hig.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 22 of 22
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Andersen, Niklas
    et al.
    Energi Funktion Komfort Skandinavien AB, Nacka, Sweden.
    Eriksson, Ola
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Hillman, Karl
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Wind turbines’ end-of-life: Quantification and characterisation of future waste materials on a national level2016In: Energies, ISSN 1996-1073, E-ISSN 1996-1073, Vol. 9, no 12, article id 999Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Globally, wind power is growing fast and in Sweden alone more than 3000 turbines have been installed since the mid-1990s. Although the number of decommissioned turbines so far is few, the high installation rate suggests that a similarly high decommissioning rate can be expected at some point in the future. If the waste material from these turbines is not handled sustainably the whole concept of wind power as a clean energy alternative is challenged. This study presents a generally applicable method and quantification based on statistics of the waste amounts from wind turbines in Sweden. The expected annual mean growth is 12% until 2026, followed by a mean increase of 41% until 2034. By then, annual waste amounts are estimated to 240,000 tonnes steel and iron (16% of currently recycled materials), 2300 tonnes aluminium (4%), 3300 tonnes copper (5%), 340 tonnes electronics (<1%) and 28,000 tonnes blade materials (barely recycled today). Three studied scenarios suggest that a well-functioning market for re-use may postpone the effects of these waste amounts until improved recycling systems are in place.

  • 2.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Malmqvist, Tove
    KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built Environment,, Division of Environmental Strategies Research, Department of Urban Studies, Environmental Strategies Research - fms.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Selecting environmental assessment tool for buildings2011In: Proceedings of 6th World Sustainable Building Conference, SB11 Helsinki, October 18-22, 2011, Helsinki, 2011, Vol. 1, p. Abstract 162-163Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 3.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Study of international policies, Sweden: National initiatives for reducing the environmental impact of the building sector2006Report (Other academic)
  • 4.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Survey of sustainable approaches in Sweden2008In: Sustainability of Constructions: Integrated Approch to Life-time Structural Egineering / [ed] Braganca L et al, Possendorf: Addprint AG , 2008, p. 2:78-2:95Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Magnusson, Peter
    et al.
    Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden; Cardiology Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Kihlström, Gabriella
    Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Rambaree, Komalsingh
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Criminology, Social Work.
    Life‐threatening peripartum cardiomyopathy — not expected when expecting2019In: Clinical Case Reports, E-ISSN 2050-0904, Vol. 7, no 6, p. 1127-1132Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging to diagnose as it mimics symptoms present in normal pregnancy. The clinical course and prognosis are various. In selected cases, a cardioverter implantable defibrillator with/without cardiac resynchronization therapy, mechanical ventricular assist device treatment, and transplantation is indicated.

  • 6.
    Magnusson, Peter
    et al.
    Cardiology Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle,.
    Olszowka, Maciej
    3Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala Clinical Research Centre, Uppsala University.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. Division of Environmental Strategies Research, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
    Koyi, Hirsh
    Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle and Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
    Outcome of implantable loop recorder evaluation2018In: Cardiology Journal, ISSN 1897-5593, Vol. 25, no 3, p. 363-370Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in an unselected cohort in order to determine diagnostic yield, time to pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, predictors thereof, safety issues, and syncope management including usage of preceding diagnostic tools.

    Methods: Patients who underwent ILR evaluation in any of three centers in Region Gävleborg, Sweden, between April 2007 and April 2013 were included and their medical records retrieved. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of pacemaker/ICD outcome expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates for time-dependent analysis.

    Results: A total of 173 patients (52.6% females) with a mean age of 56.2 years received an ILR during a mean follow-up of 605 days. In the 146 patients evaluated for syncope/presyncope, 28.1% received a pacemaker (n = 39) or ICD (n = 2). The cumulative incidence at 6, 12, and 18 months were 8.8%, 21.3%, and 26.7%, respectively. Age > 75 years was the only significant predictor for outcome (p = 0.010) and the following variables showed a tendency toward significance: abnormal elevation of the biomarker brain natriuretic peptide (OR 2.05, p = 0.100), a history of trauma (OR 1.71, p = 0.179), and pathologic ECG (OR 1.68, p = 0.231). A computerized tomography of the skull was performed in 52.1% of the syncope cases.

