Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
SustainabilitySustainability
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

3 October 2017

Analysis of the Current Scoring Distribution by Evaluation Criteria in Korean Long-Life Housing Certification System Cases

and
Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 283, Goyangdae-ro, Goyang-si 10223, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2017, 9(10), 1794;https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101794
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Peoples lifestyles are diversifying due to an increase in the types of residents housing and family structures. The ratio of apartment housing in Korea was 59.9% (9806 households) in 2015, and this type accounts for the largest ratio among all housing types. However, the life of the physical housing is approximately 30–40 years, which is relatively shorter in comparison to that of overseas houses. Therefore, the certification system for long-life housing, which had longer social and physical service life, was newly established in 24 December 2014. However, all apartment houses only acquired the normal grade (grade 4). The purpose of this study is to investigate all long-life housing certification cases and analyze the acquired score and status of each evaluation item. The total number of certification cases was 283, and the data analysis and FGI (Focus Group Interview) investigation method were used as the methods of study. As a result of analysis and summary, 173 cases (61.13%) received 50 points and 106 cases (37.46%) received 51 points. All these cases were considered normal grade. The result of this study is as follows. First, a system to maintain the long-life housing certification system operation agency is necessary. Second, the reason for an item with no score was the evasion by construction companies due to an increase in both the construction expense and sale price. Therefore, various incentive plans are necessary and should be executed accordingly. Third, it is necessary to improve the detailed evaluation standards of the certification system and reexamine its scoring system. Long-life housing is a housing type in preparation for changes in the residential environment in future. The significance of this study is that the content shall be utilized as preliminary data for improving the system through the analysis of evaluation items in the certification system.

1. Introduction

1.1. Why Is the Service Life of Apartment Housing in Korea Gradually Decreasing?

Peoples lifestyles are diversifying due to a change in the types of residents’ housing and an increase in varied family structures, including the single-person family and two-person family. The ratio of single-person households and two-person households in Korea is expected to increase to 36.3% and 35%, respectively, until 2045, while the ratio of four-person households is expected to decrease to 7.4% [1].
According to the ratio of existing housing types, the ratio of apartment housing has gradually increased from 37.5% (3455 households) in 1995 to 59.9% (9806 households) in 2015 (Figure 1). This housing type accounts for the highest ratio among all housing types [2].
Figure 1. Ratio of existing houses by housing type.
Social requirements for housing are also changing. One such requirement is the life of housing. For apartment houses in Korea, the reconstruction term for general apartment housing has been reduced from up to 40 years to 30 years in the scope of dilapidated and low-quality structures according to Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. The Act has since been partially amended (18 January 2015), resulting in a shorter service life of apartment housing in Korea [3,4].
It is possible to secure more than 40 years for the physical life cycle of a building due to a number of attributes. These factors include the development of construction technologies for apartment housing parking structures, noise between floors, air conditioning and heating facility, and durability since the 2000s. However, the present condition does not address the social requirement mentioned earlier, that is, the social life cycle. Therefore, such apartment housing types are sometimes removed in their early stages [5,6,7,8].
According to a study on CO2 reduction of long-life housing, the author compared the physical life span of a typical apartment (40 years) and long-life housing (100 years) with the CO2 emissions. As a result, at least 33.04% to 36.18% of CO2 emissions have been reduced during the life cycle of long-life apartment. This study proves that long-life housings are socially sustainable housing [9].
The service life status of apartment housing in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do, the most densely populated areas in Korea, is as follows. The status of number of apartment buildings by service life in Seoul for the last three years (2014–2016) was examined (Table 1). The number of apartment buildings aged over 21 years was 7243 buildings (36.99%) in 2014, 7819 buildings (39.13%) in 2015, and 8038 buildings (40.27%) in 2016, indicating that its ratio is gradually increasing in comparison to newly constructed apartment buildings aged less than five years [10]. Compared with the past, the reconstruction of old housing complexes due to the declining population in Korea is more difficult than before. In addition, frequent reconstruction of housing (average 35–50 years) causes construction waste and social cost increase. An improvement of policy was required, and a long-life housing certification system was introduced.
Table 1. Number of buildings by the service life of apartment housing (Seoul).

