工程造价外文翻译--建筑环境评估框架分析和可持续发展指标的影响

methods are capable of being easily recon?gured to ful?ll this new agenda. In the context of BEA, the issues to be focused are also broad and dif?cult to capture, while assessment methods tend to be comprehensive to make their tools useful, accessible and understandable for the many stakeholders. The wide range of methods used needs to be reliable, with distinct approaches that cover the most environmental criteria within their evaluation framework as well as other issues on sustainability. However, this may jeopardize their usefulness in providing a clear direction, thus making assessments cumbersome. Striking a balance between completeness of coverage and simplicity of use is one of the challenges in developing an effective and ef?cient environmental BEA tool.

Although it is dif?cult to de?ne ideal criteria for sustainability, it is evident that every index of rating systems proposes options suggesting advisable actions for sustainability. Since great efforts are being made in the ?eld of building environmental assessment, the structure of these methods can be applied to other ?elds. These comprehensive methods involve a numbers of stakeholders with a positive approach, and gather the options of actions for sustainability. Simpli?ed comprehensive approaches lead many stakeholders to adopt other options. This then spirals toward sustainable building, and creating positive change is accelerated by communication around the BEA process.

To address the nature of the gap between assumed and actual behavior of occupants in green buildings, Brown and Cole (2009) stressed that the relationship between knowledge, personal controls, and comfort was more complex. The absence of immediate and relevant feedback, relevant institutions and regulations, and poor user comprehension may have led to irrational choices that have degraded our life and environment. Also, people’s expectations of comfort have changed signi?cantly over the last few decades (Chappells and Shove 2005). Criteria will again change in the near future because of technology innovation, new regulations, new occupancy or a failure of optimization. Backcasting approaches and focus group interactions might elucidate future expectations about our society and life and the directions to be explored. These are derived in part from a human science perspective that emphasizes the need to develop approaches for evaluating future options, recognizing diverse epistemologies and problem de?nitions, and encompassing the deeply normative nature of the sustainability problem (Swart et al. 2004). Scenario making and agreement are crucial to sustainability. To highlight the critical role of envisioning alternative futures, exploring plausible pathways, and identifying the factors conditioning long-term outcomes, we also go on to conclude that parallel developments in the analysis of environment and society feed credible knowledge, development of design and assessment tools offering feasible solution to individuals and society, and the use of scenario analysis to illuminate sustainability problems.

Another point that must be considered is regulation and autonomy. Although regulations that govern the social and environmental impacts of global ?rms and markets without state enforcement are a relatively new dimension of global business regulation, alternative regulatory instruments to govern ?rms, including self-regulation, market-based instruments, and soft laws are adopted by ?rms as voluntary regulatory standards to avoid additional regulation and/or to protect their reputations and brands of the ?rms. Corporate motivation to adopt environment management systems is the remaining issue (Zutshi and Sohal 2004; Vogel 2008).

Another challenge in BEA indicator systems is to expand the scope of BEA and to

connect it with other indicator systems. Current systems address the product (material) and/or building level. IEA (IEA ANNEX 2005) addresses the following system of levels of inclusiveness, in increasing order of inclusiveness and breadth: (1) product level, (2) building level, (3) building and supporting infrastructure level, (4) community level, and (5) building stock level. However, there is little or no consideration of the supporting infrastructure, community, or building stock levels as de?ned by the IEA (Todd et al. 2001). The GBC framework has made an explicit effort to place a building into its community context, addressing the building and supporting infrastructure. The GBC 2000 framework included criteria related to the relationship of the assessed building to the surrounding community—the framework’s context module was an effort to build selected community conditions into the assessment software. This connection as well as a schema for enabling and promoting salient designs and actions among different levels are the next big challenge for stakeholders involved in BEA. It is also a future challenge for BEA to expand its scope for including wider contexts such as community building, urban planning, city and regional development, which call on a variety of stakeholders to cooperate with updating and utilizing BEA.

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

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: rede?ning intentions

and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467

Burnett J (2007) City buildings—eco-labels and shades of green! Landsc Urban Plan

83:29–38

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

Cole R (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Build Res

Inf 26(1):3–16

Cole R (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions. Build Res

Inf 27(4):230–246

Cole RJ (2001) Lessons learned, future directions and issues for GBC Build Res Inf

29(5):355–373

Cole R (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: rede?ning intentions and roles.

Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467

Cole RJ (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods.

Build Res Inf 34(4):357–371

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Ef?ciency (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

Crawley D, Aho I (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: applications and

development trends. Build Res Inf 27(4):300–308

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

Ding GK (2008) Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J

Environ Manage 86(3):451–464

Edum-Fotwe FT, Price ADF (2009) A social ontology for appraising sustainability of

construction projects and developments. Int J Proj Manage 27:313–322

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

Forsberg A, von Malmborg F (2004) Tools for environmental assessment of the built

environment. Build Environ 39(2):223–228

Fowler KM, Rauch EM (2006) Sustainable building rating systems summary. Paci?c

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

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

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

Goh TN (2011) Si jeunesse savail; si vieillesse pouvait—six sigma practitioners need not

lament. Int J Qual Serv Syst 3(1):5–12

Green Globes Canada website, http://www.greenglobes.com/. Accessed June 2010 Green Star website, http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/. AccessedJune 2010

Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools.

Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(7):469–482

Hezri AA, Dovers SR (2006) Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: issues for

ecological economics. Ecol Econ60(1):86–99

HK-BEAM website, http://www.hk-beam.org.hk/. Accessed June2010

Hoffman AJ, Henn R (2008) Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green

building. Org Environ 21(4):390–419

Holmes J, Hudson G (2000) An evaluation of the objectives of the BREEAM scheme for

of?ces: a local case study. In: Proceedings ofCutting 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.unikarlsruhe.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 bene?ts of green buildings. Build Environ 45:1698–1711

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, Ja ¨ger 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

Kneifel J (2010) Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy ef?ciency measures in new

commercial buildings. Energy Build 42:333–340

Kohler N (1999) The relevance of green building challenge: an observer’s perspective. Build

Res Inf 27(4):309–320

Larsson NK (1999) Development of a building performance rating and labelling system in

Canada. Build Res Inf 27(4):332–341

Larsson NK, Cole RJ (2001) Green building challenge: the development of an idea. Build

Res Inf 29(5):336–345

Lee W, Burnett J (2008) Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM

and LEED. Build Environ 43(11): 1882–1891

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 LEED Green Building Rating SystemTM website, http://www.usgbc.org/ Accessed June

2010 Lu ¨ tzkendorf T, Lorenz D (2005) Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable

buildings through property performance assessment. Build Res Inf 33(3):212–234

Newsham GR, Mancini S, Birt BJ (2009) Do LEED-certi?ed buildings save energy? Yes, but.

Energy Build 41:897–905

Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv

Biol 4(4):355–364

Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing a sustainability transition: goals, targets, trends,

and driving forces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8068–8073

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

SBAT, the Sustainable Buildings Assessment Tool, on CSIR website,

http://www.buildnet.co.za/akani/2002/nov/04.html Accessed June 2010

Sco?eld JH (2009) Do LEED-certi?ed buildings save energy? Not really. Energy Build

41:1386–1390

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

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

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

Zutshi A, Sohal A (2004) Environmental management system adoption by Australasian

organisations: part 1: reasons, bene?ts and impediments. Technovation 24:335–357