工程造價(jià)外文翻譯--建筑環(huán)境評(píng)估框架分析和可持續(xù)發(fā)展指標(biāo)的影響 英文

1、OVERVIEW ARTICLEAnalysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicatorsYuya Kajikawa ? Toshihiro Inoue ? Thong Ngee GohReceived: 28 June 2010 / Accepted: 25 March 2011

2、/ Published online: 23 April 2011 ? Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, United Nations University, and Springer 2011Abstract Green construction is gaining increasing atten- tion in the global context.

3、However, the construction of sustainable green buildings and environments involves different tools and systems and diverse perspectives. Therefore, the development of environmental assessment tools is an important task f

4、or managing green housing and green building projects. In this paper, we discuss the bene- fits, limitations, and future directions of the assessment framework. There are four characteristics of building environmental as

5、sessment, i.e., comprehensiveness, design guideline, signaling, and communication tools, which affordboth benefits and limitations. We illustrate the role of the assessment framework as a hub promoting integration of div

6、erse knowledge, as a design guideline encouraging better design and action, as signaling environmentally friendly design and action, and as a communication tool. On the other hand, there are limitations, such as the use

7、of a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures, ambiguity of weigh- ing, lack of financial evaluation, and lack of involvement of diverse disciplines and stakeholders. To develop an effective assessment framework,

8、 the following three factors must be considered: knowledge, power, and implementation. We propose that knowledge innovation, a credible approach for a salient solution, and collective action represent the future challeng

9、es of the assessment framework.Keywords Sustainability science ? Indicators ? Knowledge innovation ? Green building ? Sustainable constructionIntroductionSustainability indicators have been proposed and published around

10、the world, and there are 894 entries registered in the database of the Compendium of Sustainable Development Indicator Initiatives (IISD 2010). This wide popularity reflects the increasing concern about indicators althou

11、gh concern is also centered on the ambiguity of the terms used in sustainability assessment, and the plurality of purpose in characterizing and measuring sustainable development as well as the confusion of data, and meth

12、ods of measurement (Parris and Kates 2003). Sustainability indicators are developed to represent what is to be sustained, what is to be developed, and for how long (Parris and Kates 2003). These indicators haveEdited by

13、Keisuke Hanaki, University of Tokyo, Japan.Y. Kajikawa ( while it is especially difficult for such an approach to compare alternative options with an quantitative scale there is a tradeoff among options. Expert-assessing

14、 systems are also available, but trained assessors are not satisfied with these systems. Pre-assessment tools are useful in clarifying the objectives of building owners at the early design stage and in setting desired ra

15、tings. Assessed indexes are awarded in each area, e.g., energy saving or security, according to their performance. Most BEA methods provide quantitative data performance indi- cators to support decision-making and determ

16、ine the per- formance level of buildings’ ratings. Labeling typically takes the form of a singular, easily recognizable designa- tion, e.g., ‘Gold’ or ‘Excellent’. Different types of buildings need to be assessed, for ex

17、ample, office buildings, residential buildings (single family or multi-unit), factories, schools, hospital buildings, commercial buildings and other types of buildings. Dif- ferent types of buildings have different tende

18、ncies in energy use and are therefore assessed with different benchmarks. BEA methods can evaluate these different types of buildings. New buildings and existing buildings are assessed differently. However, the usefulnes

19、s of the environmental building assessment method in this respect is doubtful because the remedial work needed to make a completed building comply may be too extensive, costly and time consuming (Crawley and Aho 1999). F

20、or exam- ple, replacing an existing ventilation system by installing more windows to allow for natural ventilation and daylight may be impracticable, difficult, or expensive to facilitate. Environmental assessment method

21、s have been applied predominantly to new construction, but while refurbish- ment and maintenance of existing buildings are also an important part of a sustainable future (Ding 2008), effort in this area is not yet suffic