Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators

  • Overview Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Green construction is gaining increasing attention in the global context. 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 for managing green housing and green building projects. In this paper, we discuss the benefits, limitations, and future directions of the assessment framework. There are four characteristics of building environmental assessment, i.e., comprehensiveness, design guideline, signaling, and communication tools, which afford both benefits and limitations. We illustrate the role of the assessment framework as a hub promoting integration of diverse 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 of a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures, ambiguity of weighing, lack of financial evaluation, and lack of involvement of diverse disciplines and stakeholders. To develop an effective assessment framework, 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 challenges of the assessment framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ARUP website, SPeAR : Product overview. http://www.arup.com/Services/Sustainability_Consulting.aspx. Accessed June 2010

  • BEQUEST website, http://research.scpm.salford.ac.uk/bqextra/. Accessed June 2010

  • BREEAM website, http://www.breeam.org/ Accessed June 2010

  • Brown Z, Cole RJ (2009) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett J (2007) City buildings—eco-labels and shades of green! Landsc Urban Plan 83:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CASBEE website, http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm. Accessed June 2010

  • CEPAS website, http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/index_CEPAS.html. Accessed June 2010

  • Chappells H, Shove E (2005) Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Build Res Inf 33(1):32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole R (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 26(1):3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole R (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions. Build Res Inf 27(4):230–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole RJ (2001) Lessons learned, future directions and issues for GBC Build Res Inf 29(5):355–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole R (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole RJ (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 34(4):357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) website, http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/ Accessed June 2010

  • Cooper I (1999) Which focus for building assessment methods? Environmental performance or sustainability? Build Res Inf 27(4):321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley D, Aho I (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: applications and development trends. Build Res Inf 27(4):300–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CRISP, 2004. A European Thematic network on Construction and City Related Sustainability Indicators, Final report, Publishable part (2004), http://crisp.cstb.fr/PDF/CRISP_Final_Report.pdf Accessed June 2010

  • Curwell S, Yates A, Howard N, Bordass B, Doggart J (1999) The green building challenge in the UK. Build Res Inf 27(4):286–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding GK (2008) Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J Environ Manage 86(3):451–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edum-Fotwe FT, Price ADF (2009) A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction projects and developments. Int J Proj Manage 27:313–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson M, Borg M (2003) Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings, constructions and operation services-today practice and development needs. Build Environ 38(7):919–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg A, von Malmborg F (2004) Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build Environ 39(2):223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler KM, Rauch EM (2006) Sustainable building rating systems summary. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

  • G8 University Summit (2008), Sapporo Sustainability Declaration, http://g8u-summit.jp/english/ssd/index.html

  • Gann D, Salter A, Whyte J (2003) Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Build Res Inf 31(5):318–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebken RJ II, Asche M, Bruce RD, Strong SD (2010) Impact of the leadership in energy and environmental design accredited professional credential on design professionals. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Prac 136(3):132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibberd J (2001) The sustainable building assessment tool—assessing how buildings can support sustainability in developing countries. Continental Shift 2001, IFI International Conference, 11–14 September 2001, Johannesburg

  • Glass J, Dainty AR, Gibb AG (2008) New build: materials, techniques, skills and innovation. Ene Poli 36(12):4534–4538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh TN (2011) Si jeunesse savail; si vieillesse pouvait—six sigma practitioners need not lament. Int J Qual Serv Syst 3(1):5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Green Globes Canada website, http://www.greenglobes.com/. Accessed June 2010

  • Green Star website, http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/. Accessed June 2010

  • Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(7):469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hezri AA, Dovers SR (2006) Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: issues for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 60(1):86–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HK-BEAM website, http://www.hk-beam.org.hk/. Accessed June 2010

  • Hoffman AJ, Henn R (2008) Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building. Org Environ 21(4):390–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes J, Hudson G (2000) An evaluation of the objectives of the BREEAM scheme for offices: a local case study. In: Proceedings of Cutting Edge 2000, RICS Research Foundation, RICS, London

