Analysis of the scientific evolution of sustainable building assessment methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 101610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Díaz-López ◽  
Manuel Carpio ◽  
María Martín-Morales ◽  
Montserrat Zamorano
2019 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 101611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Díaz López ◽  
Manuel Carpio ◽  
Maria Martín-Morales ◽  
Montserrat Zamorano

2017 ◽  
Vol 146 ◽  
pp. 152-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Li ◽  
Xiaochen Chen ◽  
Xiaoyu Wang ◽  
Youquan Xu ◽  
Po-Han Chen

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (26) ◽  
pp. 105-110
Author(s):  
Razlin Mansor ◽  
Sheau-Ting Low

Building assessment tools have been introduced for nearly two decades to specifically recognize buildings performance towards sustainable development goals. However, the requirements to achieve sustainability in buildings are mainly focused on the environmental and economic aspects, while the significance of social aspects has been scarcely emphasized in many building assessments tools. This paper presents a review of social aspects in the sustainable building assessment tools adopted in Malaysia. In total, four building assessment tools are selected and discussed with the aim to identify to what extent the building assessment tools cover the social dimension. The results of the content analysis indicate that the assessment tools have included partial criteria of social aspects but the scope could further expand to preserve the key features of the social aspects including quality of life, human health, and environmental satisfaction. The findings provide a valuable overview of the building assessment tools and address gaps in existing building assessment tools from a social aspect perspective.


2019 ◽  
Vol 96 ◽  
pp. 03004
Author(s):  
S Harb ◽  
S M ElHaggar ◽  
H Sewilam

Educational reform has been a concerning matter to the Egyptian government since the 20th century. In order to address the educational problems, several initiatives have instigated a quantitative expansion approach, rather than a qualitative one. Existing building assessment methods convey sustainability principles to building design. However, they do not consider the school design as an active pedagogical tool for sustainable education and development. In addition they do not integrate other imperative parameters necessary for the effective learning and development of students. The developed guideline is divided into two school rating systems; new and existing. The guideline is further divided into three main sustainability categories: energy, water, and habitat. The directing parameters of the guideline are based on sustainable building assessment parameters, Egypt’s pressing social, economic and environmental concerns, pedagogy of educational environments, students’ social, psychological, and developmental needs, in order to develop a holistic framework.


Buildings ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karam Al-Obaidi ◽  
Sim Wei ◽  
Muhammad Ismail ◽  
Kenn Kam

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document