Cole, R (2006) Shared markets: Coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Building Research & Information, 34(4), pp. 357-371. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The evolution of market-based building environmental assessment methods is explored to show how they are influenced by, and subsequently influence, other systems. Two contexts are considered - Hong Kong and North America - where there are two or more voluntary systems operating in the same market. The dynamic interactions of the coexisting systems are the primary focus rather than the evaluation of the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of each method individually. While it is clearly difficult to predict how building environmental assessment systems will evolve in the future, or whether coexisting systems will be effective in furthering green building practices, a number of valuable observations can be made. The coexistence of systems can potentially offer a powerful driver for excellence and ease of use or, if there is no clear differentiation, it can confound the market. In practice, the organizational and market context in which the systems operate, the financial and political support they receive, and personal interests and biases are all complicit in their market acceptance and influence. There is a need for a greater understanding of the evolution and relationship between coexisting assessment methods, and for a strategic approach to evaluating changes in the marketplace as a result of their presence.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; coexisting methods; environmental assessment; Hong Kong; North America |
| Index terms: | markets, environmental assessment, building environmental assessment, green building, market acceptance, Hong Kong, interaction, evolution, presence, bias, differentiation |
| Subjects: | market analysis, design practice, Geography, organization, probability and distributions, environmental science, sustainability assessment, behavioral psychology, economic analysis, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Design Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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