sustainability

Article A Technical Assessment of Comfort Performance of Hanok Using Comparative Field Surveys between Experts and Users

Mi-Hyang Lee 1, Deuk-Youm Cheon 2 and Seung-Hoon Han 2,*

1 University-Industry Liaison Office, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea; [email protected] 2 School of Architecture, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-62-530-1646



Received: 19 September 2020; Accepted: 9 December 2020; Published: 10 December 2020


Abstract: The paper aims to evaluate the psychological factors of the comfort performance of the hanok. This is to guide restoration and improvement in consideration of the intangible variables that provide the quality of the hanok. Through this process, we ultimately intend to build an integrated residential performance evaluation system that includes factors related to the quality of residents’ lives, such as the comfort of their surrounding and indoor environment, as well as the functionality and convenience of the hanok, a representative type of Korean traditional architecture. The test method to evaluate the comfort performance of hanok is largely divided into the physical perception element, which is a quantitative indicator, and the psychological cognitive element, which is a qualitative indicator. Physical perceptive factors are composed of nine quantifiable factors that can be measured by numerical values, namely humidity control, condensation, insulation, thermal comfort, air permeability, solar radiation, solar lighting, sound insulation, and air cleanness. This is a perceptual concept of viewing a building as it is, and a quantitative evaluation method of measuring data in the field using environmental sensors and equipment. Psychological cognitive factors that are evaluated based on the experiences of users (residents) living in hanok, are classified into five categories, of scenery, beauty, deodorization, usability, and health. This study was conducted through a questionnaire between experts and users (residents), limited to the psychological factors among methods of evaluating the comfort performance of hanok. As a result, it can be seen that environmental factors are the main variables that influence the degree of satisfaction with the psychological perception factor. This might be a merit factor of general hanok, and weight could be given when creating an integrated standard in the future.

Keywords: Korean traditional architecture; hanok; architectural locality; Korean rural house; architectural evaluation; comfort performance; environmental monitoring

1. Introduction The concept of cultural identity commonly refers to a feeling of belonging to a group in which there are a number of shared attributes, which might include, among other things, knowledge, beliefs, artefacts, arts, morals, and law. Ultimately, all culture is about the ascription of values and meanings to both tangible and intangible elements of human experience [1]. As globalization accelerates, preserving and maintaining a country’s cultural identity is one of the important values, even today. Hanok is a unique architectural type in Korea that retains its cultural identity, and is characterized by its wooden structure and traditional curved roof structure. Up until the 1940s, it was a popular building type; but during the modernization period, it drastically decreased in numbers [2]. As of 2016, it is estimated that there are only 210,000 hanok left nationwide, which account for just 2.8% of the

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315; doi:10.3390/su122410315 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 2 of 18 total building stock. Moreover, hanok located in the capital or metropolitan cities with particularly high population densities only accounts for 13.8% of the total hanok stock [3]. Therefore, for inhabitants of large cities, hanok is a special type of building that can be experienced only in specific locations. In this situation, preserving and disseminating hanok as a traditional cultural type is important, not only in terms of the value of our ancestors’ heritage, but also in terms of the reasons for existence of future generations [4]. In this sense, efforts to preserve and maintain cultural identity are a common concern worldwide beyond Korea. Hanok, which is a traditional architectural type, has eco-friendly performance, but because of insufficient research and development (R&D), and the absence of a standardized definition, it is difficult to commercialize and globalize. Recently, the potential demand for hanok is increasing, due to expectations for the enhancement of the national brand value through traditional culture and its modernization, interest in its unique residential culture, and its possibility of an eco-friendly healthy home [5]. As the social demand for hanok is expanding, it has great potential for creating various cityscapes, and becoming an alternative to new residential environments. Social and policy interest in the modernization and revitalization of hanok has increased, and recently a technical development research project was initiated by the Korean government. Consequently, a modernized hanok, which includes various reinterpretations and recognition of changes to its layout and performance required for modern life, was constructed. The question is whether to accept and apply the characteristics of the traditional hanok. This is an important part of the modernization of hanok, and its application to the future [6]. For this study, representative target hanoks were selected and analyzed with evaluation using professional devices and monitoring know-hows for the period April 2019 to January 2020. They were all built as prototypical testbeds of hanok by the precedent R&D projects supported by the Ministry of Land and Transport Affairs of the Korean government. Through this study, evaluation methods for the performance of hanok have been utilized, with the evaluation analysis being mostly through environmental monitoring. The performance evaluation system, used widely through the monitoring of various categories in hanok and similar buildings, has been established to enhance the competitiveness of hanok, and to present solutions for the change of perception. With this sense, this study aims to set an integrated residential performance evaluation system that includes factors related to the quality of residents’ lives, such as the comfort of the surroundings and indoor environment as well as the functionality and convenience of hanok according to its unique applications. The main objective of this study is, therefore, to propose evaluation indexes for comfort of hanok buildings composed mainly of wooden structures based on classifications of psychological factors in aspects of residential performance, and to suggest the main strategies for sustainable habitability with monitoring recent facilities in the style of the modernized hanok structure according to territorial zoning and climate characteristics. A number of evaluation systems, including ‘Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Model for Existing Buildings’ by the Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology Corporation, were evaluated by classifying the indicators of performance evaluation as Environment, Function, and Comfort [7]. In particular, the Building and Environment Noise Consulting Research Institute, a joint research institute, is conducting a separate study on the environmental performance of hanok [8]. On the one hand, the functional performance of hanok was covered by another study by Lee, Cheon, and Han. The concept of residential performance of hanok, which is distinguished from modern architecture, was defined as Architectural Space, Village Complex, and Sustainability with spatial aspects of hanok experience based on human life, and a performance evaluation model reflecting the characteristics of hanok was presented from that point of view [9]. This study conducted a practical field survey based on KS (Korean Standard) A 6300-1 titled “Test Method for hanok: Part 1. Comfort Evaluation,” a Korean Standard suggested by the National Institute of Technology and Standards. Jeong, Cheon, and Han raised another issue of maintenance and sustainability as a main factor of hanok habitability. They emphasized that architecture has a duty in societies to preserve the past, provide the possibility of retaining the present on the strength of Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 3 of 18 culture and tradition, and maintain the performance with sufficient monitoring to see whether hanok maintains its functions in regard of habitability [10]. While prior researches were limited to public facilities, this study additionally included a total of twenty-nine prototypical testbed hanok supported by the Ministry of Land and Transport Affair of the Korean Government; two of them are located in Seoul, two in Gyeonggi-do, another two in Jeollanam-do, and twenty-three in Gangwon-do, all in South Korea. In addition, Hwasun Haetsal Village, where residents actually live, was considered for a comparative study. The level of completion of optimized evaluation methods and standards could be increased by accumulating data through on-site evaluation and analyzing trends of changes.

2. Literature Review Traditional houses have a distinctive shape with features that depend on the climate, culture, environment, and the location of the country in which they are built. Strandberg-de Bruijn, Donarelli, and Balksten have conducted research for the preservation and development of traditional architecture in the region, through the case of historic Swedish timber buildings, the most historic single-family houses in Sweden [11]. Their concept is quite impressive, and the main issue suggests that it will be necessary to improve the architectural performance of historical buildings with materials suitable for the architectural framework, while preserving its characteristic elements. Satish Kumar and Ardeshir Mahdavi emphasized the importance of comfort in indoor environment design, and reviewed supporting tools that effectively integrate it [12]. Shady Attia evaluated the role of a thermal adaptation design strategy for thermal comfort perception, occupant behavior, and building energy use in twelve high-performance Belgian households. Based on quantitative and qualitative fieldwork and in-depth interviews conducted in Brussels, the study provides insights into the impact of using mechanical systems [13]. Moreover, Luis Osterbeck and others observed that “integrated management” is recognized as fundamental to sustainable management of the world [14]. In fact, the model of sustainable development assumes a systemic relationship between society, environment, and economy, which were culturally oriented, essentially to one of these fields [15]. A prior study identified the representative strengths of hanok to include familiarity, friendliness, and eco-friendliness. Here, eco-friendliness means the use of natural materials obtained from nearby nature, good flow of air in the indoor space, and excellent ventilation of the members to control the temperature and humidity, which indicates comfort factors provided by the hanok [16]. The comforts of residence are in line with the residential performance, and should be discussed from various perspectives that include physical, psychological, emotional factors as well, focusing on the residents’ responses to the indoor environment. Jo and Han mentioned limitations in which hanok buildings are evaluated solely for physical comfort factor. Their paper also emphasized the need for an integrated performance evaluation system on the aesthetic, traditional, and psychological values of the traditional Korean hanok [17]. Because of subjective factors, such as human factors and indoor environmental indices that may vary depending on the situation of the space, they have traditionally been evaluated as predicted mean vote (PMV) in the indoor environment, as shown in Figure1. Thermal comfort, which is human satisfaction with the thermal environment, can be expressed as the PMV, based on Fanger’s model [18]. The PMV defines how people would be satisfied in a thermal environment, and it is standardized as ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) 55-2004, and used to evaluate thermal comfort. The values range ( 3 to +3) (too cold, to too warm), while a range ( 0.5 to − − 0.5) is normally recognized by ASHRAE as a comfort zone [19]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 4 of 18 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

Figure 1. Evaluation for physical environmental comfort (source: Han et al., 2014). FigureFigure 1. 1.Evaluation Evaluation for for physical physical environmental environmental comfort comfort (source: (source: Han Han et et al., al., 2014). 2014).

