Crawley, D and Aho, I (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: Applications and development trends. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), pp. 300-308. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The construction and property sector has seen the development of a number of methods for evaluating the 'greenness' of buildings in the 1990s - both for new designs and existing buildings. These range from very detailed life cycle assessment methods, which account for all the embodied and operational environmental impacts of building materials, to higher level environmental impact assessment methods, which evaluate the broader implications of the building's impact on the environment. In between these two are environmental assessment methods such as BREEAM, BEPAC, LEED, and GBA. In this paper, we discuss the potential market applications of these systems and compare and contrast several of the major environmental assessment methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; environmental assessment; green building challenge; green buildings; life cycle assessment |
| Index terms: | building environmental assessment, building performance, BREEAM accreditation, life cycle assessment, environmental impact assessment, building material, green building, environmental impact, environmental assessment |
| Subjects: | environmental policy, building materials, environmental impact, quality assurance, design practice, sustainability assessment |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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