Glaumann, M; Malm, T and Larsson, J (1999) Evaluation of green buildings in Sweden. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), pp. 276-285. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper reports on experiences from the Swedish participation in Green Building Challenge '98 and ongoing similar work in Sweden. It argues against very simplified environmental assessment methods and recommends, as far as possible, calculation of environmental effects caused by buildings during their life cycle. Participation in the development of the GBC tool provided a broad view of the issues, clarified different opinions in a new field and provided additional stimulation while developing our national assessment methodology, EcoEffect. The environmental assessment of buildings is discussed in relation to the strength and weaknesses of the GBC system. The design and characteristics of 'green buildings' in Sweden is addressed, including ten poster presentations and two case studies presented at GBC '98.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ecoeffect Sweden; environmental assessment; feedback; green building challenge; life cycle analysis; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | case study, Sweden, sustainable development, life cycle, life cycle analysis, green building, methodology, environmental assessment, environmental effect |
| Subjects: | environmental impact, value management, data collection methods, health safety and environment, Geography, design practice, research methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Sustainability, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety |
| 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