While this is a quantifiablequantifiable means of comfort performance, in a narrow sense, it was used as a While this is a quantifiable means of comfort performance, in a narrow sense, it was used as a criterion for evaluating the comfort of indoor environments in modern buildings. On the other hand, criterion for evaluating the comfort of indoor environments in modern buildings. On the other hand, therethere may be didifferencesfferences inin thethe hierarchyhierarchy andand thethe indexindex ofof thethe evaluationevaluation system from the comfort there may be differences in the hierarchy and the index of the evaluation system from the comfort performance standardsstandards thatthat reflectreflect thethe variousvarious valuesvalues ofof hanokhanok,, asas seenseen inin FigureFigure2 .2. performance standards that reflect the various values of hanok, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Comfort factors in the KS A 6300-1 evaluation method of spatial comfort for hanok. FigureFigure 2. Comfort 2. Comfort factors factors in the in theKS A KS 6300 A 6300-1-1 evaluation evaluation method method of spatia of spatiall comfort comfort for forhanokhanok. . When evaluating spatial comfort factors, a measurement method limited to the physical thermal WhenWhen evaluating evaluating spatial spatial comfort comfort factors, factors, a a measurement measurement method method limited limited to to the the physical physical thermal thermal environment omits the qualitative factors felt in space, considering the traditional value and merits environmentenvironment omitsomits thethe qualitativequalitative factorsfactors feltfelt inin space, space, considering considering thethe traditional traditional valuevalue andand merits merits of the hanok. In other words, the residents feel comfortable when staying in the space of the hanok; ofof thethehanok hanok.. InIn otherother words,words, thethe residentsresidents feelfeel comfortablecomfortable whenwhen stayingstaying inin thethe spacespace ofof thethe hanokhanok;; and the audiovisual pleasure of enjoying the seasonal changes in the natural environment, are major andand the the audiovisual audiovisual pleasure pleasure of of enjoying enjoying the the seasonal seasonal changes changes in in thethe naturalnatural environment,environment, areare major major factors that when defining the value of the hanok cannot be ignored. However, it was excluded from factorsfactors that that when when defining defining the the value value of of the thehanok hanokcannot cannot be be ignored. ignored. However,However, it it was was excluded excluded from from the comfort assessment on the grounds that it could not be easily defined as quantitative. In this thethe comfort comfort assessment assessment on on the the grounds grounds that that it could it could not benot easily be easily defined defined as quantitative. as quantitative. In this In sense, this sense, the thermal comfort factor is normally considered to describe the psychological status of thesense, thermal the thermal comfort comfort factor is factor normally is normally considered considered to describe to the describe psychological the psychological status of residents’ status of residents’ minds, and is usually referred to whether someone is feeling too hot or too cold [20]. minds,residents’ and minds, is usually and referred is usually to whetherreferred to someone whether is so feelingmeone too is hotfeeling or too too cold hot [or20 too]. cold [20]. The KS A 6300-1 mentioned above divides comfort criteria into a physical perceptive element, TheThe KSKS AA 6300-1 6300-1 mentioned mentioned aboveabove dividesdivides comfortcomfort criteriacriteria intointo aa physicalphysical perceptiveperceptive element,element, which is a quantitative indicator, and a psychological cognitive element, which is a qualitative whichwhich is is a quantitative a quantitative indicator, indicator, and a and psychological a psychological cognitive cognitive element, element, which is which a qualitative is a qualitative indicator. indicator. The physical perceptive element is composed of nine quantifiable factors that can be Theindicator. physical The perceptive physical elementperceptive is composed element is of composed nine quantifiable of nine factors quantifiable that can factors be measured that can by be measured by numerical values, of humidity control, condensation, insulation, thermal comfort, air measured by numerical values, of humidity control, condensation, insulation, thermal comfort, air permeability, solar radiation, solar lighting, sound insulation, and air cleanness. This is a perceptual permeability, solar radiation, solar lighting, sound insulation, and air cleanness. This is a perceptual Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 5 of 18 numerical values, of humidity control, condensation, insulation, thermal comfort, air permeability, solar radiation, solar lighting, sound insulation, and air cleanness. This is a perceptual concept of viewing a building as it is, and a quantitative evaluation method of measuring data in the field using environmental sensors and equipment. In contrast, psychological factors are qualitative items that include the experiences of residents living in hanok, and consist of five categories: scenery, beauty, deodorization, usability, and health [21]. This is a qualitative evaluation method using a subjective judgment scale based on the surveys of experts and residents, as previously suggested as a main research method. This research method has been frequently used in existing studies, and it collects subjective feedback from respondents using a questionnaire, and qualitatively analyzes the influencing factors. Liu, Wang, Wei et al. collected survey data from 207 families (553 residents) in three communities in Xi’an, the largest population in northwest China [22]. The researchers revised some questions and wordings in the questionnaire according to the comments and suggestions provided by participants. The study then employed a two-stage cluster sampling method, which is widely employed in the social science field. The colony extraction method, which extracts clusters, a set of observation units, under realistic constraints, such as survey cost and time, is commonly used in large-scale surveys. In particular, when observation units within a colony are very similar, a two-stage colony extraction method is preferred, in which a part is extracted and examined, instead of all observations in the colony [23,24]. Applying this existing objective research methodology in this paper, a survey was conducted by dividing into two categories: representative hanok design and construction experts, and users (residents) of houses & public facilities. Among the two categories of comfort, the physical perceptive element was carried out through a separate study according to the difference in evaluation method [25], and this study was limited to the psychological cognitive element, which is qualitative evaluation.

3. Methodology

3.1. Location of Target Hanok Target testbed hanok for the research for monitoring and evaluation consist of a total of twenty-nine buildings across the country. Because the most serious limitation to the research was regarded as their lack of actual residents, additional evaluations for the practical hanok where present residents currently live was needed. Accordingly, the Haetsal Village located in Hwasun, Jeollanam-do was added as a target hanok. Korea, located in the middle of the median at (33 to 43◦) N latitude, has a temperate climate with four distinct seasons, and has unique climatic characteristics that depend on the four different orientations in the country. For example, the southern part of Korea is warm and rainy, while the eastern part has high mountains, causing a large difference in precipitation and temperature, depending on the region [26]. According to these differences, the target areas were divided into three different regions, namely Zone 1, Seoul–Gyeonggi in the western central regions; Zone 2, Gangwon in the eastside–central; and Zone 3, Jeonnam in the southern part of Korea, as summarized in Figure3 and Table1. Thus, it was planned to ensure continuous assessment by region. Table2 indicates representative testbed hanok by zone. Literature Center at Eunpyeong hanok Village located in Zone 1 uses many traditional elements, such as Daechung as the main hallway, Maru as corridors and yards defines the boundary between inside and outside fences. Moreover, Gangneung hanok Village is a sort of public building that requires a wide space with no pillars due to its spatial characteristics, because a neck structure alone normally has a difficulty in securing a necessary space without pillars. For this reason, most of them use the contemporary construction materials like RC (Reinforced Concrete) to form the base structure as the lower part. Geumwa Kindergarten located in Zone 3 shows the wooden structure for the upper part to demonstrate the traditional beauty of hanok, and this combined structure has been considered to satisfy the structural stability. [10] Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 6 of 18 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

Figure 3. Location of Target hanok.hanok. Table 1. Target Testbed hanok for Evaluation. Table 1. Target Testbed hanok for Evaluation. Zone 1 Seoul–Gyeonggi Zone 1 Seoul–Gyeonggi Building Community Hanok Technology Literature Center Jishinjae Name Center CenterHanok Building Literature Center CommunityCommunity Center ExperimentalJishinjae Technology Name Program Exhibition, Office Exhibition, Office Service Mock-up Center Program LocationExhibition, Office Seoul Community Seoul Service Experimental Yongin Mock-up Exhibition, Suwon Office LocationSite Area (m2) Seoul 361.88Seoul 273.9 385Yongin 2661Suwon Site Area Total Floor Area (m2) 361.88 142.2273.9 249.16 126.18385 946.322661 (m2) Building Area (m2) 71.1 121.87 81.09 572.67 Total Floor 142.2 249.16 126.18 946.32 Area (m2) Korean-style Wooden Structure, Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Building Structure 71.1RC (Reinforced Wooden121.87 Structure, Wooden Structure,81.09 Wooden Structure,572.67 2 Area (m ) Concrete) toward RC RC (Foundation) RC Korean-style WoodenFoundation Korean-style Wooden Korean-style Korean-style Wooden Structure Structure, RC (Reinforced Structure, RC Wooden Structure, RC Concrete) toward Foundation (Foundation) Structure, RC Zone 2 Gangwon Building Hotel Units Energy-saving Unit Name Program Commercial, Hotel Commercial, Hotel Location Gangneung Gangneung Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 7 of 18

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19 SustainabilitySustainability 20 202020, 1, 21,2 x, xFOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 7 7of of 19 19

