Hiete, M; Kühlen, A and Schultmann, F (2011) Analysing the interdependencies between the criteria of sustainable building rating systems. Construction Management and Economics, 29(4), pp. 323-328. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Various building rating systems have been developed to assess the 'green' or sustainable performance of buildings. Most systems make use of hierarchical criteria systems to evaluate the buildings with respect to the different aspects of sustainability. Often, these criteria show complex interdependencies between each other. Taking the German building rating system as an example, the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method is used to analyse such interdependencies and to characterize the criteria. Users of the rating system might benefit from this information, e.g. when focusing on cause criteria counting on that an improvement there will also result in improvements of dependent criteria. Rating system developers might remove strongly related criteria and correct the criteria weighting for identified interdependencies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; certification; Germany; sustainable construction |
| Index terms: | Germany, sustainable building, decision-making, certification, sustainable construction, laboratory, building performance |
| Subjects: | research management, decision analysis, quality assurance, administrative processes, sustainable construction, Geography |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Quality Management |
| 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