Next Article in Journal
Conceptual Models of Franchisee Behaviors in the Dietary Supplements and Cosmetics to Imply the Business Investments
Previous Article in Journal
Strategies of Public University Building Maintenance—A Literature Survey
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/su16104286
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Discrepancies of Functional Requirements of Façade Opening System between Real-Life Public and Built Environment Experts Focusing on Thermal Comfort and Ventilation

by
Woohyoung Lee
1,
Dong Hee Choi
2,* and
Dong Hwa Kang
3
1
Department of Architectural Engineering, Graduate School, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Republic of Korea
2
Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Urban Sciences, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(10), 4286; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104286
Submission received: 19 October 2023 / Revised: 18 April 2024 / Accepted: 10 May 2024 / Published: 19 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Green Building)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A survey was conducted to analyze the discrepancies of the functional requirements of the façade system in residential units among 605 of the real-life public and 73 experts. Personal and housing information, resident life patterns, public façade usage behavior, and functional requirements were collected from the respondents. Both the public and experts recognized insulation as the main function of façade opening systems. More than 85% of the public and experts opened windows for ventilation, but ventilation was ranked 3rd amongst the public and 4th amongst experts in the main functions list of façade systems. The public cited the inflow of fine dust as the main reason for dissatisfaction with opening windows. In contrast, the experts cited a decrease in thermal comfort due to the inflow of external moisture as the reason for dissatisfaction with opening windows. The results showed that discrepancies exist between the public and experts’ perceptions of the main function of housing façade systems. Analyzing the common points and differences between the public and experts’ perception can help in developing façade system design and control technology.

1. Introduction

Façade systems are important architectural elements that directly control the indoor environment quality [1,2]. Windows of building façades are mainly made of glass, making them one of the most thermally vulnerable building elements [3,4,5]. Various functional façade systems have been developed and applied to actual buildings to compensate for thermal vulnerabilities and to improve the performance of windows [6,7,8]. Recently, insulated tempered glass with multiple glass layers or special films have been developed [9,10,11]. Nevertheless, windows of building façades cause significant heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer. The thermal insulation standard for exterior walls and windows in the central region of Korea was strengthened from 0.36 W/m2∙K and 2.1 W/m2∙K in 2010 to 0.17 W/m2∙K and 1.0 W/m2∙K in 2018, respectively [12], which is similar to German passive house standards [13]. In addition, to prevent indoor heat gain/loss due to natural ventilation during heating/cooling and to improve the indoor air environment, the ventilation rate is set at 0.5 h−1 to meet the indoor ventilation standard for apartment houses. Similarly, residential heat recovery ventilators are installed to supplement natural ventilation through windows [14].
In residential buildings, windows perform various functions, such as insulation, ventilation, daylighting, and outdoor viewing. Engineers design windows assuming ideal window control, considering the design criteria of the environmental performance of windows, and predict building performance accordingly. However, in many cases, the operation or control of windows by residents is not based on ideal control conditions for window performance but is determined by their perception of window functions based on their experience. Several studies have been conducted on the effect of windows on indoor thermal comfort and ventilation in residential buildings. Wong and Li [15] analyzed the effect of various factors of residential buildings including windows on indoor thermal comfort and cooling load. When the building direction is changed from east–west to south–north, the cooling load can be reduced by 8.57–11.54% and by 2.62–10.13% when the 0.3–0.9 m horizontal window shading device is applied. Kubota et al. [16] measured the effect of window opening mode in two terraced houses on the indoor thermal environment. It was confirmed that night ventilation reduced indoor peak temperature by 2.5 °C and average nocturnal temperature by 2 °C compared to daytime ventilation. Tong et al. [17] analyzed the factors affecting the indoor thermal environment through on-site measurement of the indoor temperature near the windows of an apartment house. When the window-to-wall ratio was reduced from 0.9 to 0.6, the temperature near the windows decreased by 4.1 °C, confirming the importance of the windows in the indoor thermal environment. These previous studies focused on the technical functional characteristics of façades, including windows, from an expert point of view. However, the actual adjustment of façade systems is determined according to the perception of the window function based on the resident’s experience. Therefore, it is also necessary to analyze the perception and behavioral characteristics of the public. The occupant behavior in buildings affects occupants’ thermal comfort and energy consumption due to interactions with the buildings’ indoor environment and its systems. It is necessary to assess occupant behavior [18,19,20], especially since occupant behavior has been found to significantly influence building energy performance and occupant comfort [21]. In terms of the implementation of building energy policies, some policymakers and managers in the building sector have recognized that occupant behavior plays an important role in the effectiveness of relevant strategies [22,23].
Various studies have attempted to analyze the relationship between public perceptions and the indoor environment. Frontczak et al. [24] surveyed 645 people living in Denmark to analyze factors affecting residents’ comfort in an indoor environment. The respondents confirmed that major indoor environmental variables such as visual, acoustic, and thermal conditions and air quality were the critical variables determining comfort. In addition, 54% of the respondents had at least one problem with the indoor environment, but the majority were not proactive in solving it. This study suggested the need to improve people’s knowledge of the method. Mertz et al. [25] confirmed a difference in the risk perception from chemicals between experts and the public. Generally, there is a negative reaction toward chemical substances, and the sensitivity to harmful effects tends to be lower in the public than in experts regarding using chemical substances. Timmons et al. [26] evaluated the handling of different contextual factors influencing COVID-19 infection in 800 of the general population and 56 medical experts. Compared with medical experts, the public perceives lower risks related to environmental factors, confirming a difference in perception between experts and the public. Until now, most studies have focused on the technical functional characteristics of windows from an expert viewpoint. Considering the significant impact of windows on the indoor environment, it is important to investigate the difference in perceptions of window usage behaviors and required functions between the public and experts.
Several studies have demonstrated that, due to various behaviors of occupants, energy usage in residential buildings can vary by up to twice as much even under identical equipment and device conditions [27,28]. Cole and Brown [29] showed that building designers often believe that occupants will act rationally and logically based on their beliefs and understanding to save energy. However, random decisions from occupants to adopt an energy-saving intention can lead to no impact on energy-saving behaviors [30]. Also, Day and Gunderson [31] highlighted that the probability of utilizing the actual performance of high-performance buildings depended on the occupant’s knowledge required to operate passive design systems and high-efficiency technology, as well as the occupants’ expectations for comfort and satisfaction with the indoor environment.
Studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of occupants’ random decisions based on their personal satisfaction and knowledge of system operation on actual building behavior. However, there is a lack of research assessing the differences in the use of façade opening systems and building systems from the perspective of the general public with empirical knowledge and experts with theoretical knowledge. Therefore, in this study, a survey was performed to analyze the discrepancies of functional requirements of façade opening systems between the public and experts focusing on thermal comfort and ventilation. This study compared and analyzed the window usage behavior and required functions from the perspectives of the public based on real-life experience and experts working in the field of the built environment and HVAC systems based on the basic built environment theory and research results and clarified the gap between experience and expertise. The results of this study can help in developing window system design and control technology by increasing the understanding of the public’ use of windows and analyzing the common points and differences between the public and experts’ perceptions of the behavior and functions of housing façade systems.