Site Table 1. Cont. SiteSite 12,300 12,300 Area (m2) 12,30012,300 12,30012,300 AreaArea (m (m2) 2) ZoneTotal 2 Floor Gangwon TotalTotal Floor Floor 1415.7 (unit: 104.4) 1415.7 (unit: 81) Area (m2) 1415.71415.7 (unit: (unit: 104.4) 104.4) 1415.71415.7 (unit: (unit: 81) 81) BuildingAreaArea (m (m2) 2) Building Hotel Units Energy-saving Unit NameBuildingBuilding 1516.14 1516.14 Area (m2) 1516.141516.14 1516.141516.14 AreaArea (m (m2) 2) Program Commercial, HotelKorean-style Commercial, Wooden Structure, Hotel Reinforced Structure Korean-style Wooden Structure, Reinforced Concrete KoreanKorean-style-style Wooden Wooden Structure, Structure, Reinforced Reinforced StructureStructure KoreanKorean-style-style Wooden Wooden Structure, Structure, Reinforced Reinforced Concrete Concrete Concrete Location Gangneung GangneungConcreteConcrete Zone 3 Jeonnam SiteZoneZone 3 3 JeonnamJeonnam Building 12,300Agricultural hanok at Haetsal 12,300 Townhouse at BuildingBuilding2 Geumwa Kindergarten AgriculturalAgricultural hanokhanok at at Haetsal Haetsal TownhouseTownhouse at at Area (mName) GeumwaGeumwa Kindergarten Kindergarten Experience Center Village Haetsal Village NameName ExperienceExperience Center Center VillageVillage HaetsalHaetsal Village Village Total FloorProgram Area (m 2) Education1415.7 (unit: 104.4)Exhibition, Office Residence 1415.7 (unit: 81)Residence ProgramProgram EducationEducation Exhibition,Exhibition, Office Office ResidenceResidence ResidenceResidence Location 2 Sunchang Naju Hwasun Hwasun Building AreaLocationLocation (m ) SunchangSunchang 1516.14NajuNaju HwasunHwasun 1516.14 HwasunHwasun Site Area SiteSite Area Area 900 6615 540 179,540 (m2) Korean-style900900 Wooden Structure,66156615 Korean-style540540 Wooden179,540 Structure,179,540 Structure(m(m2) 2) Total Floor Reinforced Concrete Reinforced Concrete TotalTotal Floor Floor 446.17 263.25 99.586 871.958 Area (m2) 446.17446.17 263.25263.25 99.58699.586 871.958871.958 ZoneAreaArea 3 (m (m2) 2) Jeonnam Building BuildingBuildingBuilding Geumwa337.92 Agricultural273.15 hanok at99.586 Haetsal Townhouse631.512 at Area (m2) 337.92337.92 273.15273.15 99.58699.586 631.512631.512 NameAreaArea (m (m2) 2) Kindergarten Experience Center Village Haetsal Village Korean-style Wooden Korean-style Wooden KoreanKorean-style-style Wooden Wooden Korean-style Wooden ProgramStructure KoreanKorean Education-style-style Wooden Wooden Exhibition,Structure, O ffiRCce KoreanKorean Residence-style-style Wooden Wooden ResidenceRC StructureStructure Structure Structure,Structure, RC RC Structure RCRC StructureStructure (Foundation) StructureStructure Location Sunchang(Foundation) Naju(Foundation) Hwasun Hwasun Site Area (m2) 900 6615 540 179,540 TableTableTable 22 2indicatesindicates indicates representativerepresentative representative testbed testbed hanok hanok by by zone. zone. Literature Literature Center Center at at Eunpyeong Eunpyeong hanokhanok hanok Total FloorVillageVillageVillage Area locatedlocated (mlocated2) inin in ZoneZone Zone446.17 11 1usesuses uses manymany many traditional traditional 263.25 elements, elements, such such as as Daechung 99.586Daechung as as the the mainmain main 871.958 hallway,hallway, hallway, MaruMaru asas corridorscorridors andand yardsyards definesdefines the boundary between inside and outside fences. Moreover,Moreover, BuildingMaru Area (mas 2corridors) and337.92 yards defines the boundary 273.15 between inside 99.586 and outside fences. 631.512Moreover, GangneungGangneungGangneung hanokhanok hanok VillageVillage Village isis is aa asortsort sort ofof of publicpublic public buildingbuilding building that that requires requires a awide wide spacespace space withwith with nono no pillarspillars pillars duedue due Korean-style tototo itsits its spatialspatial spatial characteristics,characteristics, characteristics,Korean-style becausebecause because aa aneckneck neck structure structure alone alone normally normallyKorean-style hashas has aa a difficultydifficulty difficulty inin in securingsecuring securing a a a Structure Wooden Structure, RC necessarynecessarynecessary spacespace space withoutwithoutWooden without pillars.pillars. Structurepillars. ForFor For this this reason, reason, most most of of them themWooden use use t hethe Structure contemporary contemporary constructionconstruction construction RC (Foundation) materialsmaterialsmaterials like like like RC RC RC (Reinforced (Reinforced (Reinforced Concrete) Concrete) Concrete) to to form form the the base base structure structure as as the the lower lower part. part. part. Geumwa GeumwaGeumwa KindergartenKindergartenKindergarten locatedlocated located inin in ZoneZone Zone 33 3showsshows shows thethe the woodenwooden wooden structure structure for for the the upperupper upper partpart part toto to demonstratedemonstrate demonstrate thethe the traditionaltraditionaltraditional beauty beauty beauty ofof of hanokhanok hanok,, andand, and thisthis this combinedcombined combined structure structure has has been been considered considered toto to satisfysatisfy satisfy thethe the structuralstructural structural Table 2.stability.stability.Detailedstability. [10][10] [10] Specification of Representative Target hanok by Zone. (Source: Jeong, Cheon and Han, 2019). TableTableTable 2.2. 2. DetailedDetailed Detailed SpecificationSpecification Specification of of Representative Representative Target Target hanok hanok by by Zone. Zone. (Source: (Source: Jeong,Jeong, Jeong, CheonCheon Cheon andand and Han, 2019). ZoneHan,Han, 2019). 2019). 1 2 3 ZoneZoneZone Literature11 1 Center at Hotel Units2 2 at 33 3 Testbed hanok Geumwa Kindergarten TestbedTestbedTestbed LiteratureLiteratureEunpyeongLiterature CenterCenter Centerhanok atat at EunpyeongEunpyeong EunpyeongVillage GangneungHotelHotel Units Units at at hanokGangneung GangneungVillage hanok hanok GeumwaGeumwa KindergartenKindergarten Kindergarten hanok hanok Village Village Climatehanokhanok Cool,hanokhanok Village Humid Village Warm, Dry-HumidVillageVillage Warm, Humid ClimateClimateClimate Cool,Cool,Cool, HumidHumid Humid Warm,Warm, Dry Dry-Humid-Humid Warm,Warm, HumidHumid Humid Year Built 2013 2016 2016 YearYearYear Built Built Built 201320132013 20162016 201620162016

CompositionCompositionCompositionComposition

3.2.3.2.3.2. Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation PeriodsPeriods Periods 3.2. Evaluation Periods AssessmentAssessmentAssessment conditions conditions conditions are are are complicated complicated by by such such considerations considerations as as seasonal seasonalseasonal variation, variation, variation, and and and Assessmentregionsregionsregions conditions with with with wide wide wide arespan span span complicated of of of climatic climatic climatic characteristics. characteristics. characteristics. by such considerations In In particular, particular, as as as a seasonala variable variable for for variation,for environmental environmental environmental and regions with wide spanconditions,conditions,conditions, of climatic seasonalseasonal seasonal characteristics. variationvariation variation hashas has toto to bebe Inbe thoroughly thoroughly particular, addressed. addressed. as a variable As As Luiz Luiz for Oosterbeek Oosterbeek environmental etet et al.al. al. observed,observed, observed, conditions, seasonal variation has to be thoroughly addressed. As Luiz Oosterbeek et al. observed, “The solution may reside in the integrated landscape management where all variables may be considered as equal both in the ecological, historical and geographical scopes, based on a shared social awareness filtered through the various cultural understandings”, so that integrated management from various perspectives is needed [14]. However, due to the nature of the on-site evaluation, there are many variables, such as weather changes and on-site conditions on the day of measurement, and there is a lack of means to control them. In addition, because the target sites are distributed by characteristics of regions in the Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

“The solution may reside in the integrated landscape management where all variables may be considered as equal both in the ecological, historical and geographical scopes, based on a shared social awareness filtered through the various cultural understandings”, so that integrated management from various perspectives is needed [14]. However, due to the nature of the on-site evaluation, there are many variables, such as weather changes and on-site conditions on the day of measurement,Sustainability 2020 ,and12, 10315 there is a lack of means to control them. In addition, because the target sites8 ofare 18 distributed by characteristics of regions in the country, simultaneous progress cannot be made, and the assessment should be conducted on a certain cycle, rather than on a specific date. country, simultaneous progress cannot be made, and the assessment should be conducted on a certain The twenty-four solar terms traditionally used in Korea, designated as a UNESCO (United cycle, rather than on a specific date. Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Intangible Cultural Heritage of The twenty-four solar terms traditionally used in Korea, designated as a UNESCO (United Nations Humanity, are divided into 24 parts per year based on the location of the Sun’s movement, and are Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, closely related to climate and seasonal changes. Among the twenty-four solar terms, six periods were are divided into 24 parts per year based on the location of the Sun’s movement, and are closely selected based on changes in actual weather data provided by the Korea Meteorological related to climate and seasonal changes. Among the twenty-four solar terms, six periods were selected Administration [27]. Reflecting seasonal characteristics, Cheongmyeong in spring, Haji and Daeseo based on changes in actual weather data provided by the Korea Meteorological Administration [27]. in summer, Sanggang in autumn, and Dongji and Daehan in winter were selected as main evaluation Reflecting seasonal characteristics, Cheongmyeong in spring, Haji and Daeseo in summer, Sanggang in periods in detail. Table 3 and Figure 4 summarize the timing and climate characteristics of the autumn, and Dongji and Daehan in winter were selected as main evaluation periods in detail. Table3 measurements for the selected major seasons. and Figure4 summarize the timing and climate characteristics of the measurements for the selected major seasons. Table 3. Periods and climatic characteristics of the evaluation season.

EvaluationTable Season 3. Periods and climaticPeriod characteristics of theClimatic evaluation Characteristics season.

CheongmyeongEvaluation Season 4–13 April Period 2019 a clear Climatic and Characteristics balmy spring day Cheongmyeong 4–13 April 2019 a clear andsummer balmy springsolstice, day Haji 23 June–2 July, 2019 summer solstice, Haji 23 June–2 July 2019 the longest day of the year the longest day of the year Daeseo 12–19 August, 2019 the hottest day of the year Daeseo 12–19 August 2019 the hottest day of the year SanggangSanggang 17 October 17 October–5–5 November, November 20192019 thethe first first day day of frost of frost winterwinter solstice, solstice, DongjiDongji 18–25 18–25 December, December 2019 2019 the longest longest night night of the of year the year DaehanDaehan 15–30 15–30 January, January 2020 2020 thethe coldest coldest day day of winter of winter

Figure 4. TraditionalTraditional seasonal divisions in the lunar calendar system.