1.2. Introduction Background of Long-Life Housing Certification System

According to Article 18 of the Regulations on the Housing Construction Standards, etc. the long-life housing certification is evaluated in accordance with the total scores from the evaluation of each performance based on the durability, flexibility, and maintainability (exclusive area and common area) [11].
Due to a growing need of apartment housing with longer social and physical life, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport newly established the long-life housing construction and certification standards based on Article 38 of the Housing Act in 24 December 2014 requiring the long-life housing certification for the construction of 1000 or more apartment houses [12]. However, all apartment houses have received the normal grade assessment, and, until now, there has been no case of acquiring the excellent grade or higher.
This study intends to analyze the acquired score and status of each evaluation item by investigating all long-life housing certification cases to date since the introduction of the long-life housing certification system. Through this process, the reasons for low certification grades, such as biased scoring on a specific item or an item with no score and relevant problems, will be identified and utilized for a basic study to improve the long-life housing certification system.

1.3. Collection of Certification Data and FGI Investigation

In this study, data for 283 cases were collected from January 2015 to June 2017 from seven certification agencies since the implementation of the long-life housing certification system. Such data account for 81.6% of the total 347 cases and exclude data from agencies that suspended the certification service and omitted data. Based on the collected data, the scoring status of each evaluation item was identified, and the biased scoring status of a specific item and instances of no grading were analyzed.
To investigate the reasons for such scoring status along with the data analysis, the FGI investigation was conducted using the interview method. Interview subjects comprised working-level personnel of long-life housing certification agencies [13,14]. FGI (Focus Group Interview) is a quantitative research method and it is carried out in the form of collecting opinions from research subjects with homogeneous characteristics. The method also incorporates facilitated discussions on a specific subject (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Research flowchart.
The research subjects comprised working-level personnel who handled the long-life certification service at certification agencies. The evaluation standards and status of long-life certification system were identified. The research method was utilized concurrently to collect opinions regarding the status and problems of various certification agencies. The opinions that were gathered supplemented the contents for the data analysis which was in the form of a qualitative survey.

3. Evaluation Purpose and Method of Long-Life Housing Certification System

According to Article 4 of the long-life housing construction certification standards, the evaluation purpose of the certification system is as follows [32] (Table 4).
Table 4. Evaluation purpose and method of long-life housing certification system.
First, the durability of structures such as column, beam, slab, bearing wall, public facilities and corridor (supports) is improved for the longevity of physical apartment houses. At the same time, infill, which is the material used to fill the space or hole of specific structures, such as ceiling, wall, floor, kitchen, bathroom, and other exclusively used facilities with shorter life, should not be laid in the structure and it should be separable [32] (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Support and Infill of Long-life Housing Concept.
Second, the elements, such as a bearing wall in the internal space of a house that obstructs variability are minimized. The column type structure, rather than wall type structure, is selected in order to improve variability.
Third, the system must adaptably respond to changes in the family composition and life cycle to promote functional long-life of housing. To meet this purpose, ease of repair should be established to facilitate easy maintenance such as inspection, repair, and replacement in preparation for deteriorating equipment or interior.
Fourth, unit planning that can reflect residents’ opinions should be carried out when planning spaces for various floor plans and elevation compositions. The association between a change of space and equipment plan should also be secured by considering the division and integration of future housing.

4. Analysis of Evaluation Items in Certification Cases

4.1. Evaluation Standards and Scoring Method

According to the attached Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 of the long-life housing construction certification standards, the evaluation standards and grading are provided [32]. For durability, the results with the lowest grade by evaluation items are totaled and displayed as the final grade. In the case of flexibility and maintainability, scores by detailed evaluation item are totaled, converted according to the relevant grade, and displayed as the final grade (Table 5).
Table 5. Evaluation standards by item of long-life housing certification system.
In summary of DU, FL, ME and MC, the standards are classified into four grades: normal (≥50 points), satisfactory (≥ 60 points), excellent (≥ 80 points), and best (≥ 90 points) (Table 6).
Table 6. Scoring standards by certification grade.