2. Method

An online survey was conducted for six weeks, from September 2021 to October 2021, targeting married women living in residential buildings and experts working in educational and research institutes in the field of building environments and systems. Married women were selected as the general respondents of the public to assign one respondent for each household, which avoids the duplication of respondents. Married women in their 70s or older often live with their children or in nursing facilities; hence, the target age of the participants selected was between 20 and 69. The number of respondents was n = 605 for the public survey. The number of respondents by age was set as 10%, 30%, 30%, 20%, and 10% for respondents in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, respectively, considering the population ratio of married women by age in Korea [32]. The regions of the respondents were determined according to the classification criteria for the thermal insulation standard of exterior walls and windows by region and were divided into central, southern, and Jeju (Figure 1). According to the population ratio of each climate zone in Korea, the number of respondents by region was set as 70%, 20%, and 10% in the central, southern, and Jeju regions, respectively [33]. The higher proportion of respondents in the central region was because this region is comparatively large (72,457 km2) and houses 69.9% of the population [34]. In contrast, gender and region were not fixed for the expert survey. University professors and researchers majoring in built environments and building systems nationwide were considered. We listed professors at domestic universities and researchers working at national research institutes and relevant companies. A total of 120 of these experts were approached through their emails, with 73 experts participating in the online survey.
The overall climate of Korea has four distinct seasons: spring, summer, fall, and winter. Among them, summer is hot and humid, while winter is cold and dry, representing the most significant seasonal differences [35,36]. The average 10-year temperatures (2011–2020) in the central and southern regions of Korea, as well as Jeju, are 12.3, 13.6, and 16.5 °C, respectively. The monthly average temperature and relative humidity [37] are shown in Figure 2.
The typical types of heating and ventilation systems applied in a Korean residential household are shown in Figure 3. A radiant floor heating system with a hot water pipe embedded in the floor is common in residential households (Figure 3a), and a packaged air conditioning unit is used for cooling. Only natural ventilation using windows was possible for household ventilation, but a heat recovery ventilator has been applied to residential units built since 2006 (Figure 3b). There are balconies overlooking the living room, bedroom, and kitchen of each household, which can be extended for use as desired. In non-extended balcony windows, a single window system is applied to the outside, while a double window system is applied to the extended balcony windows.
This study compared and analyzed the discrepancies of functional requirements of a façade opening system between the real-life public and experts focusing on thermal comfort and ventilation. Both groups were surveyed for personal and housing information, resident life patterns, resident window use behavior, and the functions expected of windows. Under personal information, gender, age, residential area, marital status, age of children, number of household members, and air quality sensitivity were investigated. Residential areas were selected by dividing the entire region into central, southern, and Jeju based on climate zones. Marital status and family composition were investigated to analyze the perspective of window function according to family composition. Participants who live with no children or with infants, toddlers, elementary school students, middle and high school students, and adults 19 years of age or older were considered. To determine the sensitivity of residents to the indoor environment, the degree of sensitivity to overall quality, including the indoor air temperature and humidity, was established. For housing information, the housing type, area, age, and balconies were investigated. The type of residence was broadly divided into single-family houses and multi-unit dwellings per the Building Act [38]. Among multi-unit dwellings, houses with five or more floors were subdivided into apartments. Resident life patterns considered the length of time spent indoors, heating and cooling methods and satisfaction by season/day, ventilation methods and satisfaction, ventilation time by season/day, and ventilation methods on days with severe fine dust. In the survey of residents’ use of windows and window function requirements, important factors were the age of windows in residences, extended or non-extended balconies, the need to install a shading device and satisfaction, and satisfaction according to windows and window functions. Survey questions for the public and experts are given in Appendix A. All respondents of the survey were given detailed information about this study before written consent was obtained.
Frequency analysis was performed on the response results for each questionnaire item, and a 5-point scale analysis was performed for some questions. Statistical analysis was performed on the collected data using IBM SPSS 26.0 [39]. A cross-analysis compared the perspectives of the public and experts on respondents’ characteristics, residential units’ and window systems’ characteristics, heating/cooling behaviors, ventilation behaviors, and window usage conditions and required functions. In addition, a chi-squared test measured the correlation between two categorical variables. Moreover, Fisher’s exact test was performed when the expected frequency of less than 5 was more than 20% of all cells.

3. Results

3.1. Respondent Characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of respondents. Only women were surveyed as part of the public. For experts, the proportion of male respondents (69.9%) was 2.3 times higher than that of female respondents (30.1%). The age range of the respondents ranged from 20 to 69 years old, and overall, the respondents aged 30 to 49 accounted for the largest proportion with 60.1% of the public and 69.9% of the experts.
The central region had the highest number of participants both for the public and experts, accounting for 70.1% and 78.1%, respectively, of the total respondents. This is followed by the southern region, accounting for 20.2% and 19.2%, respectively, and Jeju, accounting for 9.8% and 2.7%, respectively. Proportions of 60.5% of the public and 67.1% of the experts had 3–4 member households. Single-person households accounted for less than 2% of the general population including families such as widowed, divorced, and separated. The number of single-person households was ten times higher among experts. The education and job profiles indicate a difference in expertise level between the public and experts. Finally, 53.7% of the public stayed at home more than 12 h per day, whereas only 9.6% of the experts stayed at home more than 12 h per day.
Figure 4 shows the sensitivity toward the indoor air environment according to the number of family members. Overall, 76.7% of the public and 87.7% of the experts answered that they were sensitive or very sensitive to the indoor air environment. Among the public and expert group, the percentage of respondents who answered “Not sensitive” was highest at 10% and 7.7%, respectively, when there was only one family member. Moreover, the public’s sensitivity toward the indoor air environment showed a strong correlation with region and residence time (p < 0.005), but no correlation was found in the case of experts (p > 0.05).

