工程造价外文翻译

工程造价外文翻译

毕业设计（论文）

外文翻译

题 目 建筑环境评估框架分析和 可持续发展指标的影响（2） 专 业 工程管理（工程造价管理） 班 级 08级04班 学 生 指导教师

重庆交通大学

2012年

工程造价外文翻译

建筑环境评估框架分析和可持续发展指标的影响（2）

Yuya Kajikawa Toshihiro Inoue Thong Ngee Goh

收稿日期：2010年6月28日/公认日期：2011年3月25日/网上公布：2011年4月23日 可持续性科学的综合研究体系，联合国大学，2011年，斯普林格

摘要 绿色建筑在全球范围内得到越来越广泛的关注。然而，建设可持续发展的绿色建筑和环境涉及不同的工具，系统以及不同的观点。因此，发展的环境评估工具是一个管理绿色房屋和绿色建设项目的重要任务环节。在本文中，我们讨论它的效益、限制，以及未来发展方向的评估框架。要建立一个有效的评估框架，知识、权利和执行这三个因素必须考虑到。我们提出知识创新、可靠的方法、突出的解决方案和集体行动是未来评估框架的挑战。

关键词 可持续发展科学 指标 知识创新 绿色建筑 可持续建筑

正文

信号

BEA的评分和标记系统不仅能作为建筑和房屋的基准，同时能作为生态意识和环保的设计及行为的标志。这种评估方法会为最终的成果打分。一个高的评估分数能从心理上鼓励环保设计和行为。这个分数将激励业主追求更高的性能水平。事实上，在许多现有方法的激励性质中，只有正面的观点才会特别提出，换言之，对于存在的事实会提出某些见解，对于不存在的事实，这些积极的想法也不会被扣除。BEA的这种特点将推动绿色建筑的有效管理。

沟通工具

虽然在早期BEA的作用是在一个广泛的考虑范围内，承认评估建筑物的重要性并且使它制度化，然而随着BEA作用的提高，使得这些学识和沟通工具成为促进社会可持续路线的向导。这些作用能从根本上促进利益相关者之间的交流，并把焦点转移到解决可持续性和改变建筑业文化的问题上来。对评估方法目前的期望是通过设计人员，

工程造价外文翻译

规划人员，施工人员，决策人员以及业主之间的沟通成为一种“市场转型的工具”，并且加强利益相关者之间的意见交流，而不仅仅局限于设计单位。另外，还有一个重要的引申利益就是这些议题在环境评估上的体现，需要建造行业设计单位和各个部门人员间的广泛沟通交流和相互作用，换言之，环境评价的方法需要意见交换和团队协作。 BEA的局限

然而，BEA也有一些局限性。对于在综合性，设计指南，信号和沟通上的正反两方面的对方情况在表格2中已经给出。接下来的观点将局限BEA作用的扩宽，同时减缓它的渗透速率。

综合性

第一个局限性源于BEA综合并且广泛的范围。一个争论的问题就是围绕BEA方法定量和定性的混合及这些方法的加权模式。BEA包含广泛的可持续问题。这种综合的方法完全不同于那些既包含定量又包含定性的标准。定量标准（例如，能源使用量，水源消耗量，气体排放量）能根据总体消耗水平轻易估计，从而得出相应的结论。例如，能源损耗量因素，可以运用生命周期评估工具对建筑物整个生命期的总体消耗量进行预测。而其他的标准绝大部分是定性的（例如，对所选厂址生态价值的影响，对当地风力模式的影响），这种标准不能被定量地测量和估计，同时很难以一种比较的方式加以计算。加权是所有评估方案的核心，因为它将主导被估建筑物的整体性能得分（Lee et al.2002）。然而，目前既没有统一的依据方针，也没有加权分配的满意的指导方法(Ding 2008)。这些标准的加权应该通过逐个项目的基本原理被导出，同时能反映发展的目标。

设计指南

第二个弊端就是BEA作为设计指南的可行性 。BEA被声称为能够促进更好的设计和行为的设计指南。然而即使是在学术研究阶段，在BEA的评价模式中也通常不包括财务因素（Issa et al 2010;Kneifel 2010）。由于缺乏财务因素， 在考量环境指标时BEA可尽可能取得高分，而高分是能反映很高的价值和大型金融回报的。但是事实上，财务限制的的确确存在。然而我们不可能总因为一些关系到发展根本目的的经济原因作出决定和改变。当经济回报无法得到满足时，这些项目对投资者的吸引力就会降低，即使它们对环境是有利的。在评估模式中环境问题和财政因素应该齐头并进（Larsson 1999）。改进的GBC模式在评估机制中包含了经济因素。在可行性研究阶段，它在对评估方案进行比较选择时显得尤为重要。在评价环境问题时，环境和财务因素都应当考虑（Ding 2008）。

同时评估本身的成本也应得到解决。Issa et al.（2010）对绿色建筑认证服务中的大

工程造价外文翻译

多数重要禁止因素与该文件中给予咨询单位和承包商的设计及额外费用形式紧密相关的调查，作出了回应。另一方面，BEA中类似LEED-AP的忽视定性分析的评估人也没有足够的反馈（Gebken et al.2010）。

信号

虽然在文献中强调了较高的评估分数可以在心理上推动环保设计和行为的这种观点，但是它对业主的功用并不显著。即使评价的得分很高，它的效果仍然会受到自我满意度范围的限制。发出信号它本身的影响是微弱的，原则上是使利益相关者从鼓励环保设计和行为中获益。鼓励措施能反映低额税收，良好的银行产品，有利贷款利率和良好的保险产品的评定等级；有利的保险利率对绿色建筑和工程项目来说更是必不可少（Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2005）。

