Smart and Green Buildings Features in the Decision-Making Hierarchy of Office Space Tenants: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review on Sustainable and Smart Office Buildings
2.1. Office Users’ Preferences and Decision-Making
2.2. Green and Smart Buildings’ Features and the Preferences of Office Tenants
- Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM), created in 1990 by the Building Research Establishment (BRE).
- Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED), created in 1998 by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC).
- Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE), created in 1992 by Association pour la Haute Qualité Environnementale (ASSOHQE).
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB), created in 2007 by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process Method
- The main goal level, where the aim of the decision-making is determined.
- The decision criteria level, where a hierarchy of groups of criteria, associated sub-criteria and their descriptors are formed; when composing a hierarchy of criteria, one should ensure that its lower elements do not interact with the upper ones.
- The decision alternatives level, where potential variants of decisions are identified.
- Formulation of a decision-making hierarchy, where the decision problem is identified, goals of the decision-making are formulated, and key stakeholders of the decision-making process are acknowledged.
- Selection of experts, where the team of evaluators needs to be composed of people that possess expertise regarding the decision problem.
- Expert evaluations stage 1 (decision criteria), where expert judgments are collected through pairwise comparisons of groups of criteria, sub-criteria and their determinants.
- Expert evaluations stage 2 (decision alternatives), where the process from Step 3 is repeated, with the inclusion of available decision alternatives. As a result of Steps 1–4, a ranking of the significance of decision criteria and alternatives arises.
- Consistency checks of expert opinions, where the judgments obtained from experts are tested for their individual and group consistency with relation to other pairwise comparisons. Saaty proposes an empirically drawn random index (RI) that is used for calculating the consistency ratio (CR) of expert evaluations. The most common approach suggested is to treat them as consistent when the inconsistency of expert opinions is lower than 10%. In this research, we accepted consistencies that did not exceed 10% (including those equal to 10%), which is still acceptable from a methodological perspective. Interesting discussions on AHP’s inconsistency can be found in (Jarek 2016).
- Evaluation of decision alternatives, where the decision alternative that fulfils all decision criteria to the possibly greatest extent at the same time appears.
3.2. Experts Selection and Study Design
- A type A building is an A-class office building located in the centre of Krakow, about 1 km from the main market square. It is close to the railway station, bus and tram stops (including fast tram) at a distance of 200 m away, and near Galeria Krakowska. The building is ecological (LEED or BREEAM certificate). Minimum office module is 100 sqm. Available office space is 1500 sqm. Lease cost is 14.50 EUR/sqm/month and the service charge is 15 PLN/sqm/month. The parking space cost is 100 EUR/space/month.
- A type B building is a B-class building located in the southern part of Krakow, at a distance of about 5 km from the main market square. It is located near the local transport junction/public transport stop/tram or bus within 200 m and near the suburban transport junction. The building is near the Krakow ring road and intercity transport stop (train, suburban buses or intercity bus) up to 500 m away. The minimum office module is 140 sqm. The available office space is 3000 sqm. The lease cost is 13.5 EUR/sqm/month. The service charge is 14 PLN/sqm/month. A parking space costs 70 EUR/space/month.
- A type C building is a B+ facility, constructed in the north-eastern part of Krakow, about 4 km from the main market square, near the accompanying functions (business services, restaurants), additional (shops, park) and easy to access by public transport. Tram and bus stops are at a distance of 200 m away. The building is ecological (LEED or BREEAM certificate). The minimum office module is 140 sqm. The available office space is 2000 sqm. The lease cost is 14 EUR/sqm/month. The service charge is 13 PLN/sqm/month. A parking space costs 80 EUR/space/month.
3.3. Study Area
4. Results
4.1. Presentation of the Results
4.2. Sensitivity Analysis
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adnan, Yasmin M., and Md Nasir Daud. 2010. Factors Influencing Office Building Occupation Decision by Tenants in Kuala Lumpur City Centre—A DELPHI Study. Journal of Design and Built Environment 6: 63–82. [Google Scholar]
- Adnan, Yasmin M., Md Nasir Daud, and Mohammad Razali. 2012. Property specific criteria for office occupation by tenants of purpose built office buildings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Property Management 30: 114–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adnan, Yasmin M., Md Nasir Daud, and Mohammad Razali. 2015. A multi-criteria framework for office tenants’ preferences at office buildings. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 19: 271–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne. 2008. Managing “keep” factors of office tenants to raise satisfaction and loyalty. Property Management 26: 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batov, Eugeny. 2015. The Distinctive Features of “Smart” Buildings. Procedia Engineering 111: 103–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celka, Krzysztof. 2011. Determinants of Office Space Choice. Journal of International Studies 4: 108–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chamoso, Pablo, Alfonso González-Briones, Sara Rodríguez, and Juan M. Corchado. 2018. Tendencies of Technologies and Platforms in Smart Cities: A State-of-the-Art Review. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2018: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comin, Diego, and Bart Hobijn. 2004. Cross-country technology adoption: Making the theories face the facts. Journal of Monetary Economics 51: 39–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, Odilon, Franz Fuerst, and Spencer J. Robinson. 2018. Green label signals in an emerging real estate market. A case study of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 184: 660–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalenogare, Lucas Santos, Guilherme Brittes Benitez, Nestor Fabian Ayala, and Alejandro German Frank. 2018. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. International Journal of Production Economics 204: 383–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, Amos, Chenzhuo Zhang, and Albert P. C. Chan. 2017. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat International 60: 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eichholtz, Piet, Niels Kok, and John M. Quigley. 2009. Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review 100: 2492–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Expert Choice Comparion. 2019. [Computer software]. Expert Choice, Inc., ver. 5.70.016.35768. Available online: https://comparion.expertchoice.com (accessed on 6 May 2019).