3.2. Characteristics of Residential Units and Window System

Table 2 summarizes the housing characteristics of survey respondents. Most respondents live in apartment buildings with five or more floors. The floor area of 99–132 m2 is the highest for both groups, and the highest occupancy is in units aged 10 to 20 years for both groups. The completion period of the house and the window installation period were almost the same, showing a strong correlation between the two variables (p < 0.005). If there is a difference, it is the result of window replacement within the unit. The proportion of the public and the experts who extended the balcony was 41.7% and 49.3%, respectively, showing a slight difference. Both groups showed a strong association between the type of house in which they live and whether or not the balcony was extended (p < 0.005).

3.3. Seasonal Public Behavior for Thermal Comfort and Window Satisfaction

Figure 5 shows the survey response results for the first-priority action to reduce the heat in residential buildings in summer from the following: running the air conditioner (AC), opening the windows, running the fan, doing nothing, and others. The air conditioner was the preferred choice for both groups (46.1% (day) and 46.4% (night) for the public; and 64.4% (day) and 52.1% (night) for experts). Window opening was the second-most frequently selected behavior (32.9% (day) and 27.1% (night) for the public; 26% (day) and 24.7% (night) for experts). Both groups have a lower rate of window opening and a higher rate of fan use at night. Air conditioner use is 18.3% higher during the day and 5.7% higher at night amongst experts compared to the public, confirming that experts actively use the air conditioning system to combat heat compared to the public.
Figure 6 shows the survey response results on the satisfaction with opening windows in residential buildings in summer. The percentage of dissatisfied or very dissatisfied was 26.3% (day) and 17.7% (night) for the public, and 55.5% (day) and 33.3% (night) for the expert, which is more than twice as high. Moreover, both groups are more dissatisfied during the day than at night. In particular, the rate of dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with opening windows was 55.5% for experts during the day, 29.2% higher than that of the general population at 26.3%.
Figure 7 shows the results of survey responses on the reasons for dissatisfaction with opening windows in residential buildings in summer. Proportions of 34.2% (day) and 44.2% (night) of the public and 48.1% (day) and 48.2% (night) of the experts answered that it is ‘still hot’ even with open windows in summer. For the public, ‘fine dust inflow’ was ranked second with an average of 23.1%, whereas, for experts, thermal comfort due to moisture inflow was ranked second with an average of 15.5%. In the case of the public, it can be seen that there is great concern about the inflow of fine dust due to the opening of windows during the daytime. In the case of the experts, the reason for dissatisfaction with opening the windows was the decrease in thermal comfort due to the inflow of external moisture when the windows were opened in summer.
Figure 8 shows the survey response results for the first-priority action to increase heat in residential buildings in winter. Unlike summer, the opening of windows is limited in winter because of heating. Respondents chose one of the following actions to deal with the cold: running radiant floor heating, wearing extra clothes, using a heater, doing nothing, and others. The majority of residences in Korea are equipped with a radiant floor heating system. Depending on the resident, a fan heater, a radiant bar heater, a convector heater, and a heated blanket are also used. The public selected radiant floor heating at rates of 39.8% (day) and 44.5% (night); these are 63% (day) and 60.3% (night) for experts. Similar to the summer results, the use of the active system is higher amongst experts than the public to reduce cold. Wearing additional clothes (37.5%) was found to be almost equally preferable to radiant floor heating (39.8%) during the daytime by the public. As such, the public actively uses a passive control method that increases the amount of clothing in addition to an active heating system for thermal comfort during winter. There is a correlation between the first-priority action to address the cold during the day and night and the region (p < 0.05) in the case of the public, but no correlation is observed in the case of experts.

3.4. Seasonal Public Behavior for Ventilation and Window Satisfaction

Figure 9 shows the survey response results of the main ventilation methods in residential buildings. Respondents chose from natural ventilation through windows, operating heat recovery ventilators (HRVs), operating kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans, and others as actions for household ventilation. Most of the public (87.6%) and experts (83.6%) chose opening windows as the main ventilation method. For the public, there was a correlation between the main ventilation method and the age of the window (p < 0.05), whereas, for experts, there was no correlation (p > 0.05). The heat recovery ventilator is selected only by 6.9% and 8.2% of the public and experts, respectively, while 4.8% and 8.2% of the public and experts, respectively, chose exhaust fan operation.
Figure 10 shows the satisfaction result when ventilation is performed by the opening of the window. The proportion of the public and experts who answered ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ was 9% and 16.7%, respectively; the dissatisfaction rate was 1.9 times higher among experts. However, the level of dissatisfaction was lower than those of the public (22%) and experts (44.4%), who were dissatisfied with opening windows to relieve the summer heat.
Figure 11 shows the survey response results on the reasons for the dissatisfaction when opening the windows for ventilation. The public answered with the inflow of fine dust (47.2%) as the main reason for dissatisfaction, followed by insufficient ventilation (35.8%). In contrast, experts answered with insufficient ventilation (75%), followed by thermal dissatisfaction (16.7%). Unlike the public, experts did not respond to the inflow of fine dust as a reason for dissatisfaction with the window opening. As such, the public perceive the inflow of fine dust as the main obstacle to opening windows for ventilation and heat movement.
Figure 12 shows the survey response results on the main ventilation methods on days with severe external fine dust. Respondents selected from air purifier operation, no ventilation, open windows, operating the heat recovery ventilator, operating exhaust fan in kitchen and bathroom, and others as the ventilation method on days with high external fine dust concentration. Overall, operating air purifiers ranked first at 41.9. No ventilation took second place with 30.2%, and even when ventilation was performed on a day with severe external fine dust, ventilation by opening the windows (17.5%) was more effective than operating the heat recovery ventilator (7.5%). For both groups, the main ventilation method on days with severe external fine dust was not found to be correlated with area or residence time (p > 0.05). The public showed a strong association (p < 0.005) with the main ventilation method and the level of sensitivity toward indoor air quality on days with severe external fine dust, whereas the experts did not.
Figure 13 shows the survey response results for the daily total ventilation time according to the season. Respondents were asked to select the total amount of time that they performed natural ventilation by opening windows, operating the heat recovery ventilator, and operating the kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans. Overall, the ventilation time in winter was lowest in both groups; in particular, the proportion of short-term ventilation time of less than one hour was 81.5% (public) and 85.2% (experts) in winter, 47.5% (public) and 36.6% (experts) in spring/autumn, and 38.4% (public) and 53.8% (experts) during the summer. While the public have a longer ventilation time during summer days than in spring/autumn, the opposite is true for experts. The public ventilated for more than 5 h during summer (34.6%) than in spring/autumn (22.7%), but for experts, this was lower in summer (16.9%) than in spring/autumn (28.2%). This means that the public ventilate for a long time for heat comfort in summer. In the general population, there was no correlation between ventilation time and home residence time in spring/autumn and winter, but there was a correlation in summer (p < 0.05). On the other hand, no association between ventilation time and time spent in the house was found for experts.