    Conclusions: In syncope evaluation in an unselected cohort, 28.1% were diagnosed with an arrhythmia necessitating a pacemaker/ICD. The only significant predictor was advanced age. Time to diagnosis is unpredictable and prolonged ILR monitoring is warranted in addition to optimal use of other diagnostic tools.

  • 7.
    Mazzucchelli, Enrico
    et al.
    Politecnico di Milano.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. KTH, Avdelningen Miljöstrategisk analys - fms.
    Nearly Zero Energy Building: Design Strategies and BEATs Influence on Architectural Design2013In: 39th IAHS (The International Association for Housing Science), Milan Italy 2013: Changing Needs, Adaptive Buildings, Smart Cities (Volume 1) / [ed] Oktay Ural, Emilio Pizzi, Sergio Croce, Milan: PoliScript , 2013, p. 155-162Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Petrovic, Bojana
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science. Department of Energy and Construction Technology, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden.
    Myhren, Jonn Are
    Department of Energy and Construction Technology, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden.
    Zhang, Xingxing
    Department of Energy and Construction Technology, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Eriksson, Ola
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Life cycle assessment of a wooden single-family house in Sweden2019In: Applied Energy, ISSN 0306-2619, E-ISSN 1872-9118, Vol. 251, article id 113253Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    To understand the reasons behind the large environmental impact from buildings the whole life cycle needs to be considered. Therefore, this study evaluates the carbon dioxide emissions in all stages of a single-family house in Sweden from the production of building materials, followed by construction and user stages until the end-of-life of the building in a life cycle assessment (LCA). The methodology applied is attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) based on ‘One Click LCA’ tool and a calculated life span of 100 years. Global warming potential (GWP) and primary energy (PE) are calculated by using specific data from the case study, furthermore the data regarding building materials are based on Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). The results show that the selection of wood-based materials has a significantly lower impact on the carbon dioxide emissions in comparison with non-wood based materials. The total emissions for this single-family house in Sweden are 6 kg CO 2 e/m 2 /year. The production stage of building materials, including building systems and installations represent 30% of the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, while the maintenance and replacement part represents 37%. However, energy use during the in-use stage of the house recorded lower environmental impact (21%) due to the Swedish electricity mix that is mostly based on energy sources with low carbon dioxide emissions. The water consumption, construction and the end-of-life stages have shown minor contribution to the buildings total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (12%). The primary energy indicator shows the largest share in the operational phase of the house. © 2019

  • 9.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Building materials are important for sustainable development2017In: A good life for all: Essays on sustainability celebrating 60 years of making life better / [ed] Fagerström, Arne and Cunnigham, Gary M., Mjölby: Atremi AB , 2017, 1, p. 95-101Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In the current material world human beings consume more natural resources and use more energy than ever before. The consumption of goods connected to planning, design and management of the built environment is seldom highlighted, even though the building and property sector is highly responsible for the use of large amounts of natural resources, production of waste and carbon dioxide emissions. This chapter describes important research that acknowledges environmental impacts of building materials.

  • 10.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Environmental Assessment of Buildings and the influence on architectural design2010Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This licentiate thesis examines environmental assessment tools for buildings. This is done by investigating, analysing, comparing and testing how different environmental assessment tools measure the environmental performance of buildings and examining the consequences this may have on architectural design.

    The study begins by analysing three environmental assessment tools: LEED, CSH and EcoEffect. These tools are then tested on a case study building (an eight-storey residential building) to analyse differences regarding assessment results, improvement proposals and potential impacts on architectural design.

    One of the environmental impacts assessed in the three tools, namely Climate Change caused by gases having Global Warming Potential (GWP), is then analysed in greater detail from a life cycle perspective by measuring CO2-equivalents (CO2-eq). A basic calculation tool (referred to as the ENSLIC tool), based on life cycle assessment methodology, is used to assess a case study building (a four-storey office building in Gävle). The impact of the building on CO2-eq emissions is calculated and the impact of a number of suggested building improvements and changes of energy sources is analysed. 

