Gibberd, J (2015) Measuring capability for sustainability: The built environment sustainability tool (BEST). Building Research & Information, 43(1), pp. 49-61. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
An alternative approach to conceptualizing and measuring the built environment is developed which forms the basis of a new assessment tool. The role of buildings is reframed to consider what capabilities for sustainability a building can provide to the inhabitants and local community. This capability to support sustainability is defined as the ability to improve the local quality of life (Human Development Index) whilst remaining below the environmental carrying capacity (environmental footprint). This approach has clear implications about the role of buildings in enabling residents and users to achieve these targets and outcomes. This shifts the focus of net-positive development toward configurations and characteristics of the built environment that are appropriate for a particular context. A Built Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST) is presented that defines and assesses these configurations and characteristics. Assessments can be conducted by measuring the extent to which required configurations and characteristics exist (i.e. the capability of the built environment to support sustainability). BEST is compared with other green building rating tool approaches in order to review the methodology critically and to evaluate this as a means of improving built environment sustainability performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building assessment systems; built environment; neighbourhood; net-positive; sustainability; sustainability criteria; sustainability indicators; sustainable buildings |
| Index terms: | building assessment, sustainability indicator, quality of life, built environment sustainability, sustainable building, methodology, configuration, green building, built environment, positive development |
| Subjects: | sustainability and resilience, sustainable construction, urban design, sustainability assessment, design practice, research methods, public and environmental health, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, asset management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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