Assessment of daylight factors in classrooms using analytic hierarchy process: ensuring a healthy and productive learning environment
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Architecture, University of Batna 1, Algeria
2
Department of Architecture, University of Guelma, Algeria
Submission date: 2024-09-24
Final revision date: 2024-11-11
Acceptance date: 2024-11-18
Publication date: 2025-04-13
Corresponding author
Nesma Fercha
Department of Architecture, University of Batna 1, Algeria
Geomatics, Landmanagement and Landscape 2025;(1)
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
A well-designed classroom environment is essential for effective learning, and natural light plays a fundamental role in creating a space conductive to concentration and comfort. This study investigates the intricate relationship between visual comfort and natural light in classroom by employing the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP emerges as an invaluable tool for lighting engineers, architects, and decision-makers in the education sector. It allows them to systematically identify rank, and prioritize the factors that most significantly influence daylight quality. The architectural elements examined in this study include the climate, color of walls and ceiling, window design, and dimensions, orientation of the classroom, and the presence of shading elements. Interior design considerations, such as furniture arrangement, choice of materials, and the height of desks and chairs, are also evaluated for their impact on natural lighting. Collectively, these variables shape the overall lighting environment of a classroom. This study aims to determine the relative importance of each factor, providing valuable insights that can guide evidence-based design strategies to enhance student performance through improved lighting. The findings confirms that daylight quality in classrooms necessitates taking into account a number of key factors, with a focus on climate and hour of the day as well as window design and color. These insights are guided by the outcomes of the AHP evaluation. It allows for
comprehensive assessments of lighting quality by systematically weighing the various factors that influence both natural and artificial lighting, facilitating informed decisions about design improvements and optimal funding allocation.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 2017. Handbook of fundamentals. Atlanta, GA.
2.
Badri M., Al Qubaisi A., Mohaidat J., Al Dhaheri H., Yang G., Al Rashedi A., Greer K. 2016. An analytic hierarchy process for school quality and inspection: Model development and application. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(4), 507–529.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-0....
3.
Bluyssen P.P. 2013. Understanding the indoor environment. Springer, Delft, South Holland, Netherlands.
4.
Buratti C., Belloni E., Merli F., Ricciardi P. 2018. A new index combining thermal, acoustic, and visual comfort of moderate environments in temperate climate. Building and Environment, 139, 27–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
5.
Chan S.Y. et al. 2017. On the study of thermal comfort and perceptions of environmental features in urban parks: A structural equation modeling approach. Building and Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
6.
Day J.K. et al. 2019. Blinded by the light: Occupant perceptions and visual comfort assessments of three dynamic daylight control systems and shading strategies. Building and Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
7.
Dehimi S. 2021. The use of new techniques in spatial modeling and analysis of urban quality of life: Multiple-criteria decision analysis and GIS. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 35(2), 355–363.
https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.3....
8.
Dhingra S. 2023. Interior lighting influences work efficiency and human behaviour. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 13(2), 83–93.
9.
Haverinen-Shaughnessy U., Shaughnessy R.J., Cole E.C., Toyinbo O., Moschandreas D.J. 2015. An assessment of indoor environmental quality in schools and its association with health and performance. Building and Environment, 93, 35–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
11.
Ho W., Ma X. 2018. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(1), 399–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor....
12.
Hopfe C.J., Augenbroe G.L.M., Hensen J.L.M. 2013. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty in building performance assessment. Building and Environment, 69, 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
13.
Kanagaraj G., Mahalingam A. 2011. Designing energy-efficient commercial buildings. A systems framework. Energy and Buildings, 43(9), 2329–2343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbu....
14.
Kong Z. et al. 2018. The impact of interior design on visual discomfort reduction: A field study integrating lighting environments with POE survey. Building and Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
15.
Lai J.H.K., Yik F.W.H. 2011. An analytical method to evaluate facility management services for residential buildings. Building and Environment, 46(1), 165–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
16.
Leccese F., Salvadori G., Rocca M. 2016. Visual discomfort among university students who use CAD workstations. Work, 55(1), 171–180.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-16....
17.
Marjaba G.E., Chidiac S.E., Kubursi A.A. 2020. Sustainability framework for buildings via data analytics. Building and Environment, 178, 106730.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
18.
Nadoushani M.Z.S., Akbarnezhad A., Ferre Jornet J., Xiao J. 2017. Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria. Building and Environment, 121, 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
19.
Naziris I.A., Lagaros N.D., Papaioannou K. 2016. Optimized fire protection of cultural heritage structures based on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Building Engineering, 8, 292–304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe....
20.
Potočnik J. et al. 2020. Influence of commercial glazing and wall colours on the resulting non-visual daylight conditions of an office. Building and Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
21.
Reinhart C., Selkowitz S. 2012. Daylight design of commercial buildings. John Wiley & Sons.
22.
Ricciardi P., Buratti C. 2018. Environmental quality of university classrooms: Subjective and objective evaluation of the thermal, acoustic, and lighting comfort conditions. Building and Environment, 127, 23–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
23.
Sangkakool T., Jumani Z.A. 2024. Improving natural and artificial lighting in coastal architecture classrooms: Insights and applications. Journal of Daylighting, 11(1), 23–38.
24.
Saaty T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International.
25.
Santos P., Carvalho Pereira A., Gervásio H., Bettencourt A., Mateus D. 2017. Assessment of health and comfort criteria in a life cycle social context: Application to buildings for higher education. Building and Environment, 123, 625–648.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
27.
Xue P., Mak C.M., Cheung H.D. 2014. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings: A questionnaire survey. Building and Environment, 81, 51–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buil....
28.
Young C.E. Jr., Klaiwitter R.A. 1968. Hydrology of wetland forest watersheds. Proceedings of the CUCOH Hydrological Conference, Clemson University, 28–29 March 1968, 29–38.
29.
Zhang C. et al. 2019. Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese public transport service. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.....