    The studies show the complexity of assessment tools and different ways to make comparisons. Both similarities and differences between the tools are apparent, regarding hierarchical structure and also on each hierarchical level, from categories to issues and parameters. It is also shown that the choice of environmental assessment tool may have an influence on the architectural design of buildings.

    The difficulty with assessing complex buildings is apparent even when only one environmental issue is assessed with the LCA-based ENSLIC tool. Many aspects influence the assessment result. These include energy use, choice of materials and choice of energy sources.

    The complexity and difficulty in linking buildings to environmental impact create a need for interactive tools measuring environmental performance, which can be useful as decision support in the early design phase.

  • 11.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. KTH, Miljöstrategisk analys (fms).
    Environmental Assessment Tools for Neighbourhoods and Buildings in relation to Environment, Architecture, and Architects2016Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This thesis explores Neighbourhood and Building Environmental Assessment Tools’ (NBEATs’) function as assessment tools and decision support, and their relation to environment, architecture and architects. This is done by analysing, testing, and discussing a number of NBEATs (LEED-NC, Code for Sustainable Homes, EcoEffect, LEED-ND, BREEAM-C, and ENSLIC-tool), their manuals and use. Moreover, professionals’ (architects’) self-rated opinions regarding use and knowledge of NBEATs and environmental aspects are surveyed.

    Similarities and differences in NBEATs are found regarding: content, structure, weighting and indicators used. Indicators distinguished as procedure, performance and feature are used to varying extents to assess social, environmental and technical aspects. NBEATs relation to environmental sustainability has limitations due to: non-transparency, tradable indicators, relative measures, low criteria levels, limited life cycle perspective, and exclusion of relevant environmental aspects, such as embedded toxic substances, nutrient cycles, land use change, and ecosystem services. Ratings and architecture are influenced by NBEATs in varying ways. Higher criteria levels would probably increase their impact on architecture. Thus more research regarding NBEATs and links to architectural design, theory and practice is welcomed.

    There is limited use of NBEATs as decision support in early design phases such as in architectural competitions. Architects rate the importance of environmental aspects high, but few rate their skill in handling environmental aspects high. This calls for increasing knowledge and know-how of environmental strategies and solutions among architects and adaptation of NBEATs to early design processes. The values NBEATs reflect and the values we want them to create is also important. To support ‘environmental’ architecture, an increased socio-eco-technological system perspective is put forward, and other measures besides NBEATs are needed.

  • 12.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Eriksson, Ola
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Sörqvist, Patrik
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental psychology.
    Gender Differences in Environmental Perspectives among Urban Design Professionals2018In: Buildings, ISSN 2075-5309, E-ISSN 2075-5309, Vol. 8, no 4, article id 59Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Urban design professionals are key actors in early design phases and have the possibility to influence urban development and direct it in a more sustainable direction. Therefore, gender differences in environmental perspectives among urban design professionals may have a marked effect on urban development and the environment. This study identified gender differences in environment-related attitudes among urban design professionals involved in the international architectural competition 'A New City Centre for Kiruna' in northern Sweden. Participants' self-rated possibility to influence environmental aspects was higher for males than for females. Conversely, the importance placed on environmental aspects had higher ratings among females, although the differences regarding the rating of personal responsibilitywere small. The gap between the participants' self-rated belief in their ability to influence and rated importance of environmental aspects was larger among female participants. Females placed great importance on environmental aspects even though they felt that their possibility to influence these was rather low. Conversely, male participants felt that they had the greatest possibility to influence, although some males rated the importance of environmental aspects thelowest. The gender differences identified are important froman equality and environmental perspective as they may influence pro-environmental behavior among urban design professionals and ultimately influence the environmental performance of the built environment.

  • 13.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Design consequences of differences in building assessment tools: a case study2011In: Building Research & Information, ISSN 0961-3218, E-ISSN 1466-4321, