Cole, R J (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), pp. 455-467. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The initial intentions and current emphasis of building environmental performance assessment methods are compared and contrasted with their emerging roles. This analysis provides a starting point for anticipating future developments in environmental assessment methods for buildings, how they are likely to evolve and how they will be used. The current varying expectations of assessment methods are examined, including the extent to which they can address complex issues while remaining simple and practical, their role as 'market transformation tools', and their ability to enhance dialogue among a range of stakeholders broader than a design team. More importantly, the increasing framing of environmental issues within the wider context of 'sustainability' raises the question about whether existing methods are capable of being easily reconfigured to fulfil this new agenda.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assessment methods; building assessment; environmental assessment; futures; stakeholder participation; sustainability; sustainable development; trends |
| Index terms: | stakeholder participation, environmental assessment, environmental performance assessment, market transformation, sustainable development, building environmental assessment, design team, framing, environmental issue, building assessment |
| Subjects: | professional practice, conceptual models, environmental impact, economic and policy analysis, environmental issues, community and social dimensions, asset management, sustainability assessment, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability |
| 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