4.7 Review

Building rating systems: A novel review about capabilities, current limits and open issues

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103498

关键词

Rating Systems; Sustainability; Sustainability Assessment Method; COVID-19; New Buildings; Building Retrofit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A recent review of over 100 research papers on green building rating tools highlights neglected aspects in current rating systems, such as structural safety, vulnerability to calamitous events, indoor environmental quality, and adaptability. These issues have emerged as priorities during the pandemic.
An up-to-date review of more than 100 research papers about green building rating tools is proposed, with a view to what is changed or must be changed, also following the new requirements due to the recent pandemic. The review organizes current literature in the matter of rating systems in four different groups: rating systems' comparison papers, case studies, the proposition of new rating systems, possible integration of rating systems into other design tools for buildings. The research papers have been analyzed to underline the main investigated aspects in rating systems, how to improve the rating systems for enlarging the sustainability assessment, and how much the level of certification reflects the green, sustainable, healthiness, and indoor environmental quality features of buildings. Moreover, possible improvements of the weighting systems are here showed, in the rating systems' method, and some new aspects for the sustainability assessment are suggested. As regards the pillars of sustainability, the main neglected points are structural safety, vulnerability to calamitous events, compatibility with local culture and history. Moreover, the indoor environmental quality and the flexibility/adaptability of livable environments are underestimated in the current rating systems. These issues have emerged strongly during the COVID-19 pandemic and have become a priority.

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