3.5. Perception of Housing Window System Demand

Figure 14 shows the response results of the public and experts regarding the main functions of windows. The public (54%) and experts (39%) chose insulation as the first major function; daylighting was second at 21% and 28%, respectively. The public chose ventilation (9.3%) as the third-most important function, while ventilation (12.3%) was the fourth-most important function for experts. Figure 15 shows the response results for the satisfaction of the public and experts for the top 4 items of the main functions of the window system. Daylighting had the highest satisfaction (satisfied and very satisfied) at 62.8% and 76.7% for the public and experts, respectively. However, 53.4% and 46.6% of the public and experts, respectively, found insulation to be less than satisfactory (neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied). The public showed the highest dissatisfaction with insulation at 19.3%, and the experts showed the highest dissatisfaction with ventilation at 26%. Both groups showed a strong correlation between the window installation period and satisfaction with insulation (p < 0.005). In addition, the public showed a strong correlation between the window installation period and satisfaction with daylighting (p < 0.005), whereas the expert showed no correlation (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

A comparative analysis of survey results between the public and experts found a difference in the perception of the use of windows for seasonal thermal comfort and ventilation and the function of windows between the two groups. The real-life public showed more passive aspects in using air conditioning systems for relieving heat compared to the experts. This may be due to the burden of energy costs [40,41,42,43] or thermal discomfort [44,45] when using the cooling system. These results were repeatedly confirmed as they suggested passive use of the heating system in the questionnaire on using the heating system in winter. In particular, the public preferred the passive control method through adaptive behaviors, such as wearing more clothes during winter, more highly than the experts. The public control the indoor environment for thermal satisfaction by opening the windows or adjusting the amount of clothing without relying on the cooling and heating system. Considering that married women have a much longer residence time than experts and have more control over the actual housing environment, their responses can represent the actual housing environment adjustments and are as important as expert opinions. This difference in perception between experts and the public may cause errors in environmental control scenarios, such as opening/closing windows and using cooling and heating systems, which experts assume when evaluating the building’s energy or indoor environment.
Another factor to consider is that experts cited thermal causes as the first and second reasons for dissatisfaction with the opening of windows for air conditioning, such as hot air or moisture inflow. In contrast, the public found that the influx of fine dust contributed to dissatisfaction. Therefore, when deciding on the behavior of the public to opening windows, the thermal environment and indoor air quality control that prevent the inflow of air pollutants have a high priority. Various factors, such as air pollution and thermal environment control, must be considered when deciding on opening/closing behavior.
Both groups preferred natural ventilation to mechanical ventilation. In Korea, to reduce the sick building syndrome which causes adverse effects including upper-respiratory irritative symptoms, headaches, fatigue, and rash, which are usually associated with a particular building by their temporal pattern of occurrence and clustering among inhabitants, the ventilation standards for apartment houses were established in 2006 [14], and the spread of mechanical ventilation systems increased. A survey study 10 years after the enactment of the law found that although the awareness of the importance of ventilation is very high at 96%, the public has insufficient or erroneous information about the usage of the mechanical ventilation system [46]. The low preference of the public for using the mechanical ventilation system can be understood in line with the results of this study. However, it was unexpected that the experts with a good understanding of the role and effects of mechanical ventilation systems also showed a similar trend as the public. In particular, considering the responses of experts who actively responded to the use of cooling and heating systems, it can be expected that mechanical ventilation systems will be highly preferred. The cause of this requires additional analysis in the future because the satisfaction with the instantaneous ventilation obtained by opening the window is higher than that with the limited ventilation of the mechanical ventilation system set at 0.5 h−1. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the responses of the public and experts on the ventilation method when fine dust in the air is high, which may be because education and public campaigns on health risks and countermeasures of fine dust that have been continued in Korea were effective.
The main functions requested by the public for windows are insulation, daylighting, ventilation, and noise blocking. Though daylighting and ventilation were highly satisfactory, they were dissatisfied with the insulation, which is consistent with those of experts. However, contradictory results were found in responses to satisfaction with ventilation, with a relatively high dissatisfaction level among experts. When analyzed in conjunction with the survey results, it can be inferred that the difficulties in controlling the thermal environment and inflow of fine dust, moisture, or insects by opening the window are an unresolved problem. Moreover, the difference between experts and the real-life public is confirmed in the perception of the air pollution problem when the window is opened and the resulting satisfaction. Furthermore, we confirm that the real-life public and experts demand various functions of windows, and a difference in perception exists in some factors such as ventilation method and satisfaction. The findings of this study demonstrate that, despite the availability of heating and cooling devices, the public exhibits a preference for regulating their thermal environment through passive control methods. Considering a previous study [31], even the development of high-efficiency technology in the future could lead to inefficient building operations if the public lacks the necessary knowledge to apply the technology effectively. Therefore, this study provides the implication of the importance of precedential efforts to enhance occupants’ understanding through education on relevant technology, especially in the development of control logic for façade opening systems that consider occupant behaviors.
Our study had several limitations. First, our study does not include the surveying results of married men and single-person households. To obtain responses regarding the usage behavior and functional requirements of the façade opening system based on experiential knowledge, it is necessary to select respondents from the public who have resided in residential households for an extended period and primarily utilize the systems. Therefore, considering the number of respondents required for the study and research cost, this study was designed to assess the usage behavior and functional requirements of façade opening systems among married women as representatives of the public. Second, in our study, we did not provide survey results related to noise aspects and their impact on occupants’ perception. This aspect is related to another factor that needs further exploration: the position of apartments and individual houses in relation to the surrounding context. For further studies, examining variations in responses based on factors such as apartment floor, orientation, and surroundings is necessary to analyze the functional requirements of façade opening systems.