4.2. Durability

In the case of durability, the criteria consists of seven items including six items with respect to the concrete quality: specified design strength (fck), slump, unit binder content, water-to-binder ratio, air content and chloride content, and thickness of bar cover. According to Article 5 of the long-life housing construction certification standards notification, the durability is evaluated according to the performance grading standards set by grade, and, provided that each item has a different grade in the condition that Grade 4 is met, it should be evaluated for the total grade based on the lowest grade.
The main evaluation purpose of durability is to extend the physical life of a building through a high durability plan and promote the reduction of maintenance costs accordingly. For the thickness of bar cover, it is impossible to evaluate the degree of damage in the cases of newly constructed buildings. Therefore, the structural plan, thickness of bar cover, and concrete quality are evaluated using drawings and specifications (Figure 4). The analysis result is as follows (Table 7).
Figure 4. Evaluation cases of durability structure plan.
Table 7. Obtained scores by evaluation item for durability.
The highest grade for the thickness of bar cover was Grade III. No case obtained Grade I and two cases obtained Grade II (Figure 5). Many civil complaints for the standards for thickness of bar cover were raised due to the condition for the standards of Grade IV as well as the deduction of 10 mm for the minimum thickness of cover.
Figure 5. Distribution of acquired score by durability evaluation item.
The reason that no case received Grade I was as follows. Although it would be possible to apply technology that falls under a new construction technology while satisfying Grade II, it is difficult to apply such technology in terms of expiration date for the new technology (three years on average) and costs. Moreover, when Grade 1 is applied, the thickness of cover increases, which increases the thickness of wall as well as the cost. Therefore, construction companies tend to avoid this process. Since durability is a key element to determining the physical life of long-life housing, quality assurance and system improvement in terms of technology and cost should be conducted concurrently.
Furthermore, no case received Grade 1 for all five items with the exception of air content. The ratio of Grade II also did not exceed 10%. The explanation is that the current certification standards correspond to neither technical levels nor specification standards in the field.
Specified design strength (fck) was found to be difficult to receive scores in slab strength. In the case of air content, 22 cases received one point. The permissible range of air content was ±1.5% and the grading was evaluated within the standards of 4.0–6.0%. As a result, there was a difference in the interpretation of minimum and maximum scores by the certification agency. As a cost increase also occurs when meeting Grades 1 and 2, which are higher grades for each item, most cases intended to obtain scores while maintaining Grades 3 and 4.