沟通工具

BEA作为一种沟通工具运用于设计人员，规划人员，施工人员，决策者和业主之间。然而其分析和描述的水平通常是多余并且静态的。它不能充分反映学术知识和它本身的发展，因为BEA开发人员和学术界之间的交流和意见交换受到了制约。虽然BEA工具涵盖了能源，水源，景观，设计，那些社会的及心理的因素，除了制造业以外的学术领域和城市规划等多个方面，但仍然不能参与到构建和更新BEA工具的进程中去。有别于施工的其他部门的参与者同样被期望能够包含经济因素，并且能跟上学识和产品改造的步伐。

未来的挑战

接下来，我们将考虑上述的局限性将如何克服和如何提高评估效果的问题。这里讨论了质量管理中的关键性能指标（KPI），Goh（2011）提出方法论的效果可以用以下等式表示：

E=K*P*I

这里，E代表方法论的实际效力，K是指方法论所需要的技能，P表示该技能的功效，I是指执行情况。运用这个简单但具有指导意义的等式，人们可以轻易面对缺乏构成最终效力中任何一个因素所带来的后果，并且当这三个因素存在并且稳定后，该等式的相互强化和乘数效应作用将得以实现。同时我们可以通过下式合理预测BEA效果的提高：△E=PI△K+KI△P+KP△I 因此我们必须保持技能的不断提高，开扩更有利的方法，在贯彻执行上更加积极主动。

为了提高以上三个因子，我们必须研究与这些因子相一致的三个领域，例如，知识创新，突出问题的可靠解决方案和集体行动等。上述等式的右边首项表明，当现存的能力和执行水平较高时，可以通过在技术工作中知识创新的方法来提高最终效果。

工程造价外文翻译

第二项表明当效果受到技术和执行情况的影响时，最终效力可以通过开扩解决现存问题的可靠手段来提高。第三项则表明可以通过促进实施效果的集体行动来提高。 知识创新

目前，知识创新已经作为一种具体的行为被提出来，即学术界要对札幌的可持续发展宣言履行职责（G8 University Summit 2008）。虽然可持续性指数必然会涉及到规范角度和对未知未来的决策，但可持续性科学和学者们的责任仍然是以一种可行的方式为社会提供可靠合理的知识。为了那样的目的，我们需要知识创新，它包括知识本身和知识体系的创新。

知识创新需要合理的有组织的知识结构。换言之，我们这里描述的知识是指在利益相关者能力水平线上的知识。基于之前讨论过的内容，BEA的关键作用是作为一种设计指南来促成更好的设计和行为。虽然定义理想化的可持续性标准是困难的，但评分系统中提出的恰当的可持续性行为方案的指标确是显而易见的。尽管如此，仍然存在各种各样的建筑物环境评估方法。一些工具围绕设计策略，另外则围绕环境载荷和环境影响。Reijnders和van Roekel（1999）讨论了如何运用得分仪器引导方法更加具备综合性，虽然这种相对的综合性仍具有很大的表面性和临时性。因此，我们必须为了BEA的发展开创更具综合性，更有深度，更可靠的技术知识，以便能利用它提升能力和为设计指南做出贡献。为了迎接这样的挑战，学术界需要在数量上不断发展可用的科学知识。

正如已经提到的，BEA的一个主要缺陷是得分和加权的不明确性。但是这些不仅能作为缺点，更应作为利益被引起关注。系统的范围可以根据需求缩小或者扩宽。标准的加权应该根据逐个项目的基本原理导出，同时能反映发展的目标。许多国家已经适应了为他们所用的BREEAM系统，因此新的本地系统，例如HK-BEAM,BEPAC和GreenStar,BASIX和AccuRate(Reijnders和van Roekel 1999)除了包含原始方法外，在各个国家也得到了发展运用。大多数的环境建设评估方法都是用于解决本地问题，因此文化，环境，社会和经济调整也需要定制系统。至于国家标准工具，虽经国家队校对了加权和得分基准，但仍需要考虑地方因素。除了该地区的财政约束，气候，规章及优先政策外，加权系数也可能在技术和工业水平上为适应地方条件而做出调整。不确定性是灵活性的另外一面。BEA的灵活性是为了控制和引导人们了解可持续性社会的目标。从强调建立评估未来方案，辨认多样的认识论和问题定义的方法的必要性中，以及完成可持续性问题深层规范化含义的前景中得出了这些标准（Swart et al.2004）。 在可持续性的大环境中，关于不确定性和灵活性平衡的论证是有根据的。一个综合的方法对可持续性问题来说是很重要的。实现可持续性发展的指示还不明确，也不

工程造价外文翻译

能作为先例。在可持续性大环境中不断增加的环境议题将会引起一些问题，那就是是否存在可行的方法来重新配置以轻易完成这个新的议程。在BEA的背景下，所关注的问题也是广泛而难以捕捉的。但是，甚至是在这样的情形之下，对多数利益相关者而言评估方法也应是可用，可掌握和可理解的。另一方面，方法的使用范围应该是可靠的，运用的是在评价机制中能涵盖大多数环境标准的截然不同的方法，并且这些方法都是显著的，可靠的，合法的（Parris和Kates 2003）。来自于不同学术领域的参与者必须要投身到保持知识库不断增长，使来自补充领域的富有成效的结果整体化，更新BEA工具和以一种可行的方式推动环保设计和行为的舞台中去。不仅是可靠的常识，还有当地环境和社会的数据资料都应该以一种任何人均能有效得到和利用的方式探测和储存起来。