  • IEA ANNEX 31 (2005) IEA Annex 31 Energy related environmental impact of buildings. IEA ECBCS http://annex31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de/. Accessed June 2010

  • iiSBE, http://www.iisbe.org/ Accessed June 2010

  • IISD, International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2010 “Compendium of Sustainability Indicators” Accessed June 2010. http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/searchinitiatives.aspx

  • Issa MH, Rankin JH, Christian AJ (2010) Canadian practitioners’ perception of research work investigating the cost premiums, long-term costs and health and productivity benefits of green buildings. Build Environ 45:1698–1711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Environment and development: sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kneifel J (2010) Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial buildings. Energy Build 42:333–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler N (1999) The relevance of green building challenge: an observer’s perspective. Build Res Inf 27(4):309–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson NK (1999) Development of a building performance rating and labelling system in Canada. Build Res Inf 27(4):332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson NK, Cole RJ (2001) Green building challenge: the development of an idea. Build Res Inf 29(5):336–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee W, Burnett J (2008) Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED. Build Environ 43(11):1882–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee WL, Chau CK, Yik FWH, Burnett J, Tse MS (2002) On the study of the credit-weighting scale in a building environmental assessment scheme. Build Environ 37(12):1385–1396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LEED Green Building Rating System™ website, http://www.usgbc.org/ Accessed June 2010

  • Lützkendorf T, Lorenz D (2005) Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Build Res Inf 33(3):212–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newsham GR, Mancini S, Birt BJ (2009) Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but. Energy Build 41:897–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4(4):355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing a sustainability transition: goals, targets, trends, and driving forces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8068–8073

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peuportier, B, Putzeys K (2005) PRESCO, WP2 intercomparison and benchmarking of LCA-based environmental assessment and design tools for buildings. Final report (2005), http://www.etn-presco.net/generalinfo/index.html. Accessed June 2010

  • Pinter L, Hardi P, Bartelmus P (2005) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Proposals for a Way forward. Discussion Paper Prepared under a Consulting Agreement on behalf of the UN Division for Sustainable Development. Manitoba, Canada: IISD

  • Reijnders L, van Roekel A (1999) Comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the environmental improvement of buildings. J Clean Prod 7(3):221–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SBAT, the Sustainable Buildings Assessment Tool, on CSIR website, http://www.buildnet.co.za/akani/2002/nov/04.html Accessed June 2010

  • Scofield JH (2009) Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really. Energy Build 41:1386–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo S, Tucker S, Ambrose M, Mitchell P, Wang C (2006) Technical Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Rating Tools. Research and Development Corporation, Project No. PN05.1019

  • Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Change A 14(2):137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd JA, Crawley D, Geissler S, Lindsey G (2001) Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the green building challenge. Build Res Inf 29(5):324–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP SBCI, (2009) Buildings and climate change. UNEP Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/SBCI-BCCSummary.pdf Accessed June 2010

  • Vogel Z (2008) Private global business regulation. Annu Rev Polit Sci 11:261–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zutshi A, Sohal A (2004) Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons, benefits and impediments. Technovation 24:335–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical, suggestive, and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Engineering Innovation, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 2-11-16 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan

    Yuya Kajikawa

  2. Department of Technology Management for Innovation, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuya Kajikawa

  3. Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuya Kajikawa

  4. Center for Low Carbon Society Strategy, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuya Kajikawa & Toshihiro Inoue

  5. Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Toshihiro Inoue

  6. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Thong Ngee Goh

Authors
  1. Yuya Kajikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toshihiro Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thong Ngee Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuya Kajikawa.

Additional information

Edited by Keisuke Hanaki, University of Tokyo, Japan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kajikawa, Y., Inoue, T. & Goh, T.N. Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators. Sustain Sci 6, 233–246 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0131-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0131-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation