| 1. |
- Glaumann, Mauritz, et al.
(författare)
-
Närklimat kring stora hus
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Hus mot himlen – hållbar hybris?. - Malmö : Bokförlaget Arena. - 9789178435210 ; , s. 200-221
-
Bokkapitel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)
|
|
| 2. |
- Wallhagen, Marita, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
Framework for Detailed Comparison of Building Environmental Assessment Tools
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Buildings. - Basel, Switzerland : MDPI AG. - 2075-5309. ; 3:1, s. 39-60
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Understanding how Building Environmental Assessments Tools (BEATs) measure and define “environmental” building is of great interest to many stakeholders, but it is difficult to understand how BEATs relate to each other, as well as to make detailed and systematic tool comparisons. A framework for comparing BEATs is presented in the following which facilitates an understanding and comparison of similarities and differences in terms of structure, content, aggregation, and scope. The framework was tested by comparing three distinctly different assessment tools; LEED-NC v3, Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), and EcoEffect. Illustrations of the hierarchical structure of the tools gave a clear overview of their structural differences. When using the framework, the analysis showed that all three tools treat issues related to the main assessment categories: Energy and Pollution, Indoor Environment, and Materials and Waste. However, the environmental issues addressed, and the parameters defining the object of study, differ and, subsequently, so do rating, results, categories, issues, input data, aggregation methodology, and weighting. This means that BEATs measure “environmental” building differently and push “environmental” design in different directions. Therefore, tool comparisons are important, and the framework can be used to make these comparisons in a more detailed and systematic way.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wallhagen, Marita, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
Les outils de mesure de la durabilité des bâtiments : comparaison transnationale
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Annales de la Recherche Urbaine. - Paris : Ministère de l'Écologie, de l'Énergie, du Développement durable et de l'aménagement du territoire. - 0180-930X. ; :105, s. 94-103
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Les outils d'évaluation environnementale des bâtiments se développent rapidement dans de nombreux pays. Tous prétendent mesurer la qualité environnementale ou la durabilité des bâtiments, et donnent un maximum de points à ce qui est durable d'une manière ou d'une autre. Mais pour l'instant il n'y a pas de consensus sur le sens des mots « vert » ou « durables » en termes de critères et d'indicateurs. Que cherchent à mesurer les indicateurs existant? Trois outils d'évaluation ont été retenus, l'américain LEED-NC, le britannique Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) et le suédois EcoEffect. Ils ont trois champs d'évaluation principale en commun : l'énergie, l'environnement intérieur, les matériaux et les déchets. En revanche les contenus sont différents. Ces outils ont été comparés quant à leur but, leur contenu, et leur manière d'agréger les items. Ils ont été testés sur un immeuble neuf de plusieurs étages. Les résultats de leur application à cet immeuble divergent, ce qui pose la question de la définition d'outils d'évaluation réellement pertinents.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Wallhagen, Marita, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
What is a "green" building according to different assessment tools?
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 2008 World Sustainable Building Conference. Vol. 2. - 9780646503721 ; , s. 2618-2625
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Environmental assessment tools for buildings are rapidly developing in many countries. All of them claim that they measure “greenness” or “sustainability” of buildings, i.e. if maximum scores are awarded a building is sustainable in some respect. But so far there is no consensus on the interpretation of “green” or “sustainable” in terms of criteria and indicators.This article explores if different tools point in different directions regarding “green” building design. It also investigates characteristics of assessment tools and consequences of different approaches.Three distinctly different assessment tools, LEED-NC, Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) and EcoEffect have been selected. They have three core assessment areas in common, namely Energy, Indoor Environment and Materials & Waste. The content however is different.The tools have been compared with respect to aim, content and aggregation. They have been tested on a new multi storey residential building. Assessments within the core areas were compared. Measures to improve the overall judgement were explored. The diverging result raises the question how to design environmentally relevant and practically useful assessment tools for buildings.
|
|
