This embedded cross–case study examined two innovative green religious buildings in the same climatic zone of Wisconsin. Both organizations used green building certification as a way to express their missions of earth stewardship. The study aimed at understanding: (1) the degree of success in expressing the mission of earth stewardship through the buildings; and (2) the relationships between the audio–visual environment and the religious experiences during Sunday worship in their main assembly rooms. The study findings suggest that both organizations succeeded in their mission delivery through their green buildings. It also indicates that the users were generally satisfied with the audio–visual environment of the assembly rooms, but significant acoustic and glare issues existed, as the buildings were designed to bring in an ample amount of daylight according to green building principles. The conflicting issues were explored through both subjective and objective assessment. Finally, while audio–visual environmental factors critically shaped three major outcome variables of overall satisfaction, adequacy for prayer, and place attachment, factors such as acoustics and window views played more significant roles than the glare issues. The study suggested various ways to solve the identified issues and to further enhance users’ worship experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbaszadehS., ZagreusL., LehrerD., & HuizengaC. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. In Healthy buildings (Vol. III, pp. 365–370). Lisbon, Portugal: Center for the Built Environment.
2.
AntonakakiT. (2007). Lighting and spatial structure in religious architecture: A comparative study of a Byzantine church and early Ottoman mosque in the city of Thessaloniki (pp. 055.01–057.14). Presented at the International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul.
3.
ASHRAE, USGBC, & CIBSE. (2010). Performance measurement protocols for commercial buildings. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air–Conditioning Engineers.
4.
BeauregardS. J., BerklandS., & HoqueS. (2011). Ever green: A post–occupancy building performance analysis of LEED certified homes in New England. Journal of Green Building, 6(4), 138–145.
ChappellsH., & ShoveE. (2005). Debating the future of comfort: Environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Building Research & Information, 33(1), 32–40.
7.
CIBSE (1994). Interior lighting code. London, England: Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers.
8.
CidellJ. (2009). Building green: The emerging geography of LEED–certified buildings and professionals. The Professional Geographer, 61(2), 200–215. doi: 10.1080/00330120902735932.
9.
CidellJ., & BeataA. (2009). Spatial variation among green building certification categories: Does place matter?Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 142–151. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.001.
10.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
11.
Du PlessisC., & ColeR. J. (2011). Motivating change: Shifting the paradigm. Building Research & Information, 39(5), 436–449.
12.
EganD. (2007). Architectural acoustics (1st ed.). Fort Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross.
13.
EganT. (2006, 8). The greening of America's campuses. The New York Times, p. A20.
14.
First Unitarian Society of Madison. (n.d.). First Unitarian Society of Madison | Who We Are. Retrieved November 30, 2011, from http://www.fusmadison.org/who
15.
FuerstF., & McAllisterP. (2011). Green noise or green value? Measuring the effects of environmental certification on office values. Real Estate Economics, 39(1), 45–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–6229.2010.00286.x.
16.
GalindoM., ZamarreñoT., & GirónS. (2009). Acoustic simulations of Mudejar–Gothic churches. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 1207–1218.
17.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, Canada: Aldine Transaction.
18.
GouZ., LauS. S.–Y., & ZhangZ. (2012). A comparison of indoor environmental satisfaction between two green buildings and a conventional building in China. Journal of Green Building, 7(2), 89–104.
19.
HumphreysM. A. (2005). Quantifying occupant comfort: Are combined indices of the indoor environment practicable?Building Research & Information, 33(4), 317–325.
20.
IES (2000). IESNA lighting handbook (9th ed.). New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
21.
InaniciM. (2006). Evaluation of high dynamic range photography as a luminance data acquisition system. Lighting Research Technology, 38(2), 123–136. doi: 10.1191/1365782806li164oa.
22.
KumaragurubaranV., & InaniciM. (2013). hdrscope: High dynamic range image processing toolkit for lighting simulations and analysis. Presented at the International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA), Chambery, France.
23.
LeamanA., ThomasL., & VandenbergM. (2007). “Green” buildings: What Australian building users are saying. EcoLibrium.
24.
LechnerN. (2009). Heating, cooling, lighting: Sustainable design methods for architects (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
25.
LeeY. S., & GuerinD. A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED–certified buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 18(4), 293–300. doi: 10.1177/1420326X09105455.
26.
LeeY. S., & KimS.–K. (2008). Indoor environmental quality in LEED–certified buildings in the U.S. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 7(2), 293–300.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
PolitD. F. (1996). Data Analysis and Statistics: For Nursing Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
RamakhrishnanR., & DumoulinR. (2011). Acoustic simulations of worship spaces. Canadian Acoustics, 39(3), 56–57.
31.
RiesR., BilecM. M., GokhanN. M., & NeedyK. L. (2006). The economic benefits of green buildings: A comprehensive case study. The Engineering Economist, 51(3), 259–295.
32.
ShinJ., CastellanoD., & MillerS. (2012). Communicating the mission of earth stewardship through green buildings: A cross case analysis of LEED certified religious buildings in Madison, WI. International Journal of the Constructed Environment, 2(2), 247–268.
33.
U.S. Green Building Council. (n.d.). Projects Directory | U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved July 22, 2013, from http://www.usgbc.org/projects
34.
UnverR., & EnarumD. (1999). A comparative investigation of lighting of mosques and churches in Istanbul. Presented at the CIE Session in Warsaw, 24th Session, Warsaw.
35.
UO Solar Radiation Monitoring Laboratory. (2007). Sun chart program. University of Oregon Solar Radiation Monitoring Laboratory: Sun path chart program. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://solardat.uoregon.edu/SunChartProgram.html
36.
US Green Building Council. (2014). Directory | U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://www.usgbc.org/profile
37.
VischerJ. C. (2008). Towards a user–centered theory of the built environment. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 231–240. doi: 10.1080/09613210801936472.
38.
WienoldJ., & ChristoffersenJ. (2006). Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Special Issue on Daylighting Buildings, 38(7), 743–757. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.017.
39.
YinR. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
ZagreusL., HuizengaC., ArensE., & LehrerD. (2004). Listening to the occupants: A Web–based indoor environmental quality survey. Indoor Air, 14(Suppl. 8), 65–74.