突出问题的有效解决方案

为了高效地利用知识，改良知识运用和创造过程，除了知识本身的创新以外，知识体系的创新也同样需要。

BEA应用到逐个项目的基本原理中，同时能反映发展的目标。因此给予评估人在审查每个项目真正的背景，每个背景下的合理的设计选项，以及各个设计的预期效果时，更高的权力是有必要的。建筑环境评估已经发展了超过二十年的时间，目的是为了寻求实现可持续性的成千上万的方法。简化了的综合方法使许多利益相关者发现了附加选项。在某种程度上，加权系统能为修改评估尺度以反映地区差异和标准规则提供机会。然而，地区，社会及文化上的差异是复杂的，并且很难定义这些界限。这些差异包括气候条件上，建筑材料和技术，收入水平，建筑股票及历史价值增值上的不同（Kohler 1999）。然而，在文章中目前BEA方法以一种电子表格或清单的形式被提供。虽然一个简单的表述很容易理解，尤其是对建筑物的所有者而言，但更有力的分析和设计工具对多元的知识和工具，类似生命周期评估，生命周期成本核算，电脑辅助设计，材料和库存数据库等形成整体，以及提供显著可靠的解决方案来说是必要的。 除了需要利用工具来提高分析能力外，利益相关者之间更为密切的交流对提高方案的卓越性和证实评价过程可信度来讲同样重要。一个潜在的原因是因为在过去的几十年中，人们对舒适的期望值在很大程度上发生了改变（Chappells和Shove 2005）。Gann et al.（2003）中指出在建筑物设计质量评估中最重要的措施进行得如何，取决于它是否满足用户的需要和用户对这个设计和评价行为的看法及感受。由于技术创新，新的规则，生活方式和喜好的改变，在不久的将来，标准本身也会发生变化。另外一个原因是为达成一致的合法性和提高结构的可行性。事实上，一些组织在缺少科学的基本加权方法时都是运用达成共识的加权方式。GBC为参加深入讨论的专家们提供了

工程造价外文翻译

机会，并且通过集合世界各地的研究者和参与者，使得这些议题得到评估（Todd et al.2001）。GBC在集中国际交流和集合设计及研究团体上取得了显著成功（Cole 2001）。另外一个例子是利用团体互动的方法共同构建建筑部分实体论的SUE-Mot项目。在SUE-Mot项目中，社会问题，权益相关者和有关因素通过编辑现存文献，包括学术期刊，研究报告，贸易和政府文献被综合列出。这个目录由各种各样的利益相关者们组成的小团体经过一系列的特尔菲实验后被批准。这个实验不仅是对BEA，甚至是对可持续性科学中的其他问题来说都是至关紧要的。

促进集体行动

最后一个挑战是促进广泛覆盖面的利益相关者的集体行动以加速实施过程。当目前变化的评估方法经过审核后，评估方法会获得巨大成功，普遍意识要产生兴趣需要的临界物质以巩固他们在创造正面改变上的作用（Cole 2005）。但是我们怎样利用这些临界物质引导社会运转呢？“什么样的激励结构系统——包含市场，规则，标准和科学信息——能最高效地提高社会生产力，以指引自然和社会间的相互作用使其向着更加可持续性的路线迈进？”这是一个核心问题，即Kates et al.（2001）要求理解可持续性的含义。自从BEA方法成为主要的自发评估系统，我们就不需要依赖成本效益或规定来获得系统激励。目前，能源无疑相当廉价以至于不能为实质性的性能改善提供一个直接且具有深意的财政刺激（Larsson 1999），因为即使这些方案在经济上是可行的，人们基于个人的，组织的和制度上的障碍，不一定总能理性地采取行动（Hoffman和Henn 2008）。至少从短期来看，需要从上至下地加强变化，并且支持自下而上的鼓励和嘉奖。这种必要的转变是巨大的，以至于将在新的建设部门中发生显而易见的改变（Glass et al. 2008）。

章则及自上而下的系统将为提高整体性能带来类似税收利益，快速通道规划审批或者分区豁免的刺激。然而目前的环境评估方法仅仅尝试着以一个相对比例去衡量建筑物性能，如果我们试着模拟建筑物和BEA对环境的实际贡献，则评估的绝对价值对达到性能的合格水平来讲是绝对必要的（Cole 1998）。采用这种评价模式将面对来自建筑业的众多利益集团的审视和阻碍，同时通过形成共识的过程，向整体性能基准的标准及基础范围发起挑战。能源定价同样是提高能源性能的有力杠杆。市场化方法的利益可能在很大程度上破坏环境问题中决策程序的重要性（Ding 2008）。评估方法已经超越了自发的市场机制。在评价方法中的性能临界值逐渐被公共机构和其他组织作为性能需求规定出来，并作为发展批准的潜在刺激被予以考虑（Cole 2005）。

欧洲联盟委员会建议为可持续建筑和施工工程促进以下刺激：低额税收，良好的银行产品，有利贷款利率，良好的保险产品及保险费率（Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2005）。

工程造价外文翻译

这些刺激为自由的建筑设计可能性提供了大量的新机会和新视角，这能为项目执行复杂的评估过程补偿额外的成本费用。这些新的机会和附加的自由能为建设客户提供额外的刺激以呈现在施工项目中的标准的环境评估（Crawley和Aho 1999）。这个需要大范围权益者的相互作用使得越来越难开发一个方法来为所有参与者提供一个实际的刺激和取得一个真正的提高。这样就形成了对未来的挑战（Curwell et al. 1999）。

结束语 这篇文章提供了BEA目前状况的一个概述，还讨论了BEA工具的预期作用和缺陷。绿色施工已经在全球范围内引起了越来越多的关注。可持续性包含不同的含义和观点。BEA也能反映这些含义和观点，要通过不同的工具来比较这些评估结果或者判断哪种方法有用都是很困难的。在比较中出现的困难是因为这些方法都是为适应各个地区，各种建筑，各个权益者和许多标准而发展起来的，所以要保持方法的多样化。主要考虑的问题应是如何使这些方法形成整体和做些什么使其符合标准。生命周期评估工具必须用全球标准来评估每种材料。另外一方面，地方的情况也要在全球社区中为维持多样性做出同时性的调整，因为这些方法是根据共同知识被予以评估而不是根据定量数据。知识创新和能力，基于知识储备和当地情况的分析现状，都对继续推进长期策略和全球范围内的清晰方案来说是必要的。这种运用知识和网络的建造思想是解决全球多样化问题的关键议题。具有紧密联系的各种利益人之间也需要根据合理的定量数据进行知识和行为创新。