In line withwith thethe objectivesobjectives of of this this study, study, the the frequency frequency of of assessment assessment of of residential residential facilities facilities was was set sethigher higher than than that that of of public public facilities. facilities. In In addition, addition, a a measurement measurement plan planwas was developeddeveloped in connectionconnection with the weather data provided by the Korea Meteorological Administration, taking into account the location, purpose, and operation of the target hanok. They can be largely classified as residential and public facilities according to their respective uses, as categorized and shown in Figure5 in detail. The former includes Ojuk hanok Village in Gangneung and Haetsal Village in Hwasun, and six public facilities have been constructed in Yongin, Suwon, Eunpyeong, Naju, and Sunchang. Ojuk hanok Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

with the weather data provided by the Korea Meteorological Administration, taking into account the location, purpose, and operation of the target hanok. They can be largely classified as residential and Sustainabilitypublic facilities2020, 12 according, 10315 to their respective uses, as categorized and shown in Figure 5 in detail.9 ofThe 18 former includes Ojuk hanok Village in Gangneung and Haetsal Village in Hwasun, and six public facilities have been constructed in Yongin, Suwon, Eunpyeong, Naju, and Sunchang. Ojuk hanok Village is currently operated as an accommodation facility. Therefore, it can be said that residential life Village is currently operated as an accommodation facility. Therefore, it can be said that residential depends on the guest experience of the facility. life depends on the guest experience of the facility.

Figure 5. Evaluation Plans of the Target hanok.hanok.

ItIt isis alsoalso regardedregarded asas aa placeplace withwith advantagesadvantages inin termsterms ofof universalityuniversality and securing a variety of parameters,parameters, becausebecause itit can can be be used used by by an an unspecified unspecified number number of of guests, guests, and and to to obtain obtain a largea large number number of evaluationof evaluation data data from from them. them. In the In case the of case Eunpyeong of Eunpyeonghanok Village, hanok twoVillage, different two buildings different composed buildings ofcomposed the exhibition of thehall exhi andbition the hall village and hall the asvillage a public hall facility, as a public were facility, closely associatedwere closely in anassociated adjacent in area, an butadjacent the user area, evaluation but the wasuser conducted evaluation separately, was conducted because separately, of differences because in the of operation differences methods, in the andoperation the buildings’ methods, individual and the buildings’ characteristics. individual In general, characteristics. target hanok In generalin this, target case are hanok mainly in this public case facilities,are mainly and public even facilities, residential and facilities even residential so far have facilities not actually so far been have inhabited not actually by changing been inhabited their use. by changingTo overcome their use. these limitations, Hwasun Haetsal Village was added as a target site. This case is withinTo overcome a complex these where limitations,hanok are Hwasun actually Haetsal occupied Village by residents, was added and as this a target is considered site. This to case show is greatwithin advantage a complex in where analyzing hanok theare trendactually of occupied change, as by it residents, can secure and cumulative this is considered data of theto show same great user throughoutadvantage in the analyzing entire season. the trend In the of case change, of Naju as Agricultural it can secure Experience cumulative Center, data the of evaluation the same user was conductedthroughout during the entire the ten-dayseason. In local the eventcase of of Naju the Naju Agricultural Agriculture Exper Expoience from Center, October the evaluation 17, in line with was theconducted intensive during operation the ten with-day practical local event visitors of the as Naju respondents. Agriculture Expo from October 17, in line with the intensiveGangneung operation and Hwasun with practicalhanok were visitors evaluated as respondents. six times for each season as the best places to meet researchGangneung goals, as and actual Hwasun users livedhanok there.were evaluated On the other six times hand, for Yongin each hanokseason, manufactured as the best places for to the meet use asresearch experimental goals, as mock-up, actual users was lived measured there. once On the in June, other especially hand, Yongin for the hanok summer, manufactured solstice called for the Haji use in Korea,as experimental because its mock living-up, space was wasmeasured not actually once in occupied, June, especially and was for considered the summer to havesolsti lowce called importance Haji in inKorea, affecting because the results.its livingHanok spaceTechnology was not actually Exhibition occupied, Hall in and Suwon was isconsidered also a public to have facility low that importance is visited byin affecting a small numberthe results. of Hanok users, Technology normally through Exhibition room Hall rentals in Suwon taking is also place a public irregularly facility on that weekdays is visited forby a the small purpose number of conferenceof users, normally meetings. through Most visitorsroom rentals come taking to watch place exhibition irregularly pieces on inweekdays the gallery, for andthe purpose take part of in conference the experience meetings. program Most on visitors weekends. come Therefore, to watch duringexhibition the pieces Haji period, in the visitorsgallery, whoand participatedtake part in thein those experience events program were selected on weekends. for the evaluation Therefore, once during over the the Haji weekend. period, In visitors the case who of Najuparticipated Agricultural in those Experience events were Center, selected it was for the intensively evaluation operated once over during the weekend. the biennial In the EXPO case of period, Naju soAgricultural one-time measurement Experience Center, at the Sanggangit was intensively period inoperated October during was conducted. the biennial Geumgwa EXPO period, Kindergarten so one- intime Sunchang, measurement a highly-utilized at the Sanggang public facilityperiod for in October children was and teachersconducted. that Geumgwa operates Monday Kindergarten through in Friday,Sunchang, was a measured highly-utilized three times, public such facility as Haji, for children Daeseo in and August, teachers and that winter operates solstice Monday called Dongji through in December, due to the high demand for seasonal evaluation. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

SustainabilityFriday, was2020 measured, 12, 10315 three times, such as Haji, Daeseo in August, and winter solstice called Dongji10 of in 18 December, due to the high demand for seasonal evaluation.

3.3. Evaluation Process The FocusFocus GroupGroup InterviewInterview (FGI) (FGI) approach, approach, first first of of all, all, was was utilized utilized to setto set the the assessment assessment criteria criteria for expertfor expert surveys. surveys. Since itSince is assumed it is assumed that well-trained that well expert-trained group expert recognizes group about recognizeshanok characteristics about hanok professionallycharacteristics inprofessionally advance, on-site in advance, evaluation on-site process evaluation has been process applied has by been using applied technical by using drawings technical and directdrawings briefing and direct reports briefing by the reports field manager. by the field In contrastmanager. to In the contrast expert to survey the expert with survey three-point with Likertthree- scale,point Likert general scale, users general have users required have more required detailed more information detailed information of hanok comfortof hanok comfort and specified and specified survey responsessurvey responses with the with five-point the five- scalepoint asscale well; as well; this situation this situation caused caused to consider to consider two two diff differenterent forms forms of dataof data collection collection and and the the integrative integrative process process of of those those from from each each di differentfferent group: group: expertexpert andand user. Then, survey results from both experts and users were toto be joined to evaluate psychological cognitive factors in fivefive categories:categories: scenery, scenery, beauty, deodorization,deodorization, usability,usability, andand health.health. TheseThese are qualitativequalitative elements that areare physicallyphysically impossible to measure, and are usedused toto assessassess useruser satisfactionsatisfaction withwith thethe comfortcomfort performance, such as psychological,psychological, emotional, and empiricalempirical contentscontents [[28].28]. The overall scheme of the evaluation was properly organized organized as as seen seen in in Figure Figure 6.6.

Figure 6. Evaluation process for psychological cognitive factors.

Scenery indicates satisfactionsatisfaction factor through comprehensive sentiment and scenery, taking into account the shape and appearance of hanok, thethe layoutlayout ofof space,space, thethe geographicalgeographical location,location, and thethe surrounding situation, etc. Beauty, Beauty, as a traditional aesthetic factor, shows the internalinternal andand externalexternal honorability, thethe sensesense ofof stability,stability, andand opennessopenness uniqueunique toto hanokhanok,, andand thethe psychologicalpsychological satisfactionsatisfaction achieved through patterns patterns of of traditional traditional materials. materials. Deodorization points out the comprehensive comprehensive olfactory satisfaction factor that users can feel by scent in materials applied, etc., without unpleasant odors from from indoor indoor and and outdoor outdoor environments. environments. Usability Usability emphasizes emphasizes the user the usersatisfaction satisfaction factor factor with withthe convenience the convenience of operating of operating various various facilities facilities that that can can control control both both indoor indoor spaces spaces and and externalexternal environments. Finally, Finally, health health indicates indicates the the psychological satisfaction satisfaction that that can be felt through the adoption of elements that aaffectffect thethe mentalmental andand physicalphysical healthhealth statusstatus ofof thethe user.user. Expert evaluation evaluation consisted consisted of relevant of relevant professionals professionals in the research in the field resea ofrch traditional field of architecture, traditional includingarchitecture, the including design, construction,the design, construction, and repair and of hanok repair, andof hanok repeated, and repeated feedback feedback using the using Delphi the techniqueDelphi technique was received was received[29]. The experts[29]. The checked experts the checked surrounding the surrounding environment, environment, climate information, climate andinformation, other compositional and other compositiona elements of thel elements target hanok of the, and target prepared hanok, toand fill prepared out itemized to fill checklists out itemized and buildchecklists assessment and build reports assessment through reports on-site through verification on- usingsite verification building drawings, using building test papers, drawings, annexes, test andpapers, so on, annexes, as clues and and so evidence. on, as clues In comparison, and evidence. the In user comparison, satisfaction the survey user wassatisfaction conducted sur withvey was the assessment questionnaire using a three-point Likert scale for each factor, as suggested and shown in Figure7[30]. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19 conducted with the assessment questionnaire using a three-point Likert scale for each factor, as Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 11 of 18 suggested and shown in Figure 7 [30].

