4.7 Article

A methodology for eco-efficiency evaluation of residential development at city level

Journal

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 566-573

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.07.012

Keywords

Eco-efficiency; Environmental efficiency; Residential development; Ecological footprint; Environmental impacts; China

Funding

  1. Science & Technology Foundation of Southeast University [XJ2008309]
  2. Hong Kong Polytechnic University [BRE-JPSS-08109]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Residential development provides product/service value like floor space, while at the same time it induces severe environmental impacts. This paper introduces a methodology for eco-efficiency (EE) evaluation of residential development at city level, which links product/service value and environmental impacts together. Different from previous researches on environmental impacts related to the construction process of residential buildings, the proposed methodology selects the ecological footprint (EF) as an aggregate environmental indicator to represent all resources consumed and all wastes produced by residential development, while the traditional EF model of a region is improved in view of characters of residential development. Since the final and main objective of the residential development is to provide floor space, which is chosen as the indicator of product/service value herein. The proposed methodology is applied and exemplified in the eco-efficiency evaluation of residential development in three Chinese cities, namely, Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing. Results derived from the proposed methodology can help policy-makers and participants in the industry to assess residential development quantitatively and roundly. They can also provide implications for the environmental management of residential development at city level. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available