Evaluation for social and humanity demand on green residential districts in China based on SLCA
In recent years, green building has become a social hotspot and raised much concern of academic. However, traditional researches of green building mostly focused on technology, while research on social and humanity demand on green residential districts is still scarce. To complement the gap of research and reality, this paper is intended to establish a quantitative evaluation method for social humanity needs of green residential districts based on social life cycle assessment (SLCA).
Based on the SLCA method, an evaluation indicator system for social and humanity demand of green residential districts was proposed, considering different stakeholders (real estate developers, construction enterprises, community residents, and decision makers). Additionally, the adopted evaluation indicator system was applied to a practical community in China as a case study by questionnaire surveys and the method of analytic hierarchy process.
Results and discussion
Case study results show that the residents prefer to pay more for a better living environment, and the real estate developers are willing to increase the investment moderately on the projects. Meanwhile, the local government likes to support the development of green residential districts, as well.
Analysis results are in line with the social demand for high-quality living environment of Chinese residents and the public concern about buildings’ comprehensive benefits.
KeywordsCase study China Green residential districts Social and humanity demand Social life cycle assessment
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of 12th Five-Year National Science and Technology Support Programs of China (grant no. 2012BAJ12B03-02).
- Ali HH, AL Nsairat SF (2009) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countrieS: case of Jordan. Build Environ 44(5):1053–1064Google Scholar
- Benoît C, Parent J, Kuenzi I, Revéret J-P (2007) Presentation: developing a methodology for social life cycle assessment: the North American tomato’s CSR case, 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, August 27–29, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA . Int J LCA 16(7):682–690Google Scholar
- Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess biofuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC code of practice for social-economical LCA. Luleå University of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- Casado Cañeque F (2002) Evaluación de la situación laboral de empresas: El análisis del ciclo de vida como herramienta para el desarrollo sostenible. Universitat de Barcelona, Divisió de Ciències Juridíques, Economiques i Socials, Barcelona, Spain (in Spanish)Google Scholar
- Catherine BN, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6(10):6973–6984Google Scholar
- Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17(3):579–596Google Scholar
- Daozhai Z (2014) Study on evaluation of building energy efficiency policies, master thesis. Department of Economics and Mangement, Jiaotong University, Beijing (In Chinese)Google Scholar
- Dreyer L (2009) Inclusion of social aspects in life cycle assessment of products. Technical University of Denmark, DanemarkGoogle Scholar
- Fava J, Consoli F, Denson R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B (1993) A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Workshop Report, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC. Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
- Gabriella A, Maria CL, Roberto M (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5(8):3275–3287Google Scholar
- Hu FF (2010) The comparison of green (sustainable) building evaluation standard in China, Britain and United State. Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Li DH, Yang L, Lam JC (2013) Zero energy buildings and sustainable development implications—a review. Energy 554:1–10Google Scholar
- Li JN (2009) Analysis on the standard of American LEED. Constr Conserv Energ 37(1):60–64 in ChineseGoogle Scholar
- Lucon OD et al (2014) Buildings. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Norris G (2003) Life cycle approach to sustainable consumption: conceptual design of a methodological framework. Final report. The Society of Non-Traditional Technology (AIST), TokyoGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Program, ParisGoogle Scholar
- UNEP/SETAC (2010) Methodological sheets for 31 sub-Categories of impact for a social LCA of products. www.estis.net/sites/lcinit/. Accessed October 2014
- Weidema Bp(2006) Social impact categories, indicators, characterization and damage modeling. Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion ForumGoogle Scholar
- Yahong D (2014) Life cycle sustainability assessment modeling of building construction. The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
- Yao H (2009) A dynamic approach for evaluating the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
- Yip S, Hongjun L, Ling S (2013) Study on the economics of greening buildings in China. China Architecture & Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar