ARCOM

Abstracts – Browse Results

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 17 results ...

Cole, R J (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 357–71.

Dammann, S and Elle, M (2006) Environmental indicators: establishing a common language for green building. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 387–404.

Gething, B and Bordass, B (2006) Rapid assessment checklist for sustainable buildings. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 416–26.

Hellström, M, Wikström, R, Gustafsson, M and Luotola, H (2016) The value of project execution services: A problem and uncertainty perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 34(04), 272-85.

Kaatz, E, Root, D S, Bowen, P A and Hill, R C (2006) Advancing key outcomes of sustainability building assessment. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 308–20.

Lützkendorf, T and Lorenz, D P (2006) Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 334–56.

Liu, Y, Prasad, D, Li, J, Fu, Y and Liu, J (2006) Developing regionally specific environmental building tools for China. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 372–86.

Lowe, R (2006) Defining absolute environmental limits for the built environment. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 405–15.

Type: Journal Article
Keywords: Building performance; building sustainability assessment; environmental assessment; environmental performance targets
ISBN/ISSN: 0961-3218
URL: http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=t26814n628470182
Abstract:
The question addressed is whether it is possible to define working limits on environmental impacts from the built environment in terms of global carrying capacity. The main focus is on energy-related impacts, since these are global and relatively well-understood. Four possible approaches to defining limits are explored: static equilibrium, asymptotic, integral of excess and planned future. The conclusions that emerge from this exploration are that global environmental constraints are very tight, but also that they are dynamically and strongly influenced by the trajectory of social and technological development over the coming century. Their use as the basis for practical, quantitative metrics of sustainability, therefore, involves a large measure of subjectivity. A fifth approach – the developmental approach – is identified, which instead of focusing on long-term external constraints to human activity, focuses instead on the internal, short- to medium-term dynamics of the built environment itself. It appears likely that the developmental approach, guided by qualitative conclusions from the analysis of global carrying capacity, is likely to be most fruitful.

Malmqvist, T and Glaumann, M (2006) Selecting problem-related environmental indicators for housing management. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 321–33.

Murtagh, N, Roberts, A and Hind, R (2016) The role of environmental sustainability in marketing of small architectural design practices. Construction Management and Economics, 34(04), 258-71.

Preece, C N, Mat Isa, C M, Saman, H M and Che Ibrahim, C K (2016) Development of entry location, entry timing and entry mode decision model for construction firms in international markets. Construction Management and Economics, 34(04), 236-57.

Razmdoost, K and Mills, G (2016) Towards a service-led relationship in project-based firms. Construction Management and Economics, 34(04), 317-34.

Swan, J (2006) New ways of innovating. Building Research & Information, 34(04), 427–32.

Swarts, K M, Lehman, K and Lewis, G K (2016) The use of social customer relationship management by building contractors: Evidence from Tasmania. Construction Management and Economics, 34(04), 302-16.