FigureFigure 7. 7. ExampleExample of of the the expert expert survey. survey.

TheThe Likert Likert scale scale was was developed developed by by the the American American social social psychologist psychologist Rensis Rensis Likert Likert and and colleagues colleagues inin the the early early 1930s, 1930s, and and has has been been widely widely used used as as a a methodology methodology in in the the field field of of social social science science to to evaluate evaluate respondents’respondents’ attitudes, attitudes, feelings, feelings, beliefs, beliefs, etc. etc. for for specific specific objects objects or or concepts. concepts. It It is is comprised comprised of of various various questionsquestions rel relatedated to to the the subject subject to to measure measure the the level level of of likes likes or or dislikes, dislikes, agreements agreements or or disagreements disagreements expressedexpressed by by the the respondent. respondent. It It can can consist consist of of a avariety variety of of methods, methods, including including three three point, point, five five point, point, andand seven seven point point scales, scales, but but the the five five-point-point scale scale is is most most freq frequentlyuently used. used. This This measurement measurement method method is is relativelyrelatively easy easy to to use use for for many many people, people, and and has has the the advantage advantage of of having having high high reliability reliability by by ensuring ensuring consistency.consistency. In In addition, addition, it it is is highly highly feasible, feasible, because because it it can can minimize minimize errors errors by by directly directly utilizing utilizing the the respondenrespondents’ts’ response response values, values, and and because because it it utilizes utilizes a a variety variety of of questions questions [31]. [31]. However, However, there there is is a a disadvantage,disadvantage, in in that that measurement measurement is is not not possible possible for for weights weights and and relative relative importance importance by by question. question. Moreover,Moreover, it it is is difficult difficult to to fully fully reflect reflect and and interpret interpret the the me meaninganing of of the the respondents’ respondents’ response response toward toward eacheach question, question, because because the the total total score score of of the the question question is is used. used. Thus, Thus, for for user user evaluations evaluations in in which which the the majoritymajority participated, participated, the the five five-point-point scale scale was was used used to to compensate compensate for for the the shortcomings, shortcomings, while while expert expert evaluatievaluationon that that fully fully reflected reflected the the representativeness representativeness was was evaluated evaluated separately separately by by three three-point-point scale. scale. AfterAfter collecting collecting all all of of the the questionnaires, questionnaires, it it was was converted converted to to the the same same criteria, criteria, and and compared compared during during thethe evaluation evaluation setting setting process. process. ForFor user user evaluations, evaluations, a afor formm of of questionnaire questionnaire was was used used to to actively actively reflect reflect seasonal seasonal characteristics, characteristics, takingtaking into into account account their their activities activities and and hours hours of of use use according according to to the the purpose purpose of of the the building building program. program. TheThe questionnaire questionnaire was was collected collected in ina way a way that that expressed expressed their their opinions opinions in a in na atural natural atmosphere, atmosphere, so beneficialso beneficial information information could could be derived be derived through through interactions interactions between between respondents. respondents. Figure Figure 8 shows8 shows an examplean example of the of user the userquestionnaire, questionnaire, which which was organized was organized by separating by separating the differences the differences between between family members,family members, type of residence, type of residence, type of facility, type and of facility, general and user general information, user information, such as gender such and as age. gender and age. The contents of the survey were designed based on a previously-used standard, such as the indoor environment comfort checklist by the Korean Society of Living and Environment Studies to construct user questions that could explain each factor, and to secure objectivity using the five-point Likert scale [32]. Three questions were asked according to the characteristics of the assessment factors, and the selection range was set from one to five, depending on the degree to which they were deemed comfortable, such as “very dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”, “normal”, “satisfied”, and “very satisfied”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 12 of 18

This fundamental survey system is relatively easy to use for many people, and has the advantage of having high reliability by ensuring consistency. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure 8. ExampleExample of of the the user user questionnaire.

3.4. DataThe Analysiscontents of the survey were designed based on a previously-used standard, such as the indoorEvaluations environment were comfort completed checklist by eight by respected the Korean professionals Society of accordingLiving and to Environment the annual measurement Studies to constructplan. In the user case questions of the user that evaluation, could explain 793 each valid factor, questionnaires and to secure were objectivity collected in using total, the composed five-point of Likert448 answer scale [32]. sheets Three for Gangneung, questions were 152 asked for Hwasun, according 79 forto the Eunpyeong, characteristics 59 for of Sunchang, the assessment 32 for factors, Suwon, and the 23 forselection Naju. range During was the set Cheongmyeong from one to five, period, depending as a preliminary on the degree evaluation, to which they the currentwere deemed status comfortable,of the target hanoksuch aswas “very identified, dissatisfied”, its problems “dissatisfied”, and improvement “normal”, plans“satisfied”, were reviewed, and “very and satisfied”. overall Thisoutputs fundamental were reflected survey to system the main is relatively evaluation easy performed to use for later. many Analyzed people, and data has for the each advantage evaluation of havingfactor was high organized reliability by by constructing ensuring consistency. a database in the same configuration, according to the evaluation period and location. 3.4. DataFigure Analysis9 summarizes the results of analyzing personal characteristics, such as gender and age. SomeEvaluations 67% of the respondents were completed were female, by eight while those respected in their professionals 40s and older accordingwho prefer hanok to theaccounted annual measurementfor 61% of the plan. total. In The the proportion case of the of user respondents evaluation, by 793 season valid was questionnaires generally constant, were collected and height in total, and composedweight information of 448 answer were sheets collected for to Gangneung, determine the152 comfort for Hwasun, that individuals 79 for Eunpyeong, felt through 59 for their Sunchang, sensory 32organs. for Suwon, It can beand said 23 thatfor Naju. the reliability During the of the Cheongmyeong sample was to period, some extent as a preliminary secured, given evaluation, the fact thatthe currentthe average status of of Korea the target Adults hanok came was from identified, 69 to 95% its of problems respondents and in improvement height and weight, plans respectivelywere reviewed, [33]. andSome overall 79% of outputs the respondents were reflected said to they the were main satisfied evaluation with performed the comfort later. of theAnalyzed interior data space for of each the evaluationhanok. Some factor respondents was organized cited noise, by constructing smell, and insects a database as the in causes the same of discomfort, configuration, while according others said to theit was evaluation hot and period humid and in summer, location. or cold and dry in winter, depending on seasonal characteristics. However,Figure the 9 summarizes majority of respondents the results of said analyzing that the personal interior space characteristics, of hanok was such generally as gender comfortable. and age. Some 67% of the respondents were female, while those in their 40s and older who prefer hanok accounted for 61% of the total. The proportion of respondents by season was generally constant, and height and weight information were collected to determine the comfort that individuals felt through their sensory organs. It can be said that the reliability of the sample was to some extent secured, given the fact that the average of Korea Adults came from 69 to 95% of respondents in height and weight, respectively [33]. Some 79% of the respondents said they were satisfied with the comfort of the interior space of the hanok. Some respondents cited noise, smell, and insects as the causes of discomfort, while others said it was hot and humid in summer, or cold and dry in winter, depending on seasonal characteristics. However, the majority of respondents said that the interior space of hanok was generally comfortable. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 13 of 18 Sustainability 2020,, 12,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEW 13 of 19

FigureFigure 9.9. PersonalPersonal characteristicscharacteristics of the survey respondents. respondents.

AsAs shown shown in in the the case case ofof compositioncomposition ofof thethe datadata sheet in Figure 10,10, the the results results of of the the assessment assessment werewere systematically systematically organized, organized, including including the architectural the architectural outline outline of the target of thehanok, targetmajor hanok, mappings major andmappings drawings, and user drawings, life cycle, user and life climatecycle, and information climate information on the measurement on the measurement date. date.