- Erdogan, Gizem. 2019. Land selection criteria for lights out factory districts during the industry 4.0 process. Journal of Urban Management. in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franek, Jiri, and Ales Kresta. 2014. Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance 12: 164–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, Alejandro German, Glauco H.S. Mendes, Néstor F. Ayala, and Antonio Ghezzid. 2019. Servitization and Industry 4.0 convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: A business model innovation perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141: 341–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French, Simon. 1986. Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. London: Ellis Horwood Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Fuerst, Franz, and Patrick M. McAllister. 2008. Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Price Effects of Environmental Certification in Commercial Buildings. Real Estate Economics 39: 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawlik, Remigiusz. 2019. Enhancing Managerial Decision-Making through Multicriteria Modeling. Cracow: Cracow University of Technology Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gluszak, Michal. 2015. Internationalization, Competiveness and Green Building Certification in Europe. In Europeanization Processes from the Mesoeconomic Perspective: Industries and Policies. Edited by Piotr Stanek and Krzysztof Wach. Cracow: Cracow University of Economics, pp. 173–91. [Google Scholar]
- Gluszak, Michal, and Malgorzata Zieba. 2016. Using the Means-Ends Approach to Understand the Value of Sustainability on the Property Market. In Smart City 360. Edited by Alberto Leon-Garcia, Radim Lenort, David Holman, David Staš, Veronika Krutilova, Pavel Wicher, Dagmar Cagáňová, Daniela Špirková, Julius Golej and Kim Nguyen. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 738–49. [Google Scholar]
- Hagerstrand, Torsten. 1953. Innovationsforloppet ur Korologisk Synspunkt. Lund: Gleerup. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, Daniel, Graeme Newell, and Anthony Walker. 2005. The importance of property-specific attributes in assessing CBD office building quality. Journal of Property Investment & Finance 23: 424–44. [Google Scholar]
- Jarek, Slawomir. 2016. Removing Inconsistency in Pairwise Comparison Matrix in the AHP. Multiple Criteria Decision Making 11: 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, Mengda, Ali Komeily, Yueren Wang, and Ravi S. Srinivasan. 2019. Adopting Internet of Things for the development of smart buildings: A review of enabling technologies and applications. Automation in Construction 101: 111–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kibert, Charles J. 2007. Sustainable Construction. Green Building Design and Delivery. Hoboken: J. Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Leishman, Christian, Neil Dunse, Fran Warren, and Craig Watkins. 2003. Office space requirements: Comparing occupiers’ preferences with agents’ perceptions. Journal of Property Investment & Finance 21: 45–60. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Haijiang, Shengwei Wang, and John Kwok Wai Wong. 2005. Intelligent building research: A review. Automation in Construction 14: 143–59. [Google Scholar]
- Livingstone, Nicola, and Jessica Ferm. 2017. Occupier responses to sustainable real estate: What’s next? Journal of Corporate Real Estate 19: 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Yang. 2017. Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 6: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marona, Bartlomiej, and Anna Wilk. 2016. Tenant mix structure in shopping centres: Some empirical analyses from Poland. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 4: 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, Osama. 2018. Intelligent building, definitions, factors and evaluation criteria of selection. Alexandria Engineering Journal 57: 2903–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ossadnik, Wolfgang, Stefanie Schinke, and Ralf H. Kaspar. 2016. Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation 25: 421–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pivo, Gary, and Jeffrey D. Fisher. 2010. Income, Value and Returns in Socially Responsible Office Properties. Journal of Real Estate Research 32: 243–70. [Google Scholar]
- Polish Green Building Council. 2019. Baza budynkow certyfikowanych. Available online: https://plgbc.org.pl/baza-budynkow-certyfikowanych/ (accessed on 10 May 2019).