4.3. Flexibility

According to Article 5 of the long-life housing construction certification standards notification, the application of the flexibility construction method to the support and infill is evaluated for variability. The Figure 6 is evaluated with the sum of scores for required items and optional items in the condition that required items are met [32]. The main evaluation purpose of flexibility is to respond to various spatial variability demands of residents flexibly according to the spatial variability in the house and the movement of water-using space.
Figure 6. Case of computation of length ratio of bearing wall and column unit floor planning.
The detailed evaluation standards consist of nine items including the length ratio of bearing wall and column (Table 8), ratio of dry wall among total internal walls in the house, easy variability structural method (a method which does not demolish the earlier process of final finishing materials on the floor, wall, ceiling, and modularization), piping above slab type method for bathroom and toilet, height increase (3000 mm or higher), installation of dry double floor, movement of bathroom, movement of kitchen, industrialization products, and replaceable methods for outer wall. The analysis result is as follows (Table 9).
Table 8. Calculation case of drywall and bearing wall application ratio.
Table 9. Obtained scores by evaluation item for variability.
Evaluation items showing the highest scoring rate were generally the length ratio of bearing wall and column and the ratio of drywall (Figure 6). Although the lowest grade was received for the length ratio of bearing wall and column among all houses based on the inside of the house, the flexibility accounted for the largest number of points. Grade III (10 points) showed the highest distribution as 53.36%, and this is the case in which the bearing wall ratio is over 40% and below 70%. Grade 4 was the mostly distributed score for the ratio of drywall in the house, followed by Grade III (over 30% and below 70%) (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Distribution of obtained scores by evaluation item for flexibility.
Because the ratio of bearing wall structure was lower, it was more difficult to receive a higher grade or reduce the ratio by more than a half. Moreover, in the cases in which the inner wall was not present, such as in studio apartments, Grade 4 was given uniformly. Therefore, it was difficult to receive more points. Additionally, the reason for a low drywall ratio was that it was not easy to apply the dry construction method even to non-bearing wall.
With respect to the easy flexibility method, 50.53% received Grade III which was the highest scoring rate, and one method is applied in the modularization field. The next highest score was Grade IV, and many cases received Grade IV as per conditions similar to the aforementioned studio apartment example. Currently, a method that does not demolish the earlier method for final finishing materials for floor, wall, and ceiling is being developed by companies. The new method would therefore take more time to be commercialized. Next, most cases neither received a score for the piping above slab type of bathroom and toilet, height increase, dry double flooring, movement of bathroom and kitchen, and outer wall replacement method nor were attempts made. The reason is that most items, with the exception of non-bearing wall and drywall, increase construction costs. Therefore, construction companies tend to avoid these items. Because increased construction costs also lead to increased sale prices, it is necessary to develop a technology that can save costs and provide an institutional strategy to offset the cost.

4.4. Maintainability (Exclusive Area)

According to Article 5 of the long-life housing construction certification standards notification, easiness of repair and inspection along with horizontal house separation plan are evaluated for the maintainability in exclusive areas [32]. The main evaluation purpose of maintainability (exclusive area) is to secure easiness of maintenance of apartment houses by separating common pipes and exclusive pipes, securing the easiness of repair and inspection, and clarifying the matter of responsibility. It also aims at responding to a change in population structure and family members through the horizontal house separation. The detailed evaluation standards for maintainability (exclusive area) consist of six items including securing of independence between common pipe and exclusive facility spaces, designing to facilitate the repair and replacement of pipes and wires, no laying of pipe and wire structure, dry ondol and application of horizontal house separation space plan, and facility plan for divided ownership of plane when planning for divided use.
The analysis result is as follows (Table 10).
Table 10. Distribution of obtained scores by evaluation item for maintainability (exclusive area).
All cases received five points for the securing of independence between common pipe and exclusive facility spaces and designing to facilitate the repair and replacement of pipes and wires, showing a bias in specific items (Figure 8). This is one of the piping methods that are also utilized in normal apartment housing, and not considered for long-life multi-family housing. Scores are accepted in the following cases of piping methods. The piping method facilitates the separation of connection between common vertical pipes and exclusive horizontal pipe. The piping method minimizes the effects on surrounding members such as double piping. The method, in which piping use is inside of the drywall, is applied.
Figure 8. Distribution of obtained scores by evaluation item for maintainability (exclusive area).
In addition, four items did not receive a point with the exception of two cases. “No laying of pipe and wire structure” and “dry ondol” were the items avoided by construction companies. Both items were avoided due to a cost increase when applying such items to all houses on the premise of securing margins, such as double flooring and dry method. The horizontal house separation plan also became a reason for increasing construction cost since it would be necessary to secure a margin such as distribution board for each house, electric capacity, and a parking lot to prepare for increased usage.