在考虑可持续性问题时，一个整体的方式显得尤为重要。实现可持续性的解决方案仍不明确。伴随可持续性背景下日益增加的环境问题会引起另外一个问题，那就是现存方法是否能轻易地重新配置以完成新的议程。在BEA的环境中，所关注的问题很宽泛且难以捕捉，而评估方法试着趋于全面性以使得他们的工具对多数权益人来说是有用，可及和可以理解的。在可持续性的评价模式和其他问题上，这些独特多样的方法要是可靠的，并能涵盖大多数环境标准。然而这可能会破坏他们能提供一个清晰方向的作用，因而造成繁杂的评估行为。打破范围完整性和简易操作之间的平衡是在发展高效率的BEA环境工具时的一项挑战。

虽然很难为可持续性定义理想标准，但评分系统中每一个被选项的指标必定能显示可持续性的恰当行为。因为在建筑环境评估领域做出了巨大努力，这些方法结构也可以用于其它领域。这些综合方法来源于对可持续性有正面引导和搜集各类方案的一些利益相关者中。这些简化了的综合方法让许多权益者采用其他选择。这会盘旋着迈向可持续性建筑，并通过BEA过程中的沟通交流加速正面改变的产生。

在比较了绿色建筑中购买者的假象行为和实际行为间的本质差距后，Brown和

工程造价外文翻译

Cole（2009）强调了知识，个人控制和舒适之间的关系更加复杂。由于缺乏直接中肯的反馈和相关的制度规则，按穷困用户的理解也许会做出伤害生活和环境的无理行为。同时在过去的几十年中，人们对舒适度的期望值发生了很大程度上的改变（Chappells和Shove 2005）。在不久的将来由于技术创新，新的规则，新的使用或者优化的失败，标准将再次改变。臆测方法和群体行为可能会展现出我们社会和生活及探寻方向的未来预期。这些能从人类科学前景中得到，而这些前景强调了发展未来选择评价方法，区分多样认识论和问题定义，围绕可持续性问题的深层次规范内涵的必要性（Swart et al. 2004）。场景布置和协议对可持续性也很重要。在强调预想可选未来，探寻合理路径和识别长期成果条件因素的决定性作用，我们进而得出了环境和社会分析中的平行发展会为个人和社会提供可靠知识，及能给予可行方案的设计和评估工具，并且情景分析能阐明可持续性问题的两个结论。

另一个需要关注的要点是规则和自主性。虽然这些不存在国家强制执行而对全球公司和市场有设计及环境决定性影响的规则，对全球商业规程来说，是一个相对较新的标准，但是为了管理公司，包括自动调节，以市场为基础的工具，软法律而提出的多样管理手段，仍然被公司作为为避免补充规定和/或者为保护公司的名声和商誉的自发管理标准被予以采纳。为采用环境管理系统的团体激励仍然是存在着的问题（Zutshi和Sohal 2004；Vogel 2008）。

BEA指示系统中的另一个挑战是扩大BEA的范围和加强它与其他指示系统的联系。当前系统要求产品（材料）和/或建筑水平IEA(IEA ANNEX 2005)达到以下系统的包容性水平，在提升包容性和宽带要求方面：（1）产品水平，（2）建筑水平，（3）建筑和附属设施水平，（4）社区水平，（5）建筑存货水平。然而对IEA(Todd et al. 2001)极少或基本没有定义好了的基本附属设施，社区建筑存货水平被加以理解。GBC结构为将建筑引进社区，构建建筑和基本附属设施做出了明确的努力。含有标准的GBC 2000结构与周边社区建筑存在评估关系——该结构的模式是为向评估软件中构建可选社区环境做出贡献。这种如同在不同水平线上授权和渐长的显著设计和行为的模式作为一种联系，是对BEA中权益者的下个巨大挑战。对BEA来说扩宽它的范围包括社区建设，城市规划，城市和地方发展，同样也是未来挑战，这将号召各类利益相关者联合起来更新和运用BEA工具。

感谢 我们想要感谢匿名评论者们批判性的，启示性的，有帮助的评论。

工程造价外文翻译

Sustain Sci (2011) 6:233–246

DOI 10.1007/s11625-011-0131-7

OVERVIEW ARTICLE

Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks

and their implications for sustainability indicators（2）

Yuya Kajikawa Toshihiro Inoue Thong Ngee Goh

Received: 28 June 2010 / Accepted: 25 March 2011 / Published online: 23 April 2011

© Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, United Nations University, and Springer 2011

Abstract Green construction is gaining increasing attention in the global context. However, the construction of sustainable green buildings and environments involves different tools and systems and diverse perspectives. Therefore, the development of environmental assessment tools is an important task for managing green housing and green building projects. In this paper, we discuss the benefits, limitations, and future directions of the assessment framework. To develop an effective assessment framework, the following three factors must be considered: knowledge, power, and implementation. We propose that knowledge innovation, a credible approach for a salient solution, and collective action represent the future challenges of the assessment framework.

Keywords Sustainability science . Indicators . Knowledge innovation . Green building . Sustainable construction

Text

Signaling

The scoring and labeling system of BEA enables not only the benchmarking of the buildings and houses but also can work as signs of their eco-consciousness, and environmentally friendly design and actions. The assessment methods give outcomes as credits. A high assessment score can psychologically encourage environmentally friendly design and actions. The score encourages building owners to aspire to greater levels of performance. Indeed, given the incentive nature of many existing methods, only positive points are typically assigned, i.e., points are given for what is included and are not deducted from what is not. This feature of BEA is promising for management of green building construction.