FigureFigure 10. 10. ExemplarExemplar databasedatabase sheetsheet ofof the Hanok evaluation for for comfort comfort performance. performance. 4. Results In the case of expert evaluation, a preliminary evaluation was first conducted during the Cheongmyeong season. Then, after reviewing the architectural drawings for each target hanok, evaluation checklists were prepared according to the judgment scale for each factor, and decisions were SustainabilitySustainabilitySustainabilitySustainability 2020 202020202020,, 1,1, 2121,2,2 x,x, x xFORFOR FORFOR PEERPEER PEERPEER REVIEW REVIEW 14141414 ofof ofof 1919 1919 SustainabilitySustainabilitySustainability 20 2020202020, ,1, 1212,2 ,x, x xFOR FORFOR PEER PEERPEER REVIEW REVIEWREVIEW 141414 of ofof 19 1919 4.4. Results Results 4.4.4. Results ResultsResults Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 14 of 18 InInInIn the the the the case case case case of of of of expert expert expert expert evaluation, evaluation,evaluation,evaluation, a a a a preliminary preliminary preliminary preliminary evaluation evaluation evaluation evaluation was was was was first first first first conducted conducted conducted conducted during during during during the the the the InInIn the the the case case case of of of expert expert expert evaluation,evaluation,evaluation, a a a preliminary preliminary preliminary evaluation evaluation evaluation was was was first first first conducted conducted conducted during during during the the the CheongmyeongCheongmyeong season. season. Then, Then, after after reviewing reviewing the the architectural architectural drawings drawings for for each each target target hanokhanok,, ,, CheongmyeongCheongmyeongCheongmyeong season. season. season. Then, Then, Then, after after after reviewing reviewing reviewing the the the architectural architectural architectural drawings drawings drawings for for for each each each target target target hanokhanokhanok,, , evaluationevaluationevaluationevaluation checklistschecklists checklistschecklists werewere werewere preparedprepared preparedprepared accordingaccording accordingaccording toto toto thethe thethe judgmentjudgment judgmentjudgment scalescale scalescale forfor forfor eacheach eacheach factor,factor, factor,factor, andand andand decisidecisi decisidecisionsons evaluationevaluationevaluation checklists checklistschecklists were werewere prepared preparedprepared according accordingaccording to toto the thethe judgment judgmentjudgment scale scalescale for forfor each eacheach factor, factor,factor, and andand decisi decisidecisionsonsons derived fromwere repeatedwere derived derived feedback from from repeated repeated based feedback feedback on the based based Delphi on on the the method. Delphi Delphi method. method. Each itemEach Each item was item was judgedwas judged judged by by by a a a three-pointthree three---- werewerewere derived derivedderived from fromfrom repeated repeatedrepeated feedback feedbackfeedback based basedbased on onon the thethe Delphi DelphiDelphi method. method.method. Each EachEach item itemitem was waswas judged judgedjudged by byby a aa three threethree--- Likert-type scalepointpoint consisting Likert Likert--typetype--typetype scale ofscale scalescale “dissatisfied”, consistingconsisting consistingconsisting ofof ofof “dissatisfied”,“dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”,“dissatisfied”, “normal”, “normal”,“normal”, and “normal”,“normal”, “satisfied”. andand andand “satisfied”.“satisfied”. “satisfied”.“satisfied”. In sum, InIn InIn sum,sum, thesum,sum, evaluationthethe thethe evaluationevaluation evaluationevaluation results pointpointpoint Likert LikertLikert--type-typetype scale scalescale consisting consistingconsisting of ofof “dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”,“dissatisfied”, “normal”, “normal”,“normal”, and andand “satisfied”. “satisfied”.“satisfied”. In InIn sum, sum,sum, the thethe evaluation evaluationevaluation resultsresultsresultsresults show show show show that that that that most most most most professionals professionals professionals professionals who who who who submitted submitted submitted submitted s survey s survey sheets sheets responded responded on on average average to to show that mostresultsresultsresults professionals show show show that that that most most mostwho professionals professionals professionalssubmitted whosurvey who who submitted submitted submitted sheets s sresponded surveyurveyurvey sheets sheets sheets on responded responded responded average on on on to average average averagepsychological to to to psychologicalpsychological cognitive cognitive factors factors as as appropriate, appropriate, and and it it was was also also found found that that there there were were few few data data for for the the cognitive factorspsychologicalpsychologicalpsychological as appropriate, cognitive cognitivecognitive and factors factorsfactors it was as asas appropriate, appropriate,appropriate, also found and andand that it itit was therewaswas also alsoalso were found foundfound few that thatthat data there therethere for were werewere the few fewfew factor data datadata offor forfor Usability the thethe factorfactorfactorfactor ofof ofof UsabilityUsability UsabilityUsability thatthat thatthat indicatedindicated indicatedindicated ‘satisfied’.‘satisfied’. ‘satisfied’.‘satisfied’. TheThe TheThe evaluationevaluation evaluationevaluation periodperiod periodperiod oror oror typetype typetype ofof ofof targettarget targettarget hanok hanok did did not not factorfactorfactor of ofof Usability UsabilityUsability that thatthat indicated indicatedindicated ‘satisfied’. ‘satisfied’.‘satisfied’. The TheThe evaluation evaluationevaluation period periodperiod or oror type typetype of ofof target targettarget hanok hanokhanok did diddid not notnot that indicatedshowshowshowshow ‘satisfied’. aa a a significantsignificant significantsignificant The differencedifference differencedifference evaluation amongamong amongamong period thethe thethe evaluationevaluation evaluationevaluation or type results.results. results.results. of target TableTable TableTable hanok44 4 4 showsshows showsshowsdid thethe thethe notdifferencesdifferences differencesdifferences show betweenbetween a betweenbetween significant showshowshow a aa significant significantsignificant difference differencedifference among amongamong the thethe evaluation evaluationevaluation results. results.results. Table TableTable 4 44 shows showsshows the thethe differences differencesdifferences between betweenbetween difference amongrespondentrespondentrespondentrespondent the evaluation groupsgroups groupsgroups forfor forfor thethe results. thethe comfortcomfort comfortcomfort Table assessment,assessment, assessment,assessment,4 shows especiallyespecially especiallyespecially the di ff ofof erencesofof thethe thethe samplesample samplesample between testbedtestbed testbedtestbed respondent hanok hanok built built in in groupsOjuk Ojuk for respondentrespondentrespondent groups groupsgroups for forfor the thethe comfort comfortcomfort assessment, assessment,assessment, especially especiallyespecially of ofof the thethe sample samplesample testbed testbedtestbed hanok hanokhanok built builtbuilt in inin Ojuk OjukOjuk VillageVillage in in Gangeung. Gangeung. the comfort assessment,VillageVillageVillage in inin Gangeung. Gangeung.Gangeung. especially of the sample testbed hanok built in Ojuk Village in Gangeung.

TableTable 4. 4. Comparative Comparative evaluati evaluationon results results in in the the case case of of the the testbed testbed hanokhanok hanokhanok inin inin Gangeung.Gangeung. Gangeung.Gangeung. Table 4. ComparativeTableTableTable 4. 4.4. Comparative ComparativeComparative evaluation evaluati evaluatievaluati resultsononon results resultsresults in the in inin case the thethe case casecase of theof ofof the thethe testbed testbed testbedtestbed hanok hanokhanok in ininin Gangeung. Gangeung.Gangeung. Gangeung. EvaluationEvaluation EvaluationEvaluationEvaluation ExpertsExperts UsersUsers EvaluationSeasonSeason Season Experts ExpertsExperts UsersUsersUsersUsers SeasonSeasonSeason

HajiHajiHaji HajiHajiHaji

DaeseoDaeseoDaeseo DaeseoDaeseoDaeseo

SanggangSanggang SanggangSanggangSanggangSanggang

DongjiDongji DongjiDongjiDongjiDongji

SustainabilitySustainability 20 202020, ,1 122, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1515 of of 19 19

DaehanDaehanDaehan

InIn thethe casecase ofof useruser evaluation,evaluation, mostmost ofof themthem evaluatedevaluated asas satisfactorysatisfactory oror excellent,excellent, exceptexcept forfor aa In the caseveryvery of few. few. user There There evaluation, was was no no difference difference most in in of final final them results results evaluated according according astoto the the satisfactory evaluation evaluation period period or excellent, or or type type of of target excepttarget for a very few. Therehanokhanok too,too, was andand no mostmost diff usersuserserence evaluatedevaluated in final thethe results overalloverall comforcomfor accordingtt performanceperformance to the asas evaluation excellent.excellent. InIn period particular,particular, or thethe type of target hanok too,levellevel and ofof satisfactionsatisfaction most users waswas evaluated reasonablyreasonably the highhigh overall inin termsterms comfort ofof scenery,scenery, performance beauty,beauty, andand deodorizationdeodorization as excellent. amongamong In particular, thethe psychologicalpsychological cognitive cognitive factors. factors. TableTable 55 indicatesindicates differencesdifferences betweenbetween respondentrespondent groupsgroups for for thethe comfortcomfort assessment, assessment, especiallyespecially forfor thethe exemplaryexemplary practicalpractical hanokhanok builtbuilt inin HaetsalHaetsal VillageVillage inin Hwasun.Hwasun. AsAs aa result,result, therethere werewere slightslight differencesdifferences by by season, season, but but generally, generally, both both experts experts and and users users showedshowed satisfactory satisfactory responses. responses. In In particular,particular, satisfactionsatisfaction waswas highhigh inin termsterms ofof scenery,scenery, beauty,beauty, andand health.health. InIn termsterms ofof usability,usability, therethere waswas somesome evaluationevaluation ofof dissatisfaction.dissatisfaction. InIn summary,summary, itit cancan bebe seenseen thatthat environmentalenvironmental factors,factors, suchsuch asas natural natural enviro environmentnment and and location, location, are are the the main main variables variables that that influence influence satisfaction satisfaction with with psychologicalpsychological cognitivecognitive factors.factors. ItIt cancan bebe seenseen thatthat thethe formativeformative beautybeauty ofof hanokhanok alsoalso hashas aa majormajor influenceinfluence on on satisfaction. satisfaction.

TableTable 5. 5. Comparative Comparative evaluation evaluation results results in in the the case case of of practical practical hanok hanok in in Hwasun. Hwasun.

