Larsson, N K (1999) Development of a building performance rating and labelling system in Canada. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), pp. 332-341. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The recent GBC '98 conference presented the results of a two-year process of developing and testing a new approach to the performance assessment of buildings. The international process is continuing, but in many jurisdictions, including Canada, there is a desire to test the implementation of a system, one that includes ratings and labelling as well as performance assessments. This paper attempts to outline some of the factors that are seen by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) as relevant to the need, market potential and barriers to such a system. The roles of various actors are considered including industry and government organizations, investors, utilities, building information centres, standards organizations, performance assessors, building owners and operators, tenants.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Canada; environmental assessment; labelling systems; market change mechanisms; performance rating; public policy; trends; voluntary systems |
| Index terms: | implementation, public policy, testing, environmental assessment, performance assessment, investor, owner, conference, building performance, tenant, jurisdiction, Canada, utilities, natural resource |
| Subjects: | environmental resource management, public policy, professional practice, contractual arrangements, legal systems, research dissemination and communication, construction type, environmental impact, practitioner, assessment methods, sociology, quality assurance, Geography |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Construction Technology, Governance, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| 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