4.5. Maintainability (Common Area)

For the common area of ease of repair, the easiness of repair and inspection, acceptance in the future, and response to a change in energy sources are evaluated. The exclusive space and common space are evaluated separately and these spaces are evaluated with the sum of scores for required items and optional items in the condition that required items are met. The evaluation purpose of ease of repair (common area) is the installation of common area piping structure that is easy to repair, inspect, and assemble. The purpose also aims at securing extra space of common PS (Pipe Shaft) by considering an increase in the demand and house separation in the future.
The detailed evaluation standards for maintainability (common space) are six items including the placement plan of piping space on the common area space, access hole on common piping space, placement of pipes in the piping space, piping structure possible to assemble, securing of 20% margin for main common vertical piping space, and the installation of one or more reserve piping space (Shaft) separately. The analysis result is as follows (Table 11).
Table 11. Distribution of obtained scores by evaluation item for maintainability (common area).
All cases obtained five points for the placement plan of piping space on the common area space and access hole on common piping space (Figure 9). The analysis result showed that the common vertical pipes (water supply, hot-water supply, heating, and fire extinguishing system pipes) were located in the common area and the access hole on common piping space (600 × 1500) was installed on all floors. For the placement of pipes in the piping space, 35 cases received two points, which was a partial score. The score was given according to the placement of a pipe with long durable years, a pipe with short durable years, and securing of reserve space.
Figure 9. Distribution of obtained scores by evaluation item for maintainability (common area).
For the application of piping structure possible to assemble, 33 cases received three points when it was designed to facilitate the repair and replacement of common horizontal pipes (plumbing and machine equipment pipes). For the securing of 20% margin for the main common piping space, 31 cases obtained two points and one case obtained five points through the securing of margin and separate installation of the reserve shaft.

5. Overall Analysis

Since the implementation of the long-life housing certification system, all cases received a normal grade as a result of analyzing the scoring status of 283 cases collected to date (June 2017). One hundred seventy three cases (61.13%) received 50 points, followed by 106 cases (37.46%) that received 51 points, and two cases (0.71%) that received 52 points. The results indicated an overwhelmingly higher ratio of cases with 50 points and 51 points (Figure 10). Only one case each received 56 points and 57 points, which were the highest scores allowable within normal grade (Table 12).
Figure 10. Total certification score acquisition status.
Table 12. Total certification score acquisition status.
As a result of reviewing the case receiving 57 points that represented the highest score, 15 points for durability (Grade IV), 18 points for flexibility (Grade III), 9 points for maintainability (exclusive area) (Grade IV), and 15 points for ease of repair (common area) (Grade I) were received. The following reasons are why Grade I was received for maintainability (common area): points were obtained in all four items and a 20% margin in the main common vertical pipe (PS) area was secured to receive an additional two points.
The total score by field is as follows. In the case of durability, 175 cases (61.84%) received Grade III that accounted for the highest ratio, followed by 108 cases (38.17%) that received Grade IV. In the case of variability, 212 cases (74.91%) received Grade IV that accounted for the highest ratio, followed by 71 cases (25.09%) that received Grade III, and no case received Grades I and II. In the case of ease of repair (exclusive area), 267 cases (94.35%) received Grade IV, followed by 16 cases (5.65%) that received Grade III, showing the highest ratio of Grade IV among all evaluation fields. No case received Grades 1 and 2. As a result of summarizing the grades for maintainability (common area), 243 cases (85.87%) received Grade IV and one case (0.35%) received Grade III. In other fields, no case received Grades I and II. However, 24 cases (8.48%) received Grade I and 15 cases received (5.30%) Grade II (Figure 11). This is due to the placement of piping space on the common area space of the apartment building, installation of access hole (600 × 600), and the application of piping structural technology possible to assemble.
Figure 11. Grade acquisition status by whole evaluation field.

