Journal
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering
– Taylor & Francis
Published: May 1, 2012
Keywords: Green Building Certification System; residents' satisfaction level; assessment standard; KGBCC
