Al-Sakkaf, A; Zayed, T; Bagchi, A; Mahmoud, S and Pickup, D (2022) Development of a sustainability rating tool for heritage buildings: Future implications. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 11(1), pp. 93-109. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: Heritage buildings are significant for their historical and architectural value. Due to the lack of rating systems designed specifically for heritage buildings, it is essential to develop and validate a heritage building assessment tool that considers its specific characteristics. The purpose of this study is to provide an extensive review of research on Sustainability of Heritage Buildings (SHBs). Design/methodology/approach: This review highlights methodologies applied in SHBs research and analyzes major global rating systems in order to identify their deficiencies for SHBs assessment. A systematic review was employed and articles from the top 10 high impact factor journals were studied. Twelve major global rating systems and their assessment criteria were identified. Findings: Significant variability was observed among the assessment tools since each tool assesses several criteria, factors and indicators that fit its local context. Part of this variability can also be seen in the rating scales, threshold values and accreditation titles. As a result, the final sustainability ranking for a given building cannot be compared among the 12 rating systems. Most importantly, these systems fail to analyze some factors such as energy that are considered important with respect to heritage building assessment. Originality/value: Since no specific rating system could be identified in this review as the most appropriate for heritage buildings, a new sustainability assessment tool that is specific to heritage buildings should be developed. Such a tool will enable facility managers to evaluate and improve the sustainability of their heritage buildings while preserving them.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural heritage; heritage buildings; rating system; sustainability assessment; systematic review |
| Index terms: | manager, methodology, systematic literature review, variability, journal, sustainability assessment, heritage building |
| Subjects: | practitioner, research methods, research dissemination and communication, research evaluation and metrics, statistical analysis, construction type, sustainability assessment |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here