4.7 Article

Asian green building rating tools: A comparative study on scoring methods of quantitative evaluation systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 218, 期 -, 页码 880-895

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.192

关键词

Green building rating tool; Quantitative evaluation system; Comparative assessment; Terminal indicator

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51478136, 51778168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mature stage of development of Green Building Rating Tools (GBRTs) is one of the factors that critically affect the development of green-building practices. A GBRT generally comprises an indicator system (IS) and a quantitative evaluation system (QES); for a given QES, the core component is the scoring method of terminal indicators (SMTIs). Given the predominant focus on the IS in the literature on GBRTs, the QES has not been studied as comprehensively, especially for the SMTIs. Hence, this study proposes a comparative analysis of the SMTIs between two GBRT5 - the Evaluation Standard for Green Building (ESGB) and the Ecology, Energy Saving, Waste Reduction, and Health system (EEWH). This analysis not only elucidates the QES but also functions as a reference for the development of other GBRTs globally. Methodologically, eight types of SMTIs used in the ESGB or EEWH are categorized and defined. Besides, to examine the QESs, two indexes are proposed to compare the performances of the two GBRT5: the number of adopted SMTI types (N) and the utilization rate (UR) of SMTIs. Two findings are noteworthy. Firstly, two SMTIs, i.e. the Formula Scoring Method (FSM) and Direct Scoring Method (DSM), are respectively associated with the highest and the lowest levels of maturity. Additionally, the QESs of the ESGB and EEWH primarily depend on only one SMTI (DSM and FSM respectively) with the same UR (63.9%), leading to a poor SMTI balance in the both two QESs and to a higher QES maturity of EEWH than ESGB. For future studies, the QESs of other GBRTs can be examined based on the eight SMTIs and two indexes (N and UR) proposed herein. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据