The development of sustainable assessment method for Saudi Arabia built environment: weighting system

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Saleh H. Alyami (1)
  Yacine Rezgui (2)
  Alan Kwan (3)
  
  1. School of Engineering ; Cardiff University ; Cardiff ; UK
  2. BRE Institute in Sustainable Engineering ; School of Engineering ; Cardiff University ; Cardiff ; UK
  3. Architectural ; Civil and Environment Discipline ; School of Engineering ; Cardiff University ; Cardiff ; UK
  
• 关键词：Sustainable development ; Environmental assessment method ; SEAM
• 刊名：Sustainability Science
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：January 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：10
• 期：1
• 页码：167-178
• 全文大小：998 KB
• 参考文献：1. Al Saud M (2010) Assessment of flood hazard of Jeddah area 2009, Saudi Arabia. J Water Resour Prot 2(9):839鈥?47 CrossRef
  2. Al-Harbi KM (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Project Manag 19(1):19鈥?7 CrossRef
  3. Ali HH, Al Nsairat SF (2009) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries鈥攃ase of Jordan. Build Environ 44(5):1053鈥?064. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.015 CrossRef
  4. Ali H, Alfalah G (2010) Sustainable architectural applications in the Gulf States-post occupancy evaluation case study of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th symposium for improving building systems in hot and humid climates, Austin Texas August 24鈥?5
  5. Al-Sanea SA, Zedan MF, Al-Hussain SN (2012) Effect of thermal mass on performance of insulated building walls and the concept of energy savings potential. Appl Energy 89(1):430鈥?42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.009
  6. Alyami SH, Rezgui Y (2012) Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustain Cities Soc 5:52鈥?2. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.004 CrossRef
  7. Alyami SH, Rezgui Y, Kwan A (2013) Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:43鈥?4 CrossRef
  8. Badri MA, Abdulla MH (2004) Awards of excellence in institutions of higher education: an AHP approach. Int J Educ Manag 18(4):224鈥?42 CrossRef
  9. Bahammam A (1998) Factors which influence the size of the contemporary dwelling: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int 22(4):557鈥?70. doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(98)00018-6 CrossRef
  10. BRE (2008) Multi-residential, BREEAM Scheme Document., vol SD 5064 issue: 2.0. BRE Global Ltd
  11. BRE (2013) BRE home page. http://www.bre.co.uk/index.jsp. Accessed 1 June 2013
  12. Burdov谩 EK, Vil膷ekov谩 S (2012) Energy performance indicators developing. Energy Procedia 14:1175鈥?180. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1072 CrossRef
  13. CASBEE (2011) CASBEE homepage. http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/. Accessed Aug 2011
  14. Chandratilake SR, Dias WPS (2013) Sustainability rating systems for buildings: comparisons and correlations. Energy 59:22鈥?8. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.07.026 CrossRef
  15. Chang K-F, Chiang C-M, Chou P-C (2007) Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005鈥攕earching for suitability in Taiwan. Build Environ 42(1):310鈥?16. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.015 CrossRef
  16. Chew MYL, Das S (2008) Building grading systems: a review of the state-of-the-art. Archit Sci Rev 51(1):3鈥?3. doi:10.3763/asre.2008.5102 CrossRef
  17. Chowdhury S, Sumita U, Islam A, Bedja I (2014) Importance of policy for energy system transformation: diffusion of PV technology in Japan and Germany. Energy Policy 68:285鈥?93 CrossRef
  18. Cole RJ (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 26(1):3鈥?6. doi:10.1080/096132198370065 CrossRef
  19. Cole RJ (2000) Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices. Constr Manag Econ 18(8):949鈥?57. doi:10.1080/014461900446902 CrossRef
  20. Cole RJ (2001) Lessons learned, future directions and issues for GBC. Build Res Inf 29(5):355鈥?73. doi:10.1080/09613210110064286 CrossRef
  21. Cole R (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455鈥?67. doi:10.1080/09613210500219063 CrossRef
  22. Cole R (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 34(4):357鈥?71. doi:10.1080/09613210600724624 CrossRef