6. Conclusions

In this study, the acquired score and status of each evaluation item were analyzed by investigating all long-life housing certification cases to date since the introduction of the long-life housing certification system. The study was intended to identify reasons for all certification cases remaining at normal grade and relevant problems such as biased scoring on a specific item or an item with no score.
The conclusions are as follow:
  • Currently, the Korea Green Building Certification System is designated as an operating agency by Korea Institute of Construction Technology. However, the long-life housing certification system has not yet established the operating agency and information disclosure regulations. Therefore, it was necessary to follow various steps to collect certification cases and investigate the certification status. An operation agency and institutional measure to maintain the certification system more systematically are necessary.
  • Upon review of the scoring status of 283 target cases for investigation by durability, flexibility, and maintainability (exclusive area and common area), it was found that relevant long-life technologies were not actively distributed. Conversely, such technologies exist but led to an increase in the construction expense primarily on items with 0% scoring rate. An incentive up to 115% for building coverage ratio and floor-area ratio should be provided for cases with an excellent grade or higher. However, construction companies avoided this as the effectiveness of the increased construction expense paled in comparison to the value of the incentive. An increase in construction expense also leads to an increase in sale price. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare various incentives accordingly.
  • The detailed evaluation standards were vague and the scores varied according to the interpretation method upon summarizing the certification cases and details of civil complaints regarding the certification. Therefore, it was necessary to improve overall detailed evaluation standards of the certification system. For example, the evaluation standards of thickness of bar cover and concrete quality for durability should be reexamined according to the specifications and the field situation. Moreover, complexes including studio apartments should receive Grade 4 for flexibility due to its specific conditions. However, as the demand for studio apartments gradually increases due to an increase in the number of single-person households, an improvement measure to receive a score in the flexibility is required. No ratio for the horizontal separation of house is currently prepared for maintainability. At present, the maximum ratio of multi-family housing units divided into each household should not exceed 1/3 of all households in the apartment housing. However, as there is no minimum standard, it is necessary to hold a discussion to establish the minimum standard.
Long-life housing is a type of housing customized for population change and lifestyle of residents in preparation for a change in housing environments in the future. From a long-term perspective, this type of housing is also considered an eco-friendly alternative in terms of construction waste and material saving. The long-life housing certification system passed its early stage. Various efforts, trials, and errors to revitalize the system are being made in comparison to other similar systems that have already been implemented and stabilized. The analysis of certification system cases to date sets a significant precedence. The result can be utilized as preliminary data for short-term and long-term improvement of the certification system. The findings also serve as the foundation for the research in the preparation of more effective policies.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of the results of the research funding of the residential environment research project of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Project Number: 17RERP-B082173-04.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed substantially to all aspects of this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

DUDurability
MEMaintainability (Exclusive area)
FLFlexibility
MCMaintainability (Common area)

