首页> 外文期刊>Ecological indicators >Analysing sustainability certification systems in the German housing sector from a theory of social institutions
【24h】

Analysing sustainability certification systems in the German housing sector from a theory of social institutions

机译:从社会制度理论分析德国住房部门的可持续发展认证体系

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Sustainable residential buildings and a sustainable housing development ('sustainable housing') are key factors in the sustainability strategy of the German government. Certification systems have been developed to assess sustainable housing and to better inform stakeholders and hence improve sustainability in the housing sector. Currently, however, a variety of different certification systems exists to assess sustainable housing using different sets of indicators. The supply of different certification systems to measure the same ('sustainability') raises questions of validity of the assessment instruments. Also, different stakeholders hold different interests with regard to sustainability certification systems, which leads to investigate the legitimacy of certification systems. In this study, we applied the theory of social institutions to investigate legitimacy of sustainability certification in the housing sector. To find out about the validity of sustainability measurement, this article presents a survey where real estate stakeholders were asked to evaluate indicators applied by different sustainability certification systems. Results showed high heterogeneity of tastes towards indicators of sustainable housing. Results also identified potential 'areas of conflicts' where stakeholders differed most widely in the evaluation of indicators. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译:可持续住宅建筑和可持续住房开发(“可持续住房”)是德国政府可持续战略中的关键因素。已经开发了认证系统来评估可持续住房,并更好地为利益相关者提供信息,从而改善住房部门的可持续性。但是,当前存在各种不同的认证系统,它们使用不同的指标集来评估可持续住房。提供不同的认证系统来衡量同一认证(“可持续性”)提出了评估工具有效性的问题。此外,不同的利益相关者在可持续性认证系统方面拥有不同的利益,这导致了对认证系统合法性的调查。在这项研究中,我们应用了社会制度的理论来研究可持续性认证在住房领域的合法性。为了了解可持续性衡量的有效性,本文提出了一项调查,要求房地产利益相关者评估不同可持续性认证体系应用的指标。结果表明,口味与可持续住房指标之间存在高度异质性。结果还确定了潜在的“冲突地区”,在评估指标方面,利益相关者的分歧最大。 (C)2016由Elsevier Ltd.出版

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号