  23. El-Ghonemy AMK (2012) Future sustainable water desalination technologies for the Saudi Arabia: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(9):6566鈥?597. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.026 CrossRef
  24. Grace KCD (2008) Sustainable construction鈥攖he role of environmental assessment tools. J Environ Manag 86(3):451鈥?64. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025 CrossRef
  25. Green M (2004) Recent developments in photovoltaics. Sol Energy 76(1):3鈥? CrossRef
  26. Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(7):469鈥?82. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002 CrossRef
  27. Hajjar NTaB (2014) Energy and environment in Saudi Arabia: concerns and opportunities. Economic policy, Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02982-5
  28. Hamakawa Y (1997) An accelerated promotion of the New Sunshine Project and recent advances of PV Technologies in Japan. Proc of ISES鈥?7
  29. Hepbasli A, Alsuhaibani Z (2011) A key review on present status and future directions of solar energy studies and applications in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(9):5021鈥?050. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.052 CrossRef
  30. Horvat M, Fazio P (2005) Comparative review of existing certification programs and performance assessment tools for residential buildings. Archit Sci Rev 48(1):69鈥?0. doi:10.3763/asre.2005.4810 CrossRef
  31. IES (2013) IES-VE home page. http://www.iesve.com/software/ve-pro/analysis-tools/ve-navigators. Accessed 15th June 2013
  32. KACST (2002) Strategic priorities for building and construction technology. KACST. http://www.kacst.edu.sa/en/research/Documents/BuildingAndConstruction.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2012
  33. Kajenthira A, Siddiqi A, Anadon LD (2012) A new case for promoting wastewater reuse in Saudi Arabia: bringing energy into the water equation. J Environ Manag 102:184鈥?92 CrossRef
  34. Kajikawa Y, Inoue T, Goh TN (2011) Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators. Sustain Sci 6(2):233鈥?46 CrossRef
  35. Kanagaraj G, Mahalingam A (2011) Designing energy efficient commercial buildings鈥攁 systems framework. Energy Build 43(9):2329鈥?343 CrossRef
  36. Kawazu Y SN, Yokoo N, Oka T. Comparison of the assessment results of BREEAM, LEED, GBTool and CASBEE. In: In proceedings of the 2005 sustainable building conference (SB05), Tokyo, Japan
  37. Kim J-H, Augenbroe G, Suh H-S Comparative study of the leed and ISO-CEN building energy performance rating methods. In: 13th conference of international building performance association, France, 2013
  38. Lee WL, Burnett J (2006) Customization of GBTool in Hong Kong. Build Environ 41(12):1831鈥?846. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.06.019 CrossRef
  39. Lee WL, Chau CK, Yik FWH, Burnett J, Tse MS (2002) On the study of the credit-weighting scale in a building environmental assessment scheme. Build Environ 37(12):1385鈥?396. doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00006-9 CrossRef
  40. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL (2008) The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 189(1):194鈥?07. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.001 CrossRef
  41. Mahdi IM, Alreshaid K (2005) Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Project Manag 23(7):564鈥?72 CrossRef
  42. Mao X, Lu H, Li Q (2009) A comparison study of mainstream sustainable/green building rating tools in the world. In, 2009
  43. Masdarcity (2013) Masdar city offical website. http://www.masdarcity.ae/en/. Accessed 7th July 2013
  44. Meesapawong P, Rezgui Y, Li H (2013) Planning innovation orientation in public research and development organizations: using a combined Delphi and analytic hierarchy process approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change (0). doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.023
  45. Obaid RR (2008) Present state, challenges, and future of power generation in Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the IEEE Energy2030, Atlanta, GA USA, 17鈥?8 November, 2008
  46. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15鈥?9. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 CrossRef
  47. Ouda OK (2013) Towards assessment of Saudi Arabia public awareness of water shortage problem. Resour Environ 3(1):10鈥?3
