The Status quo and Problem of User Well-Being Related to Standard Design School Buildings: A Case Study of Primary School Buildings, Mueang District and Area, Nakhon Ratchasima Province
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
A building’s environment is a major factor affecting the well-being of its users. Health conditions of a school building’s users are related to several factors including location, physical appearance, and environment. This article presents an assessment of the current state of school buildings which were constructed in accordance with an approved standard design under the Ministry of Education in the area of Mueang District, Nakhon Ratchasima Province. Four standard designs of school buildings that have been highest constructed in the studied area were selected consisting of 8 buildings located in 6 schools. First, it was found that the Location of school buildings affected the conditions of noise and ventilation. School buildings located in urban areas, near main roads, and in areas of high–density communities, have a higher level of background noise than those in suburban areas. School buildings in suburban areas, and those located in agricultural zones with more open spaces than the urban ones, The maximum average wind speed is 0.48 m/s in the open space. There are no obscured buildings, resulting in school buildings not being able to operate openings because of the high wind speed. Secondly, in relation to Appearance there was an extension or adjustment of some areas for other functions that differed from the standard building design in 7 buildings, while one building was completely unused. Buildings currently in use have room–sizes and voids that support light and natural ventilation, while construction materials of these buildings do not have proper noise protection and absorption properties. Thirdly, with respect to Environment, standard measurements were taken in 23 classrooms from the sample school buildings, in both in Mueang District and suburban areas nearby, with high levels of background noise (35 dBA) being recorded; lower brightness (natural and artificial light) than the standard criteria (300 lx) was recorded in 3 classrooms, while 5 other classrooms exceeded the standard, with recorded values of 318 - 939 lx. Excessive brightness from the sunlight may have detrimental effects on visual comfort and thermal comfort of users from glare and burdened heat respectively. Moreover, one school building in the suburban area had 3 classrooms that were outside of a thermal comfort zone; measuring its average high temperature. A bioclimatic chart-based analysis of comfortable conditions found that three classrooms in Building C1 were outside the comfort zone, with the highest temperature in the afternoon (01:00 - 4:00 pm) being 31.2°C. Relative humidity 33.7%. Therefore, it can be concluded that the impacts on user well-being related to school building design and construction were noise, brightness and thermal comfort zone, respectively.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All material is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, unless otherwise stated. As such, authors are free to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The authors must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. The authors may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. The authors may not use the material for commercial purposes. If the authors remix, transform, or build upon the material, they may not distribute the modified material, unless permission is obtained from JARS. Final, accepted versions of the paper may be posted on third party repositories, provided appropriate acknowledgement to the original source is clearly noted.
References
Altomonte, S., Allen, J., Bluyssen, M. P., Brager, G., Heschong, L., Loder, A., ...Wargocki, P. (2020). Ten questions concerning well-being in the built environment. Building and Environment, 180, 1-13.
Angsanan, A., & Mee-Udon, F. (2014). Health promotion in community-based school. In Graduate Research Conferences 2014 (pp. 3032-3042). Khon Kaen University. https://gsbooks.gs.kku.ac.th/57/grc15/files/hmp60.pdf
Bluyssen, M. P., Zhang, D., Kruvers, S., Overtoom, M., & Ortiz-Sanchez, M. (2018). Self-reported health and comfort of school children in 54 classrooms of 21 Dutch school buildings. Building and Environment, 138, 106-123.
Bluyssen, M. P., Kim, H. D., Eijkelenboom, A., & Ortiz-Sanchez, M. (2020). Workshop with 335 primary school children in The Netherlands: What is needed to improve the IEQ in their classrooms? Building and Environment, 168, 1-12.
Center for the Built Environment. (2020). CBE Thermal Comfort Tool. https://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu
Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning. (2019). Green Government Office Design Guidelines for major renovation. (G-Goods : RV version 1.0). Consultants of Technology (COT). https://www.yotathai.com/yotanews/g-goods-rv
Despoina, T., Bourikas, L., James, A.B., P., & Bahaj, S. A. (2017). Thermal performance evaluation of school buildings using a children-based adaptive comfort model. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 38, 844-851.
Lemsawasdikul, W. (2018). Health promotion in educational institute. Journal of Safety and Health, 11(2) , 1-11.MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Laurent, G.C., J., Flanigan, S., Vallarion, J., Coull, B., ...Allen, G. J. (2017). The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health. Building and Environment, 114, 178-186.
Nakhon Ratchasima Educational Service Area Office 1. (2017). Education information. http://koratedu.info/2017
Sarayutpitak, J. (2018). School health program. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Sriaroon, C., & Jarutat, T. (2020). Potential architectural development for the well-being of condominium residents in Bangkok: Case studies of the Room Sukhumvit69 and The Room Sathorn-Pan Road. Sarasatr Academic Journal, 3(2), 314-327.
Tantasavasdi, C. (2011). Passive design for climate change - future energy efficient school. Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University.
Tantivanich, K. (2020). Design guidelines for classroom acoustics in International Language Building, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus. Built Environment Inquiry Journal (BEI): Faculty of Architecture, Khon Kaen University, 19(1), 83.
Thai Health Promotion Foundation. (2018). Handbook of HD Happy School. Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon Ratchathani University.
Thai Meteorological Department. (2020). Weather information. https://www.tmd.go.th/climate/climate.php?FileID=4
Thai Green Building Institute. (2020). The Sook Building Standard. Thai Green Building Institute (TGBI).
The Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC). (2019). The summary of building type. http://bobec.bopp-obec.info/index_1.php
The Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC). (2015). The construction of a standard building. https://yotathai.app.box.com/v/plan-obec-2558
The Engineering Institute of Thailand (EIT). (2014). Safety Standard for Early Childhood Development Center. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Thongkamsamut, C. (2010). School building design guidelines for learning efficiency: Case studies of 40 year educational demonstration building, Khon Kaen University. Built Environment Inquiry (BEI), 9(1), 1-13.
Thuvavong, P., Sreshthaputra, A., & Pongsuwan, S. (2017). Guidelines to developing a healthy design assessment tool for residential building in Thailand. The 4th Building Technology Alliance Conference on Energy and Environment, 4, 57-71.
World Health Organization. (2004). Promotion Mental Health. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43286/9241562943-tha.pdf