5. Conclusions

A survey was conducted to compare and analyze the viewpoints on window use behaviors in residential buildings and required functions among the public and experts. The participants comprised 605 married women who operate windows in their residences based on their personal preferences and experiences and 73 experts with systematic knowledge about the building environment and systems. This study confirmed a difference in perception in various aspects relating to the required function of windows among residents and experts. Understanding the common points and differences in perception between the public and experts can be used in developing multifunctional window system designs and control technology and modeling public behavior when predicting the building energy and indoor environment. Although various mechanical systems for controlling the indoor environment of a building are available, the preference for a passive control method is high. Considering that the passive control method does not achieve continuous and rational control provided by using a mechanical system, this may suggest that the current air conditioning and ventilation system does not meet user expectations. This study suggests that further advancements should be made to satisfy the needs of heating and cooling and ventilation system users.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.H.C. and D.H.K.; methodology, D.H.C.; software, W.L.; investigation, W.L. and D.H.C.; data curation, W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L. and D.H.C.; writing—review and editing, W.L., D.H.C. and D.H.K.; visualization, W.L.; project administration, D.H.C.; funding acquisition, D.H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2021R1A2C2014552).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board at Kyungil University. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the minimal risk posed to research subjects and the public.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Eun Young Park for the assistance with setting up the survey questionnaire.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Survey questions for the public and experts translated to English from Korean language.
Table A1. Survey questions for the public and experts translated to English from Korean language.
TopicQuestionResponse Alternatives
Personal informationQ1–Sex[Male/Female]
Q2–Age (years)[20–29/30–39/40–49/50–59/60–69, binned]
Q3–Region[Central/Southern/Jeju, chosen from map]
Q4–Marital status[Single/Married/Other (divorced, separated)]
Q5–Age of children (years)[None/Infants and toddlers (0–6)/Elementary school students (7–12)/Middle and high school students (13–18)/Adults (19 years of age or older)]
Q6–Number of family members[1/2/3/4/more than 5]
Q7–Education[High school graduate/Undergraduate/Graduate]
Q8–Job status[Housewife/Office technician/Expert/Freelance/Other]
Q9–How long do you stay at home?[Less than 8 h/Less than 12 h/Less than 18 h/Almost 24 h]
Q10–How sensitive are you with the indoor air quality?[Very not sensitive/Not sensitive/Neutral/Sensitive/Very sensitive]
Housing informationQ11–Housing type[Detached house/Attached house/Apartment/Other]
Q12–Unit area (m2)[33–66/66–99/99–132/132–165/More than 165, binned]
Q13–Age of the unit (year)[Less than 1/1–5/5–10/10–20/20–30/More than 30, binned]
Q14–Age of the window (year)[Less than 1/1–5/5–10/10–20/20–30/More than 30/No information, binned]
Q15–Have you extended balconies?[No balcony/Not extended/Extended]
Seasonal public behaviorCooling methods and satisfactionQ16–How do you deal with the heat at daytime in summer?[No action/Open windows/Turn on fans/Turn on air conditioner/Other]
Q16–1–How satisfied are you with the opening windows for reducing heat? (if chosen Open windows)[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q16–2–What is the main reason for dissatisfaction with opening windows? (if dissatisfied)[Insufficient window opening area/It’s still hot/Fine dust inflow/Moisture ingress/Insect infestation/Security threats/Noise ingress/Other]
Q16–3–What is the main reason for not opening windows? (if not chosen Opening windows)[Insufficient window opening area/It’s still hot/Fine dust inflow/Moisture ingress/Insect infestation/Security threats/Noise ingress/Other]
Q16–4–What is the average set-point temperature of air conditioner at daytime in summer? (if chosen Turn on air conditioner)[Less than 20 °C/20–23 °C/23–26 °C/26–28 °C/More than 28 °C]
Q17–How do you deal with the heat at nighttime in summer?[No action/Open windows/Turn on fans/Turn on air conditioner/Other]
Q17–1–How satisfied are you with the opening windows for reducing heat at nighttime in summer? (if chosen Open windows)[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q17–2–What is the main reason for dissatisfaction with opening windows at night? (if dissatisfied)[Insufficient window opening area/It’s still hot/It’s cold/Fine dust inflow/Moisture ingress/Insect infestation/Security threats/Noise ingress/Other]
Q17–3–What is the main reason for not opening windows at night? (if not chosen Opening windows[Insufficient window opening area/It’s still hot/It’s cold/Fine dust inflow/Moisture ingress/Insect infestation/Security threats/Noise ingress/Other]
Q17–4–What is the average set-point temperature of air conditioner at nighttime in summer? (if chosen Turn on air conditioner)[Less than 20 °C/20–23 °C/23–26 °C/26–28 °C/More than 28 °C]
Heating methods and satisfactionQ18–How do you deal with the cold at daytime in winter?[No action/Wear extra clothes/Use heater/Use radiant floor heating/Other
Q18–1–What is the average set-point temperature of radiant floor heating at daytime in winter? (if chosen Use radiant floor heating)[Less than 20 °C/20–23 °C/23–26 °C/26–28 °C/More than 28 °C]
Q19–How do you deal with the cold at nighttime in winter?[No action/Wear extra clothes/Use heater/Use radiant floor heating/Other
Q19–1–What is the average set-point temperature of radiant floor heating at nighttime in winter? (if chosen Use radiant floor heating)[Less than 20 °C/20–23 °C/23–26 °C/26–28 °C/More than 28 °C]
Q20–What is your action for reducing cold draft adjacent to windows[No action/Installing insulation curtains/Installing insulating materials, such as vinyl/Operating heating devices, such as stoves and electric blankets, near windows/Other]
Ventilation methods and satisfactionQ21–What ventilation method do you usually use?[Open windows/Turn on heat recovery ventilator/Turn on exhaust fans/Other]
Q21–1–How satisfied are you with opening windows for ventilation?[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q21–2–What is the main reason for dissatisfaction with the ventilation method through opening windows? (if chosen dissatisfied)[Hot or cold/Lack of ventilation/Fine dust inflow/Other]
Q22–What is the number of ventilations per day in spring and autumn?[No ventilation/1 time/2 times/More than 3 times/Always]
Q22–1–What is the total ventilation time per day in spring and autumn?[Less than 30 min/30 min–1 h/1–3 h/3–5 h/More than 5 h]
Q23–What is the number of ventilations per day in summer?[No ventilation/1 time/2 times/More than 3 times/Always]
Q23–1–What is the total ventilation time per day in summer?[Less than 30 min/30 min–1 h/1–3 h/3–5 h/More than 5 h]
Q24–What is the number of ventilations per day in winter?[No ventilation/1 time/2 times/More than 3 times/Always]
Q24–1–What is the total ventilation time per day in winter?[Less than 30 min/30 min–1 h/1–3 h/3–5 h/More than 5 h]
Q25–What is the main ventilation method on a day with severe fine dust?[No ventilation/Open windows/Turn on air purifier/Turn on heat recovery ventilator/Turn on exhaust fan/Other]
Public window and facade use behaviorQ26–What type of shading device is installed on living room windows? [None/Curtain/Venetian blind/Roll screen/Vertical blind]
Q26–1–How satisfied are you with the shading device you chose?[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q27–What type of shading device is installed on bedroom windows? [None/Curtain/Venetian blind/Roll screen/Vertical blind]
Q27–1–How satisfied are you with the shading device you chose?[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q28–Is a renewable energy system installed?[None/Photovoltaic panel/Do not know/Other]
Q28–1–Where is the system installed? (if chosen Photovoltaic panel)[Balcony/Roof/Do not know/Other]
Q28–2–How satisfied are you with the system? (if chosen Photovoltaic panel)[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Functions expected of windowsQ29–How much are you satisfied with each of the following window functions?
Q29–1–Insulation[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q29–2–Ventilation[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q29–3–Daylighting[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q29–4–View[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q29–5–Noise control[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q29–6–Privacy[Very dissatisfied/Dissatisfied/Neutral/Satisfied/Very satisfied]
Q30–Which window function do you think is important?[Insulation/Ventilation/Daylighting/View/Noise/Privacy]

References

  1. Kumar, K.; Saboor, S.; Kumar, V.; Kim, K.H.; TP, A.B. Experimental and theoretical studies of various solar control window glasses for the reduction of cooling and heating loads in buildings across different climatic regions. Energy Build. 2018, 173, 326–336. [Google Scholar]
  2. Konstantzos, I.; Tzempelikos, A.; Chan, Y.-C. Experimental and simulation analysis of daylight glare probability in offices with dynamic window shades. Build. Environ. 2015, 87, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shameri, M.; Alghoul, M.; Sopian, K.; Zain, M.F.M.; Elayeb, O. Perspectives of double skin façade systems in buildings and energy saving. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1468–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xamán, J.; Olazo-Gómez, Y.; Chávez, Y.; Hinojosa, J.F.; Hernández-Pérez, I.; Hernández-López, I.; Zavala-Guillén, I. Com-pu tational fluid dynamics for thermal evaluation of a room with a double-glazing window with a solar control film. Renew. Energy 2016, 94, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amaral, E.; Rodrigues, A.R.; Gaspar, A.R.; Gomes, Á. A thermal performance parametric study of window type, orientation, size and shadowing effect. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Favoino, F.; Goia, F.; Perino, M.; Serra, V. Experimental analysis of the energy performance of an ACTive, RESponsive and Solar (ACTRESS) façade module. Solar Energy 2016, 133, 226–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. De Gracia, A.; Navarro, L.; Castell, A.; Ruiz-Pardo, Á.; Alvárez, S.; Cabeza, L.F. Experimental study of a ventilated facade with PCM during winter period. Energy Build. 2013, 58, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, Y.; Darkwa, J.; Kokogiannakis, G.; Su, W. Phase change material blind system for double skin façade integration: System development and thermal performance evaluation. Appl. Energy 2019, 252, 113376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sharma, M.K.; Preet, S.; Mathur, J.; Chowdhury, A.; Mathur, S. Parametric analysis of factors affecting thermal performance of photovoltaic triple skin façade system (PV-TSF). J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, C.; Wang, J.; Xu, X.; Zou, F.; Yu, J. Modeling and thermal performance evaluation of a switchable triple glazing exhaust air window. Appl. Ther. Eng. 2016, 92, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kurnitski, J.; Jokisalo, J.; Palonen, J.; Jokiranta, K.; Seppänen, O. Efficiency of electrically heated windows. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 1003–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Korean Energy-Saving Design Standards. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsSc.do?section=&menuId=1&subMenuId=15&tabMenuId=81&eventGubun=060101&query= (accessed on 18 September 2023).
  13. International PASSIVE HOUSE Association, PASSIVE House Guidelines. Available online: https://passivehouse-interna tional.org/index.php?page_id=80 (accessed on 18 September 2023).
  14. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Regulations for Building Systems. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr (accessed on 18 September 2023).
  15. Wong, N.H.; Li, S. A study of the effectiveness of passive climate control in naturally ventilated residential buildings in Sin-gapore. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 1395–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kubota, T.; Chyee, D.T.H.; Ahmad, S. The effects of night ventilation technique on indoor thermal environment for residential buildings in hot-humid climate of Malaysia. Energy Build. 2009, 41, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tong, S.; Wong, N.H.; Tan, E.; Jusuf, S.K. Experimental study on the impact of facade design on indoor thermal environment in tropical residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2019, 166, 106418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schweiker, M.; Haldi, F.; Shukuya, M.; Robinson, D. Verification of stochastic models of window opening behaviour for residential buildings. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2012, 5, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Feng, X.; Yan, D.; Hong, T. Simulation of occupancy in buildings. Energy Build. 2015, 87, 348–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schakib-Ekbatan, K.; Çakıcı, F.Z.; Schweiker, M.; Wagner, A. Does the occupant behavior match the energy concept of the building?—Analysis of a German naturally ventilated office building. Build. Environ. 2015, 84, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hong, T.; Yan, D.; D’Oca, S.; Chen, C.-F. Ten questions concerning occupant behavior in buildings: The big picture. Build. Environ. 2017, 114, 518–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jain, R.K.; Gulbinas, R.; Taylor, J.E.; Culligan, P.J. Can social influence drive energy savings? Detecting the impact of social influence on the energy consumption behavior of networked users exposed to normative eco-feedback. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Allcott, H.; Mullainathan, S. Behavior and Energy Policy. Science 2010, 327, 1204–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Frontczak, M.; Andersen, R.V.; Wargocki, P. Questionnaire survey on factors influencing comfort with indoor environmental quality in Danish housing. Build. Environ. 2012, 50, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mertz, C.K.; Slovic, P.; Purchase, I.F.H. Judgments of Chemical Risks: Comparisons Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public. Risk Anal. 1998, 18, 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Timmons, S.; Belton, C.A.; Robertson, D.A.; Barjaková, M.; Lavin, C.; Julienne, H.; Lunn, P.D. Is it riskier to meet 100 people outdoors or 14 people indoors? Comparing public and expert perceptions of COVID-19 risk. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2022, 29, 32–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Palmborg, C. Social habits and energy consumer behavior in single-family homes. Energy 1986, 11, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gram-Hanssen, K. Domestic electricity consumption–consumers and appliances. Ecol. Econ. Consum. 2004, 132–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cole, R.J.; Brown, Z. Reconciling human and automated intelligence in the provision of occupant comfort. Intell. Build. Int. 2009, 1, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Truelove, H.B.; Carrico, A.R.; Weber, E.U.; Raimi, K.T.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Day, J.K.; Gunderson, D.E. Understanding high performance buildings: The link between occupant knowledge of passive design systems, corresponding behaviors, occupant comfort and environmental satisfaction. J. Affect. Disord. 2015, 84, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Statistics Korea. 2020. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1PF2013&vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE&list_id=A11_2015_1_001_006&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&language=kor&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=MT_ZTITLE (accessed on 30 August 2022).
  33. Statistics Korea. 2020. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=460&tblId=TX_315_2009_H1001&vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE&list_id=315_31502_008&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&language=kor&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=MT_ZTITLE (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  34. Statistics Korea. 2020. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1ZGA17&conn_p-ath=I2 (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  35. Lee, H.S.; Kang, C.M.; Kang, B.W.; Kim, H.K. Seasonal variations of acidic air pollutants in Seoul, South Korea. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 3143–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, S.N.; Lee, W.K.; Shin, K.I.; Kafatos, M.; Seo, D.J.; Kwak, H.B. Comparison of spatial interpolation techniques for predicting climate factors in Korea. Forest Sci. Technol. 2010, 6, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Korea Meteorological Administration. 2022. Available online: https://data.kma.go.kr/data/grnd/selectA sosRltmList.do?pgmNo=36 (accessed on 18 August 2023).
  38. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  39. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 26.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2019.
  40. Chua, K.J.; Chou, S.K.; Yang, W.M.; Yan, J. Achieving better energy-efficient air conditioning–a review of technologies and strategies. Appl. Energy 2013, 104, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, Z.; Jia, Q.S.; Guan, X. Optimal control of multiroom HVAC system: An event-based approach. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2015, 24, 662–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jin, B.; Nan, X.; Ning, X.; Wang, Z. Energy-saving operation strategy of air conditioning system in tea brick fermentation room under different outdoor meteorological parameters. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, 101883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Santamouris, M.; Kolokotsa, D. Passive cooling dissipation techniques for buildings and other structures: The state of the art. Energy Build. 2013, 57, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Melikov, A.K.; Nielsen, J.B. Local thermal discomfort due to draft and vertical temperature difference in rooms with dis-place ment ventilation. ASHRAE Trans. 1989, 95, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar]
  45. Peng, P.; Gong, G.; Mei, X.; Liu, J.; Wu, F. Investigation on thermal comfort of air carrying energy radiant air-conditioning system in south-central China. Energy Build. 2019, 182, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Available online: https://www.codil.or.kr/file bank/original/RK/OTKCRK200484/OTKCRK200484.pdf?stream=T (accessed on 17 August 2022).
Sustainability 16 04286 g001
Figure 1. Region division based on climate zones in Korea. The number and proportion of married women respondents by region are also shown.
Figure 1. Region division based on climate zones in Korea. The number and proportion of married women respondents by region are also shown.
Sustainability 16 04286 g001
Sustainability 16 04286 g002
Figure 2. Monthly average temperature and relative humidity by region in Korea for 2011–2020.
Figure 2. Monthly average temperature and relative humidity by region in Korea for 2011–2020.
Sustainability 16 04286 g002
Sustainability 16 04286 g003aSustainability 16 04286 g003b
Figure 3. Layout of a typical 108 m2 residential household in Korea (with units mm). (a) Radiant floor heating pipe layout drawn in red line; (b) heat recovery ventilator and duct layout drawn in blue line.
Figure 3. Layout of a typical 108 m2 residential household in Korea (with units mm). (a) Radiant floor heating pipe layout drawn in red line; (b) heat recovery ventilator and duct layout drawn in blue line.
Sustainability 16 04286 g003aSustainability 16 04286 g003b
Sustainability 16 04286 g004
Figure 4. Level of sensitivity toward indoor air quality according to the number of family members. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Figure 4. Level of sensitivity toward indoor air quality according to the number of family members. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Sustainability 16 04286 g004
