Environmental, Economic, and Social Parameters in International Green Building Rating Tools

被引:66
|
作者
Illankoon, I. M. Chethana S. [1 ]
Tam, Vivian W. Y. [1 ,2 ]
Le, Khoa N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Sydney, Sch Comp Engn & Math, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
[2] Shenzhen Univ, Coll Civil Engn, Shenzhen 518060, Peoples R China
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Environmental sustainability; Economic sustainability; Social sustainability; Green buildings; Green building rating tools; SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION; SYSTEMS; LEED;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000313
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The concept of sustainability is regarded to be threefold: environmental, economic, and social. This is usually identified as the triple bottom line of sustainability and is often represented by three intertwined circles. Therefore, for a construction to be sustainable, it should be environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. However, the extent to which green building rating tools evaluate the three pillars of sustainability is questionable. This research aims to analyze the effectiveness of eight international green building rating tools in evaluating environmental, economic, and social sustainability in buildings. The credit points of each rating tool was initially categorized based on the related category of sustainability and a comparison analysis was carried out based on a normalized score. Finally, the comparison result is presented with a radar diagram. Further, three case study buildings were also analyzed based on the credit points achieved. Accordingly, environmental sustainability is widely considered in green building rating tools while economic sustainability is rarely evaluated. Further, social sustainability is evaluated in all the green building rating tools, which would approximately amount to 20% of the credit points allocated by each rating tool. (C) 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Social criteria of sustainable development in relation to green building assessment tools
    Jubril Olakitan Atanda
    Ayşe Öztürk
    Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2020, 22 : 61 - 87
  • [42] Social criteria of sustainable development in relation to green building assessment tools
    Atanda, Jubril Olakitan
    Ozturk, Ayse
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 22 (01) : 61 - 87
  • [43] Analysis of the environmental, economic, thermal and energy performances of green building technologies
    Caponetto R.
    Di Mari C.
    Giuffrida G.
    Nocera F.
    Renewable Energy and Power Quality Journal, 2022, 20 : 84 - 89
  • [44] How green building rating systems affect designing green
    Yueer He
    Thomas Kvan
    Meng Liu
    Baizhan Li
    侯恩哲
    建筑节能, 2018, 46 (04) : 39 - 39
  • [45] How green building rating systems affect designing green
    He, Yueer
    Kvan, Thomas
    Liu, Meng
    Li, Baizhan
    BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 133 : 19 - 31
  • [46] Prioritizing Barriers to Green Manufacturing: Environmental, Social and Economic Perspectives
    Mittal, Varinder Kumar
    Sangwan, Kuldip Singh
    VARIETY MANAGEMENT IN MANUFACTURING: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 47TH CIRP CONFERENCE ON MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS, 2014, 17 : 559 - 564
  • [47] Prioritizing Drivers for Green Manufacturing: Environmental, Social and Economic Perspectives
    Mittal, Varinder Kumar
    Sangwan, Kuldip Singh
    21ST CIRP CONFERENCE ON LIFE CYCLE ENGINEERING, 2014, 15 : 135 - 140
  • [48] LEED - The Green Building Rating System.
    Baumann, Oliver
    Reiser, Claudius
    Schaefer, Jochen
    BAUPHYSIK, 2009, 31 (02) : 99 - 105
  • [49] A critical comparison of green building rating systems
    Dat Tien Doan
    Ali Ghaffarianhoseini
    Nicola Naismith
    Tongrui Zhang
    Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini
    John Tookey
    建筑节能, 2017, 45 (10) : 132 - 132
  • [50] A critical comparison of green building rating systems
    Dat Tien Doan
    Ghaffarianhoseini, Ali
    Naismith, Nicola
    Zhang, Tongrui
    Ghaffarianhoseini, Amirhosein
    Tookey, John
    BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 123 : 243 - 260