工程造价外文翻译--建筑环境评估框架分析和可持续发展指标的影响-建筑结构(编辑修改稿)

工程造价外文翻译--建筑环境评估框架分析和可持续发展指标的影响-建筑结构(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

of BEA methods has begun to make these learning and munication tools as drivers promoting society in a sustainable direction. These roles relate primarily to the facilitation of munication between stakeholders as the focus shifts to addressing sustainability and changing the culture of the building industry. Current expectations for assessment methods are ‘market transformation tools’ through munication among designers, planners, constructors, policymakers, and owners, and the ability to enhance dialogue among a range of stakeholders broader than a design team. In addition, an important indirect benefit is that the broad range of issues incorporated in environmental assessments requires greater munication and interaction between members of the design team and various sectors within the building industry, ., environmental assessment methods encourage dialogue and teamwork (Cole 1998). Limitations of BEA However, BEA has some limitations. The pros and cons of prehensiveness, design guidelines, signaling, and munication are shown in Table 2. The following points hamper the wider use of BEA, and contribute to current low peration rates. Comprehensiveness The first limitation results from the prehensive and wide scope of BEA. One controversy centers around BEA’s mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures and weighting schema of those measures. BEA covers a wide range of sustainability issues. Such prehensive methods pare pletely different criteria, which include both quantitative and qualitative performance criteria. Quantitative criteria (., energy use, water consumption, and gas emissions) can be evaluated readily based on the total consumption level, and points can be awarded accordingly. Energy consumption factors, for example, can be used to calculate the total amount of the consumption in the building over its life time using lifecycle assessment tools. However, other criteria are mainly qualitative (., impact on the ecological value of the site, impact on local wind patterns), which cannot be measured and evaluated quantitatively and are difficult to count in a parative is inherent to such systems and, when not explicitly stated, all criteria are given equal weight (Todd et al. 2020). For example, different criteria of BEA are summarized by simply weighting each factor, such as the sum of the energy score and the water score. Weighting is at the heart of all assessment schemes since it will dominate the overall performance score of the building being assessed (Lee et ). However, at present there is neither a consensusbased approach, nor a satisfactory method to guide the assignment of weightings (Ding 2020). The weighting of the criteria should be derived on a projectbyproject basis and should reflect the objective of a development. Design guidelines The next shorting is the feasibility of BEA as a design guideline. BEA is claimed to work as a design guideline that encourages better design and action. However, BEA does not usually include financial aspects in its evaluation framework even at the stage of academic research (Issa et al. 2020。 Kneifel 2020). Due to this lack of a financial aspect, BEA can rank projects as high scoring when the environment is considered to the extent possible, while a high score does indicate high value or large financial returns. But, in fact, financial constraints do wemay not alwaysmake decisions and alter behavior for economic reasons, such reasons are usually the primary aim of any development. When an economic return is not fulfilled, it makes the project less attractive to developers even though it may be environment friendly. Environmental issues and financial considerations should go handinhand as part of the evaluation framework (Larsson 1999). The revised GBC model includes economic issues in the evaluation framework. This is particularly important at the feasibility stage, when alternative options for a development are assessed. Both environmental and financial aspects must be considered when assessing environmental concerns (Ding 2020). And the cost for the assessment itself should be accounted for. Issa et al. (2020) noted in the response to their survey that the most significant prohibiting factor in LEED certification is typically the cost associated with consultants and contractors in the formof design fees and additional fees for LEED documentation. On the other hand, assessors of BEA like LEEDAPs, does not have enough return regardless of qualification (Gebken et al. 2020). Signaling Although the idea that a high assessment score can psychologically encourage environmentally friendly design and actions has been emphasized in the literature, their utility to the owner is not clear. Even when the result of assessment is rated as high, the effect is usually limited to the scope of selfsatisfaction. The impact of signaling itself is weak, and institutions that benefit their stakeholders seem to need to encourage environmentally friendly design and actions. Incentives reflecting ratings such as lower taxation, favorable banking products, advantageous interest rates for lending purposes, and favorable insurance products。 advantageous insurance rates are necessary for sustainable buildings and construction works (Lu 168。 tzkendorf and Lorenz 2020). Communication tool BEA is utilized as a munication tool among designers, planners, constructors, policymakers, and owners. However, the level of analysis and description is usually superfluous and static. It does not sufficiently reflect academic knowledge and its progress, because munication and dialogue among BEA developers and academia are limited. Although BEA tools cover a wide variety of issues from energy, water, landscape, design, and other social and psychological factors, academic fields other than manufacture and city planning do not participa。