Advancing key outcomes of sustainability building assessment

Sustainability assessment methods for building projects have a major role to play in introducing sustainability values and principles into mainstream construction practice. The paper reflects on potential measures that should advance building assessment practice in fostering sustainable construction and it advocates a redefinition of the objectives of building assessment methods. Arguably, the current emphasis in the building process and building assessment on a physical design and functional properties of buildings needs to be complemented with a concern for the quality of social and technical processes. To increase the effectiveness of any building assessment method, it is necessary to define clearly its desired outputs and outcomes. The paper suggests three significant outcomes of building sustainability assessment: integration; transparency and accessibility; and collaborative learning. These outcomes have emerged from a critical appraisal of the theory of Environmental Assessment and the Process Protocol. Environmental Assessment was examined as it provides valuable insights in terms of addressing sustainability at a project level. Lessons from the Process Protocol allow for the potential optimization of building projects using a building sustainability assessment method. Addressing these outcomes provides the means for proactive project enhancement, in terms of its sustainability and quality, by using a building sustainability assessment method. Les méthodes d'évaluation de la durabilité appliquées aux projets de construction ont un rôle majeur à jouer en ce qui concerne l'introduction de valeurs et de principes de durabilité dans les principales pratiques de la construction. Cet article expose les mesures potentielles qui devraient faire progresser les pratiques d'évaluation des bâtiments en favorisant la construction durable. Il défend également une nouvelle définition des objectifs des méthodes d'évaluation des bâtiments. Il est permis de croire que l'accent mis actuellement, dans le cadre des procédés de construction et de l'évaluation des bâtiments, sur les propriétés théoriques physiques et fonctionnelles des bâtiments doit être complété en se préoccupant de la qualité des procédés sociaux et techniques. Pour améliore l'efficacité de toute méthode d'évaluation des bâtiments, il est impératif de définir clairement les résultats recherchés. Cet article suggère trois résultats significatifs de l'évaluation de la durabilité des bâtiments: l'intégration, la transparence et l'accès et, enfin, l'apprentissage en collaboration. Ces résultats ressortent d'une appréciation critique de la théorie de l'évaluation environnementale et des protocoles de procédés. L'évaluation environnementale a été examinée car elle fournit des informations précieuses en termes de durabilité concernant un niveau de projet. L'enseignement tiré des protocoles de procédés permet une optimisation potentielle de projets de construction en utilisant une méthode d'évaluation de la durabilité des bâtiments. L'étude de ces résultats débouche sur des moyens propres à améliorer des projets proactifs, en termes de leur durabilité et de leur qualité, en utilisant une méthode d'évaluation de la durabilité des bâtiments. Mots-clés: évaluation de la durabilité des bâtiments, évaluation environnementale, intégration, protocoles de procédés, participation des intervenants, développement durable

[1]  Stephen Bass,et al.  PARTICIPATION IN STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT , 1995 .

[2]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions , 1999 .

[3]  Bert Enserink,et al.  Information Management for Public Participation in Co-design Processes: Evaluation of a Dutch Example , 2003 .

[4]  Luc Bourdeau,et al.  Sustainable development and the future of construction: a comparison of visions from various countries , 1999 .

[5]  Chrisna Du Plessis,et al.  Sustainable development demands dialogue between developed and developing worlds , 1999 .

[6]  Peter Hardi,et al.  Assessing sustainable development : principles in practice , 1997 .

[7]  D. Meadows Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development , 2021, The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities.

[8]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles , 2005 .

[9]  Keith D. Hampson,et al.  Construction 2020 - A vision for Australia's Property and Construction Industry , 2004 .

[10]  Hugh Wilkins,et al.  The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development , 2003 .

[11]  S. Dresner The principles of sustainability , 2002 .

[12]  Morten Elle,et al.  Environmental indicators: establishing a common language for green building , 2006 .

[13]  P. Tzortzopoulos,et al.  BEYOND PROCESS PROTOCOL: A REVIEW OF THE GENERIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS PROTOCOL TO EXPLORE FUTURE WORK , 2004 .

[14]  David M. Gann,et al.  Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking , 2003 .

[15]  Richard C. Hill,et al.  Decision Scoping: Making EA Learn How the Design Process Works , 1995 .

[16]  Clive George,et al.  Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything from jobs to climate change , 2001 .

[17]  Ferenc L. Toth Decision analysis for climate change: development, equity and sustainability concerns , 2001 .

[18]  T. Webler,et al.  Public Participation in Impact Assess-ment: A Social Learning Perspective , 1995 .

[19]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools , 2006 .

[20]  S. Daniels,et al.  Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management , 1996 .

[21]  John Robinson Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development , 2004 .

[22]  G. AOUAD,et al.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROCESS MAP FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR , 1999 .

[23]  J. Fairclough,et al.  RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH - A REVIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT'S R&D POLICIES AND PRACTICES , 2002 .

[24]  Cib Construction,et al.  Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries: a discussion document , 2002 .

[25]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  Assessing building performance in use 5: conclusions and implications , 2001 .

[26]  Angela Lee,et al.  MAPPING THE PRODUCTION PROCESS: A CASE STUDY , 2002 .

[27]  Andrew Basden The critical theory of Herman Dooyeweerd? , 2002, J. Inf. Technol..

[28]  Rodney Turner Sustainability auditing and assessment challenges , 2006 .

[29]  Peter Jacobs,et al.  Using scoping as a design process , 1998 .

[30]  David Pearce,et al.  Is the construction sector sustainable?: definitions and reflections , 2006 .

[31]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: A portfolio of feedback techniques , 2005 .

[32]  George Ofori,et al.  Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment - comment , 1998 .

[33]  W. Thissen,et al.  Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment , 2000 .

[34]  William E. Rees,et al.  The built environment and the ecosphere: a global perspective , 1999 .

[35]  Ghassan Aouad,et al.  A Generic Guide to the Design and Construction: Process Protocol , 1998 .

[36]  Bram F. Noble,et al.  Strengthening EIA through adaptive management , 2000 .

[37]  Christer Sjöström,et al.  CIB Agenda 21 for sustainable construction: why, how and what , 1999 .

[38]  Heli Saarikoski,et al.  Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process , 2000 .

[39]  Richard K. Morgan Environmental impact assessment : a methodological perspective , 1998 .

[40]  Cathy Bailey,et al.  Integrated impact assessment in the UK—use, efficacy and future development , 2005 .

[41]  Mike Kagioglou,et al.  The Development of a Generic Design and Construction Process , 1998 .