Communication tool

While an early contribution of BEA was to acknowledge and institutionalize the importance of assessing buildings across a broad range of considerations, the increased use

工程造价外文翻译

of BEA methods has begun to make these learning and communication tools as drivers promoting society in a sustainable direction. These roles relate primarily to the facilitation of communication between stakeholders as the focus shifts to addressing sustainability and changing the culture of the building industry. Current expectations for assessment methods are ‘market transformation tools’ through communication among designers, planners, constructors, policy-makers, and owners, and the ability to enhance dialogue among a range of stakeholders broader than a design team. In addition, an important indirect bene t is that the broad range of issues incorporated in environmental assessments requires greater communication and interaction between members of the design team and various sectors within the building industry, i.e., environmental assessment methods encourage dialogue and teamwork (Cole 1998).

Limitations of BEA

However, BEA has some limitations. The pros and cons of comprehensiveness, design guidelines, signaling, and communication are shown in Table 2. The following points hamper the wider use of BEA, and contribute to current low penetration rates.

Comprehensiveness

The rst limitation results from the comprehensive and wide scope of BEA. One controversy centers around BEA’s mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures and weighting schema of those measures. BEA covers a wide range of sustainability issues. Such comprehensive methods compare completely different criteria, which include both quantitative and qualitative performance criteria. Quantitative criteria (e.g., energy use, water consumption, and gas emissions) can be evaluated readily based on the total consumption level, and points can be awarded accordingly. Energy consumption factors, for example, can be used to calculate the total amount of the consumption in the building over its life time using life-cycle assessment tools. However, other criteria are mainly qualitative (e.g., impact on the ecological value of the site, impact on local wind patterns), which cannot be measured and evaluated quantitatively and are dif cult to count in a comparative manner.Weighting is inherent to such systems and, when not explicitly stated, all criteria are given equal weight (Todd et al. 2001). For example, different criteria of BEA are summarized by simply weighting each factor, such as the sum of the energy score and the water score. Weighting is at the heart of all assessment schemes since it will dominate the overall performance score of the building being assessed (Lee et al.2002). However, at present there is neither a consensus-based approach, nor a satisfactory method to guide the assignment of weightings (Ding 2008). The weighting of the criteria should be derived on a project-by-project basis and should re ect the objective of a development. Design guidelines

The next shortcoming is the feasibility of BEA as a design guideline. BEA is claimed to work as a design guideline that encourages better design and action. However, BEA does not usually include nancial aspects in its evaluation framework even at the stage of academic research (Issa et al. 2010; Kneifel 2010). Due to this lack of a nancial aspect, BEA can rank projects as high scoring when the environment is considered to the extent possible, while a high score does indicate high value or large nancial returns. But, in fact, nancial constraints do exist.While wemay not alwaysmake decisions and alter behavior for economic reasons, such reasons are usually the primary aim of any development. When an economic return is not ful lled, it makes the project less attractive to developers even though it may be

工程造价外文翻译

environment friendly. Environmental issues and nancial considerations should go hand-in-hand as part of the evaluation framework (Larsson 1999). The revised GBC model includes economic issues in the evaluation framework. This is particularly important at the feasibility stage, when alternative options for a development are assessed. Both environmental and nancial aspects must be considered when assessing environmental concerns (Ding 2008).

And the cost for the assessment itself should be accounted for. Issa et al. (2010) noted in the response to their survey that the most signi cant prohibiting factor in LEED certi cation is typically the cost associated with consultants and contractors in the formof design fees and additional fees for LEED documentation. On the other hand, assessors of BEA like LEED-APs, does not have enough return regardless of quali cation (Gebken et al. 2010).

Signaling

Although the idea that a high assessment score can psychologically encourage environmentally friendly design and actions has been emphasized in the literature, their utility to the owner is not clear. Even when the result of assessment is rated as high, the effect is usually limited to the scope of selfsatisfaction. The impact of signaling itself is weak, and institutions that bene t their stakeholders seem to need to

encourage environmentally friendly design and actions. Incentives re ecting ratings such as lower taxation, favorable banking products, advantageous interest rates for lending purposes, and favorable insurance products; advantageous insurance rates are necessary for sustainable buildings and construction works (Lu ¨tzkendorf and Lorenz 2005).

Communication tool

BEA is utilized as a communication tool among designers, planners, constructors, policy-makers, and owners. However, the level of analysis and description is usually

super uous and static. It does not suf ciently re ect academic knowledge and its progress, because communication and dialogue among BEA developers and academia are limited. Although BEA tools cover a wide variety of issues from energy, water, landscape, design, and other social and psychological factors, academic elds other than manufacture and city planning do not participate in the process of building and updating BEA tools. Participants from sectors other than construction are also expected to include nancial factors and to catch up with the pace of knowledge and product redevelopment.

Future challenges

In the following, we will consider how the above limitations can be overcome and how the effectiveness of assessment can be improved. In a paper discussing the key performance indicators (KPIs) of quality management, Goh(2011) proposed that the effectiveness of a methodology can be expressed as the following equation:

E=K*P*I

Here, E stands for the effectiveness of the methodology in practice, K is the knowledge that the methodology entails , P is the power of that knowledge , and I is

implementation. With this simple but instructive equation, one can readily envisage the consequence of a lack of any of the three ingredients for effectiveness, and the mutual reinforcement or multiplier effects that would emerge when all three are present, strong, and sustained can be realized. And we can reasonably expect that the

effectiveness of BEA will be improved by

工程造价外文翻译

△E=PI△K+KI△P+KP△I

Therefore, we must keep the knowledge base growing, develop a more powerful approach, and be more proactive in implementation.

To improve the above three ingredients, we will discuss the following three areas corresponding to these ingredients, i.e., knowledge innovation, a credible approach for a salient solution, and collective action. The rst term on the right-hand side of Eq. 2 represents improvement of effectiveness by knowledge innovation where increase in

knowledge works well when existing levels of power and implementation are high. The second term represents improvement by developing a credible approach for a salient solution, where effectiveness is in uenced by knowledge and implementation. The third term represents improvement by collective action, which is an approach to

accelerating implementation.