- Prusak, Anna, and Piotr Stefanow. 2011. Badania nad właściwościami operacyjnymi metody AHP [Research on operational features of the AHP method]. Folia Oeconomica Cracoviensia LII: 87–104. [Google Scholar]
- Remoy, Hilde, and Theo T. J. van der Voodt. 2014. Priorities in accommodating office user preferences: impact on office users decision to stay or go. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 16: 140–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, Rosaria de Fatima Segger Macri, and Roberto Camanho. 2015. Criteria in AHP: A Systematic Review of Literature. Procedia Computer Science 55: 1123–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rymarzak, Malgorzata, and Ewa Siemińska. 2012. Factors affecting the location of real estate. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 14: 214–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, Thomas L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences 1: 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savills. 2019a. Market in Minutes. Office Market in Warsaw. Available online: http://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/poland/savills-mim-office-warsawq42018.pdf/ (accessed on 10 May 2019).
- Savills. 2019b. Spotlight. Regional Office Market in Poland. Available online: http://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/poland/offices-and-warehouses/savills-spotlight-regional-office-market-in-poland-march-2019.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2019).
- Sedlacek, Sabine, and Gunther Maier. 2012. Can green building councils serve as third party govern-ance institutions? An economic and institutional analysis. Energy Policy 49: 479–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojkoska, Biljana Risteska, and Kire Trivodaliev. 2017. A review of Internet of Things for smart home: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production 140: 1454–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valipour, Alireza, Hadi Sarvari, and Jolanta Tamošaitiene. 2018. Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis. Administrative Sciences 8: 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiley, Jonathan A., Justin D. Benefield, and Ken H. Johnson. 2010. Green Design and the market for commercial office space. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 41: 228–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, Charles, Tom Hargreaves, and Richard Hauxwell-Baldwin. 2017. Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy 103: 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zieba, Małgorzata, Stanisław Belniak, and Michal Gluszak. 2013. Demand for Sustainable Office Space in Poland: The Results from a Conjoint Experiment in Krakow. Property Management 31: 404–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Explanation |
---|---|
Localisation | |
Distance from the city centre | Location inside or close to the actual city centre (i.e., the centre of urban services and functions) or to a central business district (CBD) |
Access to urban amenities | Accessibility in the nearest neighbourhood to such services as restaurants, shops, simple services (e.g., hairdressers), banks, post office, doctors, etc. |
Access to public transport | Public transport availability—tram, bus, suburban trains, bus stops, train stations, connection frequency |
Neighbourhood image and reputation | The business neighbourhood, prestigious environment, high quality of architecture, representative area |
Market proximity (clients, suppliers) | Location close to business centres—advantages of agglomeration, accessibility from outside town (airport, train, highway) |
Building | |
Building automation and IT services | Presence of building management systems (BMS)—management automation of building’s infrastructure) and their quality, the quality of building’s IT infrastructure |
Security and safety | Building access control, security service, fire protection and other similar services |
Workplace quality and internal comfort | Quality of ventilation, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), humidity, daylight intensity, noise protection, the functionality of internal design, quality of finishing materials and its standard |
Sustainability and energy efficiency | Energy efficiency, waste management, water efficiency, eco-friendly and healthy finishing materials |
Functionality and space | Size of offered rent space, the possibility of adaptation of rooms and space to various working styles (open space or separate rooms), parking places for bicycles, cloakrooms with showers, canteen, relax space, amount of car parking places or the possibility of parking in the proximity of the building |
Lease Agreement | |
Occupancy cost | Monthly occupancy cost net per square meter of rented office space, rent indexation method |
Maintenance fee | Monthly maintenance costs covered by tenants |
Fit-out cost | The sum of all finishing and space adaptation costs covered by tenants |
Length of lease | The total length of lease period agreement, contract termination conditions |
Flexibility within tenure | Possibility of expansion or limitation of leased space, preparation of office space for the tenant and adaptation cost, availability of additional services (facility management) |
City | Office Stock (sqm) | Number of Projects Certified in | |
---|---|---|---|
BREEAM | LEED | ||
Poland | N/A | 353 | 140 |
Warsaw | 5,480,000 | 222 | 63 |
Krakow | 1,257,500 | 51 | 18 |
Wroclaw | 1,054,200 | 14 | 25 |
Tricity | 775,000 | 18 | 6 |
Katowice | 519,300 | 10 | 4 |
Poznan | 478,100 | 11 | 9 |
Lodz | 468,900 | 11 | 4 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gluszak, M.; Gawlik, R.; Zieba, M. Smart and Green Buildings Features in the Decision-Making Hierarchy of Office Space Tenants: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030052
Gluszak M, Gawlik R, Zieba M. Smart and Green Buildings Features in the Decision-Making Hierarchy of Office Space Tenants: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study. Administrative Sciences. 2019; 9(3):52. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030052
Chicago/Turabian StyleGluszak, Michal, Remigiusz Gawlik, and Malgorzata Zieba. 2019. "Smart and Green Buildings Features in the Decision-Making Hierarchy of Office Space Tenants: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study" Administrative Sciences 9, no. 3: 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030052