EvaluationEvaluation ExpertsExperts UsersUsers SeasonSeason

HajiHaji

DaeseoDaeseo

SanggangSanggang

SustainabilitySustainability 20 202020, ,1 122, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1515 of of 19 19 SustainabilitySustainability 20 202020,, , ,1 122,, , ,x x xx FOR FOR FORFOR PEER PEER PEERPEER REVIEW REVIEW 1515 of of 19 19

DaehanDaehan DaehanDaehan

Sustainability 2020, 12InIn, the 10315the case case of of user user evaluation, evaluation, most most of of them them evaluated evaluated as as satisfactory satisfactory or or excellent, excellent, except except for for15 a a of 18 InIn thethe casecase ofof useruser evaluation,evaluation, mostmost ofof themthem evaluatedevaluated asas satisfactorysatisfactory oror excellent,excellent, exceptexcept forfor aa veryvery few. few. There There was was no no difference difference in in final final results results according according to to the the evaluation evaluation period period or or type type of of target target veryvery few. few. There There was was no no difference difference in in final final results results according according to to the the evaluation evaluation period period or or type type of of target target hanokhanok too, too, and and most most users users evaluated evaluated the the overall overall comfor comfortt performance performance as as excellent. excellent. In In particular, particular, the the hanokhanok too, too,too,too, and andandand most mostmostmost users usersusersusers evaluated evaluatedevaluatedevaluated the thethethe overall overalloveralloverall comfor comforcomforcomfortttt performance performanceperformanceperformance as asasas excellent. excellent.excellent.excellent. In InInIn particular, particular,particular,particular, the thethethe levellevel of of satisfaction satisfaction was was reasonably reasonably high high in in terms terms of of scenery, scenery, beauty, beauty, and and deodorization deodorization among among the the the level oflevellevel satisfactionlevellevel of ofofof satisfaction satisfactionsatisfactionsatisfaction was reasonably was waswaswas reasonably reasonablyreasonablyreasonably high high highhighhigh in interms ininin terms termstermsterms of of ofofof scenery, scenery, scenery,scenery,scenery, beauty, beauty, beauty,beauty,beauty, and and andand deodorization deodorizationdeodorizationdeodorization deodorization among amongamongamong among the thethethe the psychologicalpsychological cognitive cognitive factors. factors. psychologicalpsychologicalpsychological cognitive cognitive cognitive factors. factors. factors. TableTable 5 5 indicates indicates differences differences between between respondent respondent groups groups for for the the comfort comfort assessment, assessment, especially especially Table5 indicatesTableTable 5 di5 indicatesindicatesfferences differencesdifferences between betweenbetween respondent respondentrespondent groups groupsgroups for thefor for thecomfortthe comfortcomfort assessment, assessment, assessment, especially especiallyespecially for forfor the the exemplary exemplary practical practical hanok hanok built built in in Haetsal Haetsal Village Village in in Hwasun. Hwasun. As As a a result, result, there there were were slight slight forfor thethe exemplaryexemplary practicalpractical hanokhanok built built inin HaetsalHaetsal VillageVillage inin Hwasun.Hwasun. AsAs aa result,result, therethere werewere slightslight the exemplarydifferencesdifferences practical by by season, season,hanok built but but generally, generally, in Haetsal both both Village experts experts in and and Hwasun. users users showedshowed As a satisfactory satisfactory result, there responses. responses. were In slight In differencesdifferences by by season, season, but but generally, generally, both both experts experts and and users users showedshowed satisfactory satisfactory responses. responses. In In differences byparticular,particular, season, satisfaction satisfaction but generally, was was high bothhigh in in experts terms terms of of and scenery, scenery, users beauty, beauty, showed and and satisfactory health. health. In In terms terms responses. of of usability, usability, In particular, there there particular,particular, satisfactionsatisfaction waswas highhigh inin termsterms ofof scenery,scenery, beauty,beauty, andand health.health. InIn termsterms ofof usability,usability, therethere satisfactionwaswas was some some high evaluation evaluation in terms of of of dissatisfaction. dissatisfaction. scenery, beauty, In In summary, summary, and health. it it can can be be In seen seen terms that that ofenvironmental environmental usability, there factors, factors, was such such some waswas somesome evaluationevaluation ofof dissatisfaction.dissatisfaction. InIn summary,summary, itit cancan bebe seenseen thatthat environmentalenvironmental factors,factors, suchsuch asas natural natural enviro environmentnment and and location, location, are are the the main main variables variables that that influence influence satisfaction satisfaction with with evaluationas ofas dissatisfaction. natural natural enviro environmentnment In summary, and and location, location, it can are are be the the seen main main that variables variables environmental that that influence influence factors, satisfaction satisfaction such as with with natural psychologicalpsychological cognitivecognitive factors.factors. ItIt cancan bebe seenseen thatthat thethe formativeformative beautybeauty ofof hanokhanok alsoalso hashas aa majormajor environmentpsychologicalpsychological and location, cognitivecognitive are the factors.factors. mainvariables ItIt cancan bebe seen thatseen that influencethat thethe formativeformative satisfaction beautybeauty with ofof hanokhanok psychological alsoalso hashas aa major cognitivemajor influenceinfluence on on satisfaction. satisfaction. factors. It caninfluenceinfluenceinfluenceinfluence be seen on on onon thatsatisfaction. satisfaction. satisfaction.satisfaction. the formative beauty of hanok also has a major influence on satisfaction. TableTable 5. 5. Comparative Comparative evaluation evaluation results results in in the the case case of of practical practical hanok hanok in in Hwasun. Hwasun. TableTable 5. 5. Comparative Comparative evaluation evaluation results results in in the the case case of of practical practical hanok hanok in inin Hwasun. Hwasun.Hwasun. Table 5. ComparativeTable 5. Comparative evaluation evaluation results results in the in the case case of of practical practicalhanok hanok inin Hwasun. Hwasun. EvaluationEvaluation EvaluationEvaluation ExpertsExperts UsersUsers EvaluationSeasonSeason Season Experts ExpertsExperts UsersUsersUsers SeasonSeason

HajiHajiHaji HajiHaji

DaeseoDaeseo DaeseoDaeseoDaeseo

SanggangSanggang SanggangSanggangSanggang

SustainabilitySustainability 20 202020, ,1 122, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1616 of of 19 19

DongjiDongjiDongji

DaehanDaehanDaehan

ThroughThrough thisthis study,study, itit cancan bebe seenseen thatthat comparedcompared toto modernizedmodernized houses,houses, hanokhanok isis superiorsuperior inin psychologicalpsychological terms, terms, although although in in terms terms of of physical physical performance, performance, it it is is somewhat somewhat insufficient. insufficient. Accordingly,Accordingly, this this research research could could be be amended amended by by quantitative quantitative analyses analyses with with physical physical data data collection collection inin relation relation to to human human comfort comfort such such as as clothing clothing (C (CLO),LO), metabolic metabolic rate rate (MET) (MET) and and actual actual environmental environmental cluesclues monitored monitored by by sensing sensing devices devices installed installed in in hano hanok.k. Figure Figure 11 11 shows shows an an example example for for preliminary preliminary quantitativequantitative assessmentassessment performedperformed duringduring CheonmyeongCheonmyeong throughthrough DaeseoDaeseo periodsperiods andand predicatedpredicated meanmean vote vote (PMV), (PMV), a a traditional traditional scientific scientific evaluation evaluation method method of of comfort, comfort, was was utilized utilized to to indicate indicate the the integrativeintegrative tendency; tendency; an an ongoing ongoing research research would would be be followed followed by by this this investigation. investigation.

FigureFigure 11. 11. Preliminary Preliminary quantitative quantitative analysis analysis of of hanok hanok comfort comfort in in the the scope scope of of predicated predicated mean mean vote vote ( PMV)(PMV) (Gangeung,(Gangeung, Korea). Korea).

5.5. Conclusions Conclusions ThisThis study study was was conducted conducted to to create create a a performance performance evaluation evaluation model model of of the the target target hanokhanok constructedconstructed for for research research purposes purposes for for the the dissemination dissemination and and technology technology development development of of traditional traditional hanokhanok withwith nationalnational supportsupport. . MonitoringMonitoring evaluationevaluation waswas conductedconducted inin thethe sixsix majormajor seasonsseasons outout ofof thethe twentytwenty--fourfour solarsolar terms,terms, accordingaccording toto thethe characteristicscharacteristics ofof seasonalseasonal changeschanges duringduring thethe year.year. AmongAmong thethe twotwo factorsfactors thatthat evaluatedevaluated comfortcomfort performance,performance, thethe resultresult wawass analyzedanalyzed byby collectingcollecting questionnairesquestionnaires for for experts experts and and users, users, focusing focusing on on the the psychological psychological cognitive cognitive factor. factor. ItIt is is important important to to first first grasp grasp information information related related to to the the current current performance, performance, in in order order to to present present thethe performance performance evaluation evaluation criteria criteria for for hanokhanok. . However,However, until until now, now, in in previous previous researches, researches, data data requiredrequired forfor analysisanalysis werewere insufficient,insufficient, duedue toto variousvarious problems,problems, suchsuch asas performanceperformance degradationdegradation andand informationinformation lossloss overover periods.periods. Therefore,Therefore, thisthis studystudy isis meaningful,meaningful, inin thatthat itit securedsecured datadata forfor Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

Dongji

Daehan

Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 16 of 18

Through this this study, study, it it can can be be seen seen that that compared compared to to modernized modernized houses, houses, hanokhanok is superioris superior in psychologicalin psychological terms, terms, although although in in terms terms of of physical physical performance, performance, it it is is somewhat somewhat insufficient. insufficient. Accordingly, thisthis researchresearch could could be be amended amended by by quantitative quantitative analyses analyses with with physical physical data data collection collection in inrelation relation to to human human comfort comfort such such as as clothing clothing (CLO), (CLO), metabolic metabolic rate rate (MET)(MET) andand actualactual environmental clues monitored by sensing devices installed in hanohanokk.. Figure 11 shows an example for preliminary quantitative assessment performed during Cheonmyeong through Daeseo periods and predicated mean vote (PMV), a traditional scientific scientific evaluation method of comfort, was utilized to indicate the integrative tendency; an ongoing research wouldwould bebe followedfollowed byby thisthis investigation.investigation.

Figure 11. 11. PreliminaryPreliminary quantitative quantitative analysis analysis of hanok of hanok comfortcomfort in the in scope the scopeof predicated of predicated mean vote mean (PMV) vote (Gangeung,(PMV) (Gangeung, Korea). Korea). 5. Conclusions 5. Conclusions This study was conducted to create a performance evaluation model of the target hanok constructed for researchThis study purposes was conducted for the dissemination to create a and performance technology evaluation development model of traditional of the targethanok hanokwith constructednational support. for research Monitoring purposes evaluation for the was dissemination conducted in and the technology six major seasons development out of the of twenty-four traditional hanoksolar terms,with national according support to the. Monitoring characteristics evaluation of seasonal was changesconducted during in the the six year. major Among seasons the out two of thefactors twenty that-four evaluated solar comfortterms, according performance, to the the characteristics result was analyzed of seasonal by collecting changes questionnaires during the year. for Amongexperts andthe two users, factors focusing that on evaluated the psychological comfort performance, cognitive factor. the result was analyzed by collecting questionnairesIt is important for experts to first graspand users, information focusing related on the to psychological the current performance, cognitive factor. in order to present the performanceIt is important evaluation to first criteria grasp for informationhanok. However, related until to the now, current in previous performance, researches, in dataorder required to present for theanalysis performance were insu evaluationfficient, due criteria to various for problems,hanok. However, such as performance until now, in degradation previous researches, and information data requiredloss over for periods. analysis Therefore, were insufficient, this study due is to meaningful, various problems, in that itsuch secured as performance data for collecting degradation and andanalyzing information information loss over on psychologicalperiods. Therefore, cognitive this study factors, is whichmeaningful, are qualitative in that it evaluationsecured data items for regarding the comfort performance of hanok. However, there are some limitations to this study. In this study, we mainly focused on the hanok built with the support of the state, but in order to actually spread hanok, it is necessary to meet the needs of individual clients. The researchers recommend further studies to obtain more samples and integrate them with physical perceptive factors. Moreover, additional research is needed to find weights to the general merits of hanok derived from these results, and apply them to a residential performance evaluation model. Hanok is a unique architectural type in Korea that retains its cultural identity, and is a vernacular architecture using materials and structural methods suitable for the climate of the region. However, in the name of modernization, it drastically decreased in numbers. In this situation, preserving and disseminating hanok as a traditional cultural type is important, not only in terms of the value of our heritage, but also in terms of the reasons for our existence. In this sense, efforts to preserve and maintain cultural identity are a common concern worldwide beyond Korea. Hanok is sustainable and eco-friendly, but it is difficult to commercialize and globalize due to insufficient R&D, and the absence of clear standards. This study secured and analyzed the satisfaction survey data of experts and users on psychological cognitive factors that affect the comfort performance of hanok. This study is meaningful in that we Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 17 of 18 collected basic data to develop an integrated performance evaluation tool for hanok. Nevertheless, more advanced research will be needed to address the weak points. In order to change and disseminate the perception of hanok, it is necessary to verify the evaluation method through regular monitoring, compare the results, and present appropriate standards. Through this, the evaluation method can be used as a tool for maintaining and improving the performance of hanok. This will not only contribute to improving the quality of hanok residence, but will also have the effect of preserving the national cultural identity. In the future, central and local governments need to identify and support individuals wishing to live in hanok to promote regional identity and urban revitalization through the distribution of hanok. Furthermore, efforts should be continued at both, the individual building level and the local area to realize the effects of agglomeration. At the local area level, clusters of hanok could create synergy, and these areas should be well-maintained. However, hanok should be respected as a product of identity with great social and cultural value in itself, and these efforts have implications for other Asian cities and developing countries where the national identity has faded, and development is being promoted in the name of globalization.

Author Contributions: M.-H.L. and S.-H.H. designed the research settings; M.-H.L. performed the evaluations; M.-H.L. and S.-H.H. analyzed the data; D.-Y.C. verified the analysis results; M.-H.L., D.-Y.C., and S.-H.H. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Land and Transport Affairs of the Korean Government (Project No.: 20AUDP-B128638-04). Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a grant from Urban Architecture Research Program (Technology Development of Design and Construction for Large-Space Hanok over 10 m, Development of Hanok Technology, Phase III). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Orchard, V. Culture as opposed to what? Cultural belonging in the context of national and European identity. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 2002, 5, 419–433. [CrossRef] 2. Kwon, Y.; Kim, S.; Jeon, B.-H. Unraveling the factors determining the redevelopment of Seoul’s historic hanoks. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 280–289. [CrossRef] 3. Lee, J.M.; Lee, M.K.; Ko, Y.H.; Ku, B.H. 2017 Hanok Statistics; AURI: Sejong, Korea, 2017. 4. Kim, G.-E.; Lee, J.-R. The Impact of Historic Building Preservation in Urban Economics: Focusing on Accommodation Prices in Jeonju Hanok Village, South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5005. [CrossRef] 5. Han, S.-H.; Lee, M.-H.; Cheon, D.-Y. Assessment Indexes for Habitability Performances Applicable to Hanok Focused on Household Types. KIEAE J. 2018, 18, 5–14. [CrossRef] 6. Lee, J.; Park, J. Phase Change Material (PCM) Application in a Modernized Korean Traditional House (Hanok). Sustainability 2018, 10, 948. [CrossRef] 7. Kim, K.-W.; Kim, S.-S.; Yang, I.-H. A Study on the Housing Performance Evaluation of Apartment Buildings—Focused on Housing Comfort. KSLES J. 2002, 9, 154–159. 8. Lee, J.-Y.; Song, M.-J.; Lee, T.-G.; Kim, S.-W.; Cheon, D.-Y. An Analysis on the Living Performance Satisfaction Ratio according to the Residential Environment Conditions in Modern New Han-oks. KIEAE J. 2015, 15, 91–104. [CrossRef] 9. Lee, M.-H.; Han, S.-H.; Han, S.-H. An AHP Analysis on the Habitability Performance Toward the Modernized Hanok in Korea. Buildings 2019, 9, 177. [CrossRef] 10. Jeong, J.-H.; Cheon, D.-Y.; Han, S.-H. A Better Maintenance Strategy, a More Sustainable Hanok: Towards Korean Traditional Public Facilities. Buildings 2019, 9, 11. [CrossRef] 11. Bruijn, P.S.-D.; Donarelli, A.; Balksten, K. Full-scale Studies of Improving Energy Performance by Renovating Historic Swedish Timber Buildings with Hemp-lime. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2484. [CrossRef] 12. Kumar, S.; Mahdavi, A. Integrating thermal comfort field data analysis in a case-based building simulation environment. Build. Environ. 2001, 36, 711–720. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 10315 18 of 18

13. Attia, S. Spatial and Behavioral Thermal Adaptation in Net Zero Energy Buildings: An Exploratory Investigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7961. [CrossRef] 14. Oosterbeek, L.; Scheunemann, I.; Santos, L. Water resources and human behavior: An integrated landscape management perspective. Cad. LEPAARQ UFPEL 2013, 10, 227–244. 15. Oosterbeek, L. Cultural Integrated Landscape Management: A Humanities Perspective; ARKEO: Macao, Portugal, 2017; p. 59. 16. Han, S.-H.; Cheon, D.-Y.; Lee, M.-H.; Im, O.-K. A Study on the Establishment of an Evaluation System for Integrative Comfort Performance of Hanok Residence. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2013, 24, 27–35. [CrossRef] 17. Jo, M.-J.; Han, S.-H. A Study on Built Integrated Comfort Database and Psychological Comfort Evaluation System of Hanok Using a Smart Phone Survey. KICS J. 2015, 6, 69–70. 18. Fanger, P.O. Thermal Comfort. Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering; The McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1972. 19. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE). ASHARE Standard 55–2004: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy; ASHRAE: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2004. 20. Raghavalu, T.D.P.; Simon, F.C.; Morwenna, S.; Graham, A.O. Simulation Model to Evaluate Human Comfort Factors for an Office in a Building. Proceedings 2018, 2, 1126. [CrossRef] 21. Korean National Institute of Technology and Standards. Test Method for Hanok: Part. 1. Comfort Evaluation; Korean Agency for Technology and Standards: Eumseong-gun, Korea, 2017. 22. Liu, X.; Wang, Q.-C.; Wei, H.-H.; Chi, H.-L.; Ma, Y.; Jian, I.Y. Psychological and Demographic Factors Affecting Household Energy-Saving Intentions: A TPB-Based Study in Northwest China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 836. [CrossRef] 23. Scheaffer, R.L.; Mendenhall, W.; Lyman Ott, R.; Kenneth, G.; Gerow, K.G. Elementary Survey Sampling; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. 24. Galway, L.P.; Bell, N.; Sae, A.S.; Hagopian, A.; Burnham, G.; Flaxman, A.D.; Weiss, W.M.; Rajaratnam, J.; Takaro, T.K. A two-stage cluster sampling method using gridded population data, a GIS, and Google EarthTM imagery in a population-based mortality survey in Iraq. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2012, 11, 12. [CrossRef] 25. Park, J.-A.; Lee, W.-G.; Kim, W.-J. A Study of formaldehyde Indoor Air quality research monitoring in Eun-Pyong Test-bed Construction of Modernized hanok. CADCAM J. 2015, 08, 185–187. 26. Jeon, B.-H. A Study of Korean House Brands. J. Korean Stud. Inst. 2006, 8, 275–317. 27. Meteorological Research Institute. Korea’s Climate; Korea Meteorological Administration: Seoul, Korea, 2004; pp. 405–412. 28. Lee, M.-H.; Cheon, D.-Y.; Han, S.-H. Evaluation for the Residential Performance towards Restoration of Hanok Habitability. In Proceedings of the 2017 KAAH Fall Conference, Seoul, Korea, 18–19 November 2017. 29. Kim, H.-Y. A Study on Development Evaluation Model of Outdoor Space. Master’s Thesis, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea, 2015; pp. 94–99. 30. Jeong, H.-M.; Hong, W.-H.; Son, J.-Y.; Jeon, G.-Y. A Study on Establishment of Performance-Based Design Direction through Analysis of Expert Survey. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Design 2018, 34, 23–31. 31. Krosnick, J.A.; Presser, S. Question and Questionnaire Design; Standford University: Standford, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 10–11. 32. Kim, S.; Kim, K.; Yang, I. Study on the Development of Housing Performance Evaluation Model for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2004, 20, 265–272. 33. Korean Statistical Information Service, Statistics List of Korean Average. Available online: http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsListIndex.do?menuId=M_01_01&vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parmTabId= M_01_01 (accessed on 20 October 2020).

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 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/).