Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 29;62:102422. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102422

Table 1.

Classification of related research regarding their advantages and disadvantages based on their topics.

Topic Research paper Advantages/Disadvantages
Ageing in place Pani-harreman, Bours, and Zander (2020) Highlights the multidisciplinary complexity that entails ageing in place.
Might have provided more practical support on ageing for policy-makers.
Stafford and Gulwadi (2020) State that habitational resilience links ageing and the built environment.
The concept requires formalising a strategy to improve ageing in place.
Weil (2019) Incorporate gentrification of cities into the complexity of ageing in place.
Fang et al. (2016) Highlights the value of designing sustainable environments for the elderly.
Incorporate community-based participatory research for ageing in place.
Rodríguez-Rodríguez and Sánchez-González (2016) Initiatives for policy and practice on ageing to improve quality of life.
Demand specific methodological tools in Mediterranean Europe and Latin America housing environments for the elderly.
Multidisciplinary assessment of the built environment Femenías et al. (2018) Environmental, social and cultural aims from owners for housing renovation.
Theoretical reflection on deep renovation works, introducing different levels.
Kumar et al. (2018) Identify 7 criteria and 27 variables related to socio-technical perspectives.
Research framework uniquely focused on building renovation in India.
Garrido-piñero and Mercader-moyano (2017) Multidisciplinary assessment of eco-efficient actions in social housing.
Users’ demands are not included in the design of renovation interventions.
Camporeale, Mercader-Moyano, and Czajkowski (2017) Multi-objective optimisation method for decision-making applied in Spain.
Absence of social patterns for assessing certain renovation works.
Pombo et al. (2016) Key methodological aspects of assessment methods in housing renovation.
Multidisciplinary criteria and future prospects on building renovation.
Social participation – Questionnaires Tao, Gou, Yu, Fu, and Chen (2020) Address the aim of designing liveable indoor environments for the elderly.
Occupancy survey to assess just thermal, lighting and noise conditions.
Serrano-Jiménez et al. (2019) Combine technical diagnosis and residents’ perceptions of decision-making.
Reduced approach on social indexes for the complex building renovation.
Mujan, Anđelković, Munćan, Kljajić, and Ružić (2019) Reviews numerous works and affirm the need to carry out participatory surveys to assess indoor environmental quality for health and productivity.
Serrano-Jiménez et al. (2018) Base the diagnosis according to technical and social results in a survey.
Absence of certain social parameters and attributes for ageing in place.
Ruza et al. (2014) Quantify the "age-friendliness" of cities based on the results of a survey.
Application in a single case with users, academics and professional experts.
Indicators -Decision support systems Maslesa, Jensen, and Birkved (2018) Overview of indicator categories that can quantify the building performance.
There are no specific approaches to the built environment and the elderly.
Monzón and López-Mesa (2018) Different indicators to measure the obsolescence of residential buildings.
Applied in a single study without including social or economic issues.
Farahani et al. (2018) Assess and compare the influence of maintenance on building performance.
Unique approach to cost-optimal from a technical point of view.
Jiao et al. (2017) Thermal comfort and occupant behaviour of the elderly are quantified.
Study focused on a single country and only on thermal comfort.
Shooshtarian and Ridley (2016) Includes users’ perceptions and feelings in outdoor spaces with indicators.
Application study in the educational field but with flexible patterns.
Nielsen et al. (2016) Review of decision support tools in building renovation based on six areas.
Demand for new tools with social issues in renovation projects.
Kovacic et al. (2015) Renovation strategies considering social aspects and cultural heritage factors.
Particular study in Vienna, not an assessment model that could be replicated.