Knowledge innovation

Recently, knowledge innovation has been proposed as one of the speci c actions that academia must undertake to ful ll its responsibility to the Sapporo Sustainability Declaration (G8 University Summit 2008). Although the sustainability indicator inevitably involves a normative perspective and decision-making on uncertain futures, the role of sustainability science and the burden of scholars is to feed credible and reliable knowledge into society in a usable and feasible manner. For that purpose, what we need is knowledge innovation, which includes innovation both in knowledge and in knowledge systems.

Knowledge innovation requires structured knowledge that is usable and feasible. In other words, we must offer knowledge described at the level of actions for stakeholders. As already discussed in the previous section, one of the key roles of BEA is to work as a design guideline to encourage better design and action. Although de ning ideal criteria for sustainability is dif cult, it is evident that all indices of the rating systems propose options for advisable actions for sustainability. Nonetheless, a wide variety of methods for building environmental assessments still exist. Some tools are structured around design strategies and others are structured around environmental loadings or impacts. Reijnders and van Roekel (1999) discussed how guidance type methods tend to be more comprehensive, while scoring instruments, although relatively comprehensive, are also rather super cial and ad hoc. Therefore, we must develop more comprehensive, in-depth and feasible knowledge for development of BEA that can be utilized to promote action and to contribute to design guidelines. To meet this challenge, academia needs to keep developing scienti c knowledge that can be used quantitatively.

As already noted, one of the major drawbacks of BEA are the ambiguity of scoring and weighting. But these can be regarded not only as limitations, but also as bene ts.The scope of the system can be modi ed to be as narrow or as broad as desired. The weighting of criteria should be derived on a project-by-project basis and re ect the objective of a development. Many countries have adapted the BREEAM system for their own use, thus giving rise to new local systems such as HK-BEAM, BEPAC and GreenStar, BASIX, and AccuRate (Reijnders and van Roekel 1999) in addition to some original methods that have been developed in each country. Most environmental building assessment methods were developed for local use (Kohler 1999) since cultural, environmental, social and economic adjustments are also required to customize the system. In the case of the GBTool, weights and scoring benchmarks are adjusted by national teams that also take local conditions into

工程造价外文翻译

consideration. The weighting coef cients may be modi ed to suit local conditions at the technological and industrial level, in addition to nancial constraints, climate, regulations, and the prioritized policies of the region. Ambiguity is another side of exibility. This exibility of BEA is suited to drive and navigate people to realize the goal of a sustainable society. These criteria are derived in part from a perspective that emphasizes the need to develop approaches for evaluating future options, recognizing diverse epistemologies and problem de nitions, and encompasses the deeply normative nature of the sustainability problem (Swart et al. 2004).

This argument on the balance between ambiguity and exibility is also valid in the wider context of sustainability. An integrated approach is an important issue in sustainability. Directions toward achieving sustainability are still not clear and cannot be determined a priori. The increasing framing of environmental issues within the wider context of ‘sustainability’ raises questions about whether existing methods are capable of being easily recon gured to ful ll this new agenda. In the context of BEA, the issues to be focused on are also broad and dif cult to capture. But, even under this situation, assessment methods are comprehensive in making their tools useful, accessible and understandable for the many stakeholders. On the other hand, the wide range of methods used need to be reliable, with distinct approaches that cover most environmental criteria within their evaluation framework, and must be salient, credible, and retain legitimacy (Parris and Kates 2003). Contributors from diverse academic elds must enter this arena to keep the knowledge base growing, integrate fruitful outcomes from complementary elds, update BEA tools, and promote environmentally friendly design and actions in a feasible manner. Not only reliable common knowledge but also data on local environments and society should be explored and stored in a manner whereby anyone can access them ef ciently and utilize them effectively.

A credible approach to a salient solution

To utilize knowledge effectively, in addition to innovation in knowledge, innovation in knowledge systems are needed to reform knowledge utilization and the creation process.

BEA is applied on a project-by-project basis and re ects the objective of a development. Therefore, greater power is needed for assessors in investigating the real context of each project, the design options suitable for each context, and the expected outcome of that design. Building environmental assessment methods have been developed for over two decades to seek thousands of options to achieve sustainability. The simpli ed comprehensive approaches have led many stakeholders to nd additional options. To a certain extent, weighting systems can offer opportunities to revise assessment scales to re ect regional variations and criteria order. However, regional, social, and cultural variations are complex and the boundaries are dif cult to

de ne. These variations include differences in climatic conditions, building materials and techniques, income levels, building stocks and appreciation of historic value (Kohler 1999). However, BEA tools are currently supplied in the form of spreadsheets or checklists with text. Although a simple representation is easy to understand, especially for owners of buildings, more powerful analytical and design tools are needed to integrate diverse knowledge and tools such as life cycle assessment, life cycle cost accounting, computer-aided design, materials and inventory databases, etc., to offer credible and salient solutions.

In addition to the need for tools to enhance analytical power, more intensive

工程造价外文翻译

communication among stakeholders is needed to improve the saliency of solutions and to con rm the credibility of assessment processes. One of the underlying reasons is because people’s expectations of comfort have changed signi cantly over the last few decades (Chappells and Shove 2005). Gann et al. (2003) describes how the most important measure in any evaluation of a building’s design quality is whether it satis es user requirements and what users think and feel about the design and the evaluation. The criteria itself will change in the near future because of technological innovation, new regulations, lifestyle and preference changes. Another reason is legitimacy to reach a consensus and thus increase the feasibility of a framework. Actually, some organizations use ‘consensus-based’ weighting in the absence of scienti cally based weights. The GBC provides an opportunity for experts to participate in an in-depth discussion of these and other issues related to assessment by bringing together researchers and practitioners from around the world (Todd et al. 2001). GBC has been remarkably successful at focusing international dialogue and bringing the design and research community together (Cole 2001). Another example is the SUE-Mot project where ontology in the construction sector is co-built along with the method of focus group interaction (Edum-Fotwe and Price 2009). In the SUE-Mot project, social issues, stakeholders and related factors were rst comprehensively listed by compiling the existing literature, including journals, research reports, trade and the government literatures. The list was rati ed through a Delphi exercise in a series of workshops that employed a small focus group consisting of a variety of stakeholders. Such an exercise is crucial not only for BEA but also for other issues in sustainability science.

Promoting collective action

The nal challenge is to promote collective action of wider coverage of stakeholders for accelerating implementation. When the current varying expectations of assessment methods are examined, assessment methods have enjoyed considerable success and their widespread awareness has created the critical mass of interest necessary to cement their role in creating positive change (Cole 2005). But how can we achieve the critical mass to drive social movement? ―What systems of incentive structures—including markets, rules, norms and scienti c information—can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?’’ This is one of the core questions that Kates et al. (2001) asked to understand what is meant by sustainability. Since BEA methods are mainly voluntary assessment systems, systems of incentive are required without relying on the cost bene ts or regulations. Currently, energy is clearly too inexpensive to provide a meaningful direct nancial incentive for substantial performance improvements (Larsson 1999) because, even when the option is economically feasible, people do not always behave rationally due to personal, organizational, and institutional barriers (Hoffman and Henn 2008). In the short term at least, change needs to be imposed top-down, and supported bottom-up with encouragement and reward. The transition that is needed is so large that visible change will almost certainly be needed in the new building sector (Glass et al. 2008).

Regulations, and the top-down system will give incentives such as tax bene ts, fast-track planning approvals or zoning waivers offered to encourage improved overall performance. Whereas current environmental assessment methods attempt only to place a building’s performance on a relative scale, if we try to model the real contribution of the building and BEA to the environment, assessment of the absolute value would be necessary

工程造价外文翻译

to achieve an agreed level of performance (Cole 1998). Adoption of such an evaluation schema would meet with considerable scrutiny and resistance by many interest groups within the building industry and, through a consensus process, would seriously challenge both the range of criteria as well as the basis for deriving the overall required benchmark performance. Energy pricing is also a powerful lever to improve energy performance. The use of market-based approaches may largely undermine the importance of environmental issues within the decision-making process (Ding 2008). Assessment methods have moved beyond voluntary marketplace mechanisms. Performance thresholds in the assessment methods are increasingly being speci ed by public agencies and other organizations as performance requirements, and are being considered as potential incentives for

development approval (Cole 2005).

The Commission of the European Union suggests facilitating the following incentives for sustainable buildings and construction works: lower taxation, favorable banking products, advantageous interest rates for lending purposes, favorable insurance products and advantageous insurance rates (Lu ¨tzkendorf and Lorenz 2005). These incentives provide a host of new opportunities and degrees of freedom for building design possibilities, which can be used to compensate for the additional cost of carrying out detailed assessments during the project. These new opportunities and additional freedom could provide an additional incentive for construction clients to take on environmental assessment as standard practice in construction projects (Crawley and Aho 1999). The interaction required with a wide range of stakeholders makes it increasingly dif cult to develop a method that will provide a practical incentive to all players and lead to real improvements. This forms the challenge for the future (Curwell et al. 1999).

Concluding remarks This paper gives an overview of the current status of BEA, and discusses the expected roles and limitations of BEA tools. Green construction has been attracting increasing attention in the global context. Sustainability involves different meanings and different perspectives. BEA also re ects these meanings and perspectives and therefore it is hard to compare the results evaluated by different tools or to know which methods are useful. This dif culty in comparison is because these methods have been developed to adjust to each region, each building, each stakeholder and many criteria, so that the methods remain diversi ed. There are major concerns about how to integrate the methods and what can be made standard. The tools for life-cycle assessments must have global standards to estimate each material. On the other hand, local contexts must also be adjusted simultaneously to maintain diversity in global communities since these methods are assessed by consensus-based knowledge rather than quantitative-based data. Knowledge innovation and power, analyzing real situations based on accumulated knowledge and local conditions, are necessary to continue to promote long-term strategies and clear options both globally and in a global context. The ideas of structuring both knowledge and networks are the key issues to solving such global diversity issues. A tight relationship with a variety of stakeholders is also needed to make knowledge innovation and action based on quantitative data feasible.

An integrated approach is important in issues regarding sustainability. The solution to achieving sustainability is still not clear. The increasing framing of environmental issues within the wider context of ‘sustainability’ raises the question about whether existing

工程造价外文翻译

methods are capable of being easily recon gured to ful ll this new agenda. In the context of BEA, the issues to be focused are also broad and dif cult to capture, while assessment methods tend to be comprehensive to make their tools useful, accessible and understandable for the many stakeholders. The wide range of methods used needs to be reliable, with distinct approaches that cover the most environmental criteria within their evaluation framework as well as other issues on sustainability. However, this may jeopardize their usefulness in providing a clear direction, thus making assessments cumbersome. Striking a balance between completeness of coverage and simplicity of use is one of the challenges in developing an effective and ef cient environmental BEA tool.

Although it is dif cult to de ne ideal criteria for sustainability, it is evident that every index of rating systems proposes options suggesting advisable actions for sustainability. Since great efforts are being made in the eld of building environmental assessment, the structure of these methods can be applied to other elds. These comprehensive methods involve a numbers of stakeholders with a positive approach, and gather the options of actions for sustainability. Simpli ed comprehensive approaches lead many stakeholders to adopt other options. This then spirals toward sustainable building, and creating positive change is accelerated by communication around the BEA process.

To address the nature of the gap between assumed and actual behavior of occupants in green buildings, Brown and Cole (2009) stressed that the relationship between knowledge, personal controls, and comfort was more complex. The absence of immediate and relevant feedback, relevant institutions and regulations, and poor user comprehension may have led to irrational choices that have degraded our life and environment. Also, people’s expectations of comfort have changed signi cantly over the last few decades (Chappells and Shove 2005). Criteria will again change in the near future because of technology innovation, new regulations, new occupancy or a failure of optimization. Backcasting approaches and focus group interactions might elucidate future expectations about our society and life and the directions to be explored. These are derived in part from a human science perspective that emphasizes the need to develop approaches for evaluating future options, recognizing diverse epistemologies and problem de nitions, and encompassing the deeply normative nature of the sustainability problem (Swart et al. 2004). Scenario making and agreement are crucial to sustainability. To highlight the critical role of envisioning alternative futures, exploring plausible pathways, and identifying the factors conditioning long-term outcomes, we also go on to conclude that parallel developments in the analysis of environment and society feed credible knowledge, development of design and assessment tools offering feasible solution to individuals and society, and the use of scenario analysis to illuminate sustainability problems.

Another point that must be considered is regulation and autonomy. Although regulations that govern the social and environmental impacts of global rms and markets without state enforcement are a relatively new dimension of global business regulation, alternative regulatory instruments to govern rms, including self-regulation, market-based instruments, and soft laws are adopted by rms as voluntary regulatory standards to avoid additional regulation and/or to protect their reputations and brands of the rms. Corporate motivation to adopt environment management systems is the remaining issue (Zutshi and Sohal 2004; Vogel 2008).

Another challenge in BEA indicator systems is to expand the scope of BEA and to

工程造价外文翻译

connect it with other indicator systems. Current systems address the product (material) and/or building level. IEA (IEA ANNEX 2005) addresses the following system of levels of inclusiveness, in increasing order of inclusiveness and breadth: (1) product level, (2) building level, (3) building and supporting infrastructure level, (4) community level, and (5) building stock level. However, there is little or no consideration of the supporting infrastructure, community, or building stock levels as de ned by the IEA (Todd et al. 2001). The GBC framework has made an explicit effort to place a building into its community context, addressing the building and supporting infrastructure. The GBC 2000 framework included criteria related to the relationship of the assessed building to the surrounding community—the framework’s context module was an effort to build selected community conditions into the assessment software. This connection as well as a schema for enabling and promoting salient designs and actions among different levels are the next big challenge for stakeholders involved in BEA. It is also a future challenge for BEA to expand its scope for including wider contexts such as community building, urban planning, city and regional development, which call on a variety of stakeholders to cooperate with updating and utilizing BEA.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical, suggestive, and helpful comments.

References

ARUP website, SPeAR : Product overview. . Accessed June 2010 BEQUEST website, . Accessed June 2010 BREEAM website, Accessed June 2010

Brown Z, Cole RJ (2009) Building environmental assessment methods: rede ning intentions

and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467

Burnett J (2007) City buildings—eco-labels and shades of green! Landsc Urban Plan

83:29–38

CASBEE website, . Accessed June 2010 CEPAS website, . Accessed

June 2010

Chappells H, Shove E (2005) Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability,

energy consumption and the indoor environment. Build Res Inf 33(1):32–40

Cole R (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Build Res

Inf 26(1):3–16

Cole R (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions. Build Res

Inf 27(4):230–246

Cole RJ (2001) Lessons learned, future directions and issues for GBC Build Res Inf

29(5):355–373

Cole R (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: rede ning intentions and roles.

Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467

Cole RJ (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods.

Build Res Inf 34(4):357–371

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Ef ciency (CASBEE)

工程造价外文翻译

website, Accessed June 2010

Cooper I (1999) Which focus for building assessment methods? Environmental performance

or sustainability? Build Res Inf 27(4):321–331

Crawley D, Aho I (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: applications and

development trends. Build Res Inf 27(4):300–308

CRISP, 2004. A European Thematic network on Construction and City Related Sustainability

Indicators, Final report, Publishable part (2004), Accessed June 2010

Curwell S, Yates A, Howard N, Bordass B, Doggart J (1999) The green building challenge in

the UK. Build Res Inf 27(4):286–293

Ding GK (2008) Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J

Environ Manage 86(3):451–464

Edum-Fotwe FT, Price ADF (2009) A social ontology for appraising sustainability of

construction projects and developments. Int J Proj Manage 27:313–322

Erlandsson M, Borg M (2003) Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings,

constructions and operation services-today practice and development needs. Build Environ 38(7):919–938

Forsberg A, von Malmborg F (2004) Tools for environmental assessment of the built

environment. Build Environ 39(2):223–228

Fowler KM, Rauch EM (2006) Sustainable building rating systems summary. Paci c

Northwest National Laboratory

G8 University Summit (2008), Sapporo Sustainability Declaration,

http://g8u-summit.jp/english/ssd/index.html

Gann D, Salter A, Whyte J (2003) Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Build Res

Inf 31(5):318–333

Gebken RJ II, Asche M, Bruce RD, Strong SD (2010) Impact of the leadership in energy and

environmental design accredited professional credential on design professionals. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Prac 136(3):132–138

Gibberd J (2001) The sustainable building assessment tool—assessing how buildings can

support sustainability in developing countries. Continental Shift 2001, IFI International Conference, 11–14 September 2001, Johannesburg

Glass J, Dainty AR, Gibb AG (2008) New build: materials, techniques, skills and innovation.

Ene Poli 36(12):4534–4538

Goh TN (2011) Si jeunesse savail; si vieillesse pouvait—six sigma practitioners need not

lament. Int J Qual Serv Syst 3(1):5–12

Green Globes Canada website, . Accessed June 2010 Green Star website, . AccessedJune 2010

Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools.

Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(7):469–482

Hezri AA, Dovers SR (2006) Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: issues for

ecological economics. Ecol Econ60(1):86–99

HK-BEAM website, . Accessed June2010

Hoffman AJ, Henn R (2008) Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green

building. Org Environ 21(4):390–419

Holmes J, Hudson G (2000) An evaluation of the objectives of the BREEAM scheme for

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/0b2i.html