References

  1. KOSTAT. Future Furniture Estimation by Province (2015–2045).pdf. 22 August 2017. Available online: http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/2/6/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=362332 (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)
  2. MOLIT Statistic System (Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport). Available online: http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=2839 (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)
  3. National Law Information Center. Built Environment Renewal Development Act Enforcement Ordinance, Article 2 (Range of old & Defective Buildings. Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?menuId=0&p1=&subMenu=1&nwYn=1&section=&tabNo=&query=%EB%8F%84%EC%8B%9C%20%EB%B0%8F%20%EC%A3%BC%EA%B1%B0%ED%99%98%EA%B2%BD%EC%A0%95%EB%B9%84%EB%B2%95#undefined (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)
  4. Ismail, M.; Kee, C.; Yew, B. Muhammad, Life-span prediction of abandoned reinforced concrete residential buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Duvannova, I.; Simankina, T.; Shevchenko, A.; Musorina, T.; Yufereva, A. Optimize the use of a parking space in a residential area. Procedia Eng. 2016, 165, 1784–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Park, J.; Kim, J.; Yoon, D.K.; Cho, G. The influence of Korea’s green parking project on the thermal environment of a residential street. Habitat Int. 2016, 56, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yu, T.; Shen, G.; Shi, Q.; Zheng, H.; Wang, G.; Xu, K. Evaluating social sustainability of urban housing demolition in Shanghai, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dubois, M.; Allacker, K. Energy savings from housing: Ineffective renovation subsidies vs efficient demolition and reconstruction incentives. Energy Policy 2015, 86, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, R.; Tae, S.; Yang, K.; Kim, T.; Roh, S. Analysis of Lifecycle CO2 Reduction Performance for Long-life Apartment House. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energ. 2015, 34, 555–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Seoul Open Data Plaza. Seoul Apartment Status (Years of Use) Statistics. Available online: http://stat.seoul.go.kr/octagonweb/jsp/WWS7/WWSDS7100.jsp (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)
  11. National Law Information Center. Rules on Housing Construction Standards. Article 18 (Standard for Certification of Long-Life Housing). Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?menuId=0&p1=&subMenu=1&nwYn=1&section=&tabNo=&query=%EB%85%B9%EC%83%89%EA%B1%B4%EC%B6%95%EB%AC%BC%20%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%B1%20%EC%A7%80%EC%9B%90%EB%B2%95#undefined (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)
  12. National Law Information Center. Housing Act. Article 38 (Standard for Construction of Long-Life Housing, Certification System, etc.). Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=1&query=housing+act&x=0&y=0#liBgcolor14 (accessed on 30 September 2017).
  13. Rosenthal, M. Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how to conduct interviews and focus groups in pharmacy research. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2016, 8, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hyde, A.; Howlett, E.; Brady, D.; Drennan, J. The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents. Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 61, 2588–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations; US Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yoon, J.; Park, J. Comparative analysis of material criteria in neighborhood sustainability assessment tools and urban design guidelines: Cases of the UK, the US, Japan, and Korea. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14450–14487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Choi, J.; Bhatla, A.; Stoppel, C.; Shane, J. LEED Credit review system and optimization model for pursuing LEED certification. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13351–13377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. BRE global. In BREEAM UK New Construction, Non-Domestic Building Technical Manual SD 5076-0.1; BRE Global Limited: Herfordshire, UK, 2014.
  20. O’Malley, C.; Piroozfar, P.; Farr, E.; Gates, J. Evaluating the efficacy of BREEAM code for sustainable homes (CSH): A Cross-sectional study. Energy Procedia 2014, 62, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Seinre, E.; Kurnitski, J.; Voll, H. Building sustainability objective assessment in Estonian context and a comparative evaluation with LEED and BREEAM. Build. Environ. 2014, 82, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Communities and Local Government. Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide. November 2010. Available online: http://www.medway.gov.uk/pdf/code_for_sustainable_homes_techguide.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2017).
  23. Georgiadou, M. Future-Proofed energy design approaches for achieving low-energy homes: Enhancing the code for sustainable homes. Buildings 2014, 4, 488–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. CASBEE for New Construction Technical Manual 2014 Edition; Institute for Building Environment and Energy Consevation (IBEC): Tokyo, Japan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wong, S.; Abe, N. Stakeholders’ perspectives of a building environmental assessment methods: The case of CASBEE. Build. Environ. 2014, 82, 502–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Park, D.; Yu, K.; Yoon, Y.; Kim, K.; Kim, S. Analysis of a Building Energy Efficiency Certification System in Korea. Sustainability 2015, 7, 16086–16107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, N.; Tae, S.; Gong, Y.; Roh, S. Integrated building life-cycle assessment model to support South Korea’s green building certification system(G-SEED). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Park, M.; Tae, S. Suggestions of Policy Direction to improve the housing quality in South Korea. Sustainability 2016, 8, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rhogersen, J. Housing-related lifestyle and energy saving: A multi-level approach. Energy Policy 2017, 102, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Olubunmi, O.P.; Xia, M. Skitmore, Green building incentives: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1611–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. National Law Information Center. Support Act Creating Green Buildings. Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?menuId=0&p1=&subMenu=1&nwYn=1&section=&tabNo=&query=%EB%85%B9%EC%83%89%EA%B1%B4%EC%B6%95%EB%AC%BC%20%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%B1%20%EC%A7%80%EC%9B%90%EB%B2%95#undefined (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)
  32. National Law Information Center. Standard for Construction & Certification of Long-life Housing. Available online: http://www.law.go.kr/admRulSc.do?menuId=1&query=%EC%9E%A5%EC%88%98%EB%AA%85%20%EC%A3%BC%ED%83%9D%20#liBgcolor0 (accessed on 30 September 2017). (In Korean)

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures
Previous
Energy System Models as a Means of Visualising Barriers and Drivers of Forest-Based Biofuels: An Interview Study of Developers and Potential Users
Next