  48. Pohekar S, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning鈥攁 review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365鈥?81 CrossRef
  49. Raslanas S, Stasiukynas A, Jurgelaityt臈 E (2013) Sustainability assessment studies of recreational buildings. Procedia Eng 57(0):929鈥?37. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.118
  50. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9鈥?6 CrossRef
  51. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6):19鈥?3 CrossRef
  52. Sam K (2010) Chapter 2鈥攂asic LEED鈩?concepts. In: LEED practices, certification, and accreditation handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp 19鈥?8. doi:10.1016/b978-1-85617-691-0.00002-3
  53. SENS (2013) Home page of Saudi Environmental Society. http://www.sens.org.sa/index.php. Accessed 7th October 2013
  54. Sev A (2011) A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations. Civil Eng Environ Syst 28(3):231鈥?45. doi:10.1080/10286608.2011.588327 CrossRef
  55. SGBC (2013) Home page of Saudi Green Building Council. http://www.saudigbc.com/. Accessed 7th October 2013
  56. Taleb HM, Sharples S (2011) Developing sustainable residential buildings in Saudi Arabia: a case study. Appl Energy 88(1):383鈥?91. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.029 CrossRef
  57. To K, Fern谩ndez JE (2012) Alternative urban technology demonstration projects for innovative Cities. Paper presented at the third international engineering systems symposium, CESUN, Delft University of Technology
  58. Todd JA, Geissler S (1999) Regional and cultural issues in environmental performance assessment for buildings. Build Res Inf 27(4鈥?):247鈥?56. doi:10.1080/096132199369363 CrossRef
  59. USGBC (2013) USGBC home page. https://new.usgbc.org/. Accessed 1 June 2013
  60. Wong JK, Li H (2008) Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Build Environ 43(1):108鈥?25 CrossRef
  61. Wong J, Li H, Lai J (2008) Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building systems: part 2: construction and validation of analytical models. Automation Construct 17(3):303鈥?21 CrossRef
  62. Ying X, Zeng G-M, Chen G-Q, Tang L, Wang K-L, Huang D-Y (2007) Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality鈥攁 case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecol Model 209(2):97鈥?09 CrossRef
  63. Zayed T, Amer M, Pan J (2008) Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. Int J Project Manag 26(4):408鈥?19 CrossRef
  64. Zetland D, Gasson C (2013) A global survey of urban water tariffs: are they sustainable, efficient and fair? Int J Water Resour Dev 29(3):327鈥?42 CrossRef
  65. Zheng G, Jing Y, Huang H, Zhang X, Gao Y (2009) Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) and extenics theory for building energy conservation assessment. Energy 34(11):1870鈥?879 CrossRef
  
• 刊物类别：Earth and Environmental Science
• 刊物主题：Environment
  Environmental Management
  Climate Change
  Environmental Economics
  Landscape Ecology
  Public Health
  
• 出版者：Springer Japan
• ISSN：1862-4057

文摘

Our built environment is responsible for some of the most serious global and local environmental change. The construction industry, therefore, faces pressure to increase the sustainability of its practices reflected in the development of stringent regulations and environmental assessment methods, designed to mitigate such negative impacts. However, these well-known methods (e.g., BREEAM, LEED, SBTool, and CASBEE) have not originally been designed to suit developing countries (including Saudi Arabia). This paper proposes to customize an adapted weighting system that prioritizes Saudi environmental assessment method (SEAM) categories. The research methodology involves the use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Expert choice software was the main tool to analyze the input data. This research instrument involves the participation of a number of leading, global experts in the field of environmental and sustainable development, as well as professionals and highly informed local experts from government, academia, and industry. The results reveal that well-known environmental assessment methods are not fully applicable to the Saudi Arabia built environment, as reflected in the resulting categories, criteria and weighting system of SEAM.