Rapid assessment checklist for sustainable buildings

Gething, B and Bordass, B (2006) Rapid assessment checklist for sustainable buildings. Building Research & Information, 34(4), pp. 416-426. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

The development of a checklist used for judging the 2005 Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Sustainability Award is described. A quick, simple, robust and fair approach was required. The checklist drew upon an existing practice-based method that had been developed to assist a dialogue between design team members and their clients - first setting priorities and targets for sustainability and then assisting later reviews and progress reports. The topics covered were extended by the findings of a review of available sustainability assessment methods, and organized broadly in accordance with the sequence of work in an architectural project - from site selection to building in use. Although not objectively calibrated, the checklist allows levels of aspiration and achievement to be identified, reports quickly and concisely, and permits comparisons between buildings of very different types. The checklist not only helped with judging the award, but also attracted favourable comments from users and others. The approach may therefore have wider applications in providing a simple introduction to sustainability assessment, which can then lead into more precise quantification if and where required.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: assessment; awards; checklist; grading; priorities; sustainability; targets
Index terms: sustainable building, site selection, Royal Institute of British Architects, design team, quantification, sustainability assessment
Subjects: professional institution, professional practice, cognitive psychology, measurement and scaling, sustainability assessment, sustainable construction
Topics: Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, 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