Sustainability 16 04286 g005
Figure 5. Percentage of respondents for the first-priority action to reduce heat in summer. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Figure 5. Percentage of respondents for the first-priority action to reduce heat in summer. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Sustainability 16 04286 g005
Sustainability 16 04286 g006
Figure 6. Level of satisfaction with opening window in summer. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Figure 6. Level of satisfaction with opening window in summer. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Sustainability 16 04286 g006
Sustainability 16 04286 g007
Figure 7. Reasons for dissatisfaction with opening windows in summer. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Figure 7. Reasons for dissatisfaction with opening windows in summer. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Sustainability 16 04286 g007
Sustainability 16 04286 g008
Figure 8. First-priority actions for maintaining warmth in winter. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Figure 8. First-priority actions for maintaining warmth in winter. (a) Public; (b) expert.
Sustainability 16 04286 g008
Sustainability 16 04286 g009
Figure 9. Types of major ventilation methods.
Figure 9. Types of major ventilation methods.
Sustainability 16 04286 g009
Sustainability 16 04286 g010
Figure 10. Level of satisfaction with opening window.
Figure 10. Level of satisfaction with opening window.
Sustainability 16 04286 g010
Sustainability 16 04286 g011
Figure 11. Reasons for dissatisfaction with ventilation through open windows.
Figure 11. Reasons for dissatisfaction with ventilation through open windows.
Sustainability 16 04286 g011
Sustainability 16 04286 g012
Figure 12. Main ventilation method on days with severe external fine dust.
Figure 12. Main ventilation method on days with severe external fine dust.
Sustainability 16 04286 g012
Sustainability 16 04286 g013
Figure 13. Daily total ventilation time according to the season.
Figure 13. Daily total ventilation time according to the season.
Sustainability 16 04286 g013
Sustainability 16 04286 g014
Figure 14. Main functions of the window system.
Figure 14. Main functions of the window system.
Sustainability 16 04286 g014
Sustainability 16 04286 g015
Figure 15. Level of satisfaction with the main function of the window system.
Figure 15. Level of satisfaction with the main function of the window system.
Sustainability 16 04286 g015
Table 1. Respondent characteristics.
Table 1. Respondent characteristics.
CategoryPublic (Married Woman)
n = 605		Expert
n = 73
SexFemale605 (100%)22 (30.1%)
Male051 (69.9%)
Age group (years)20–2960 (9.9%)12 (16.4%)
30–39183 (30.2%)14 (19.2%)
40–49181 (29.9%)37 (50.7%)
50–59120 (19.8%)9 (12.3%)
60–6961 (10.1%)1 (1.4%)
RegionCentral424 (70.1%)57 (78.1%)
Southern122 (20.2%)14 (19.2%)
Jeju59 (9.8%)2 (2.7%)
Number of family members110 (1.7%)13 (17.8%)
2184 (30.4%)9 (12.3%)
3174 (28.8%)22 (30.1%)
4192 (31.7%)27 (37.0%)
More than 545 (7.4%)2 (2.7%)
EducationHigh school graduate122 (20.2%)0
Undergraduate 420 (69.4%)0
Graduate 63 (10.4%)73 (100%)
Job statusHousewife245 (40.5%)0
Office technician *225 (37.2%)20 (27.4%)
Expert/Freelance *53 (8.8%)49 (67.1%)
Other82 (13.5%)4 (5.5%)
Hours staying at home per day (h)Less than 848 (7.9%)17 (23.3%)
8–12232 (38.3%)49 (67.1%)
12–18215 (35.5%)7 (9.6%)
19–24110 (18.2%)0
* More than one category may apply.
Table 2. Characteristics of residential units and window systems.
Table 2. Characteristics of residential units and window systems.
Public (Married Woman)
n = 605		Expert
n = 73
Housing typeApartment452 (74.7%)58 (79.5%)
Attached house103 (17%)12 (16.4%)
Detached house38 (6.3%)2 (2.7%)
Other12 (2%)1 (1.4%)
Unit area (m2)33–6649 (8.1%)8 (11%)
66–99205 (33.9%)17 (23.3%)
99–132296 (48.9%)27 (37%)
132–16532 (5.3%)18 (24.7%)
More than 16523 (3.8%)3 (4.1%)
Age of the unitLess than 1 year24 (4%)1 (1.4%)
1–5 years146 (24.1%)21 (28.8%)
5–10 years110 (18.2%)8 (11%)
10–20 years164 (27.1%)25 (34.2%)
20–30 years110 (18.2%)14 (19.2%)
More than 30 years51 (8.4%)4 (5.5%)
Age of the windowLess than 1 year27 (4.5%)3 (4.1%)
1–5 years179 (29.6%)24 (32.9%)
5–10 years136 (22.5%)13 (17.8%)
10–20 years141 (23.3%)27 (37%)
20–30 years68 (11.2%)4 (5.5%)
More than 30 years14 (2.3%)0
No information40 (6.6%)2 (2.7%)
BalconyNo balcony73 (12.1%)11 (15.1%)
Non-extended280 (46.3%)26 (35.6%)
Extended252 (41.7%)36 (49.3%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, W.; Choi, D.H.; Kang, D.H. Discrepancies of Functional Requirements of Façade Opening System between Real-Life Public and Built Environment Experts Focusing on Thermal Comfort and Ventilation. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104286

AMA Style

Lee W, Choi DH, Kang DH. Discrepancies of Functional Requirements of Façade Opening System between Real-Life Public and Built Environment Experts Focusing on Thermal Comfort and Ventilation. Sustainability. 2024; 16(10):4286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104286

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Woohyoung, Dong Hee Choi, and Dong Hwa Kang. 2024. "Discrepancies of Functional Requirements of Façade Opening System between Real-Life Public and Built Environment Experts Focusing on Thermal Comfort and Ventilation" Sustainability 16, no. 10: 4286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104286

APA Style

Lee, W., Choi, D. H., & Kang, D. H. (2024). Discrepancies of Functional Requirements of Façade Opening System between Real-Life Public and Built Environment Experts Focusing on Thermal Comfort and Ventilation. Sustainability, 16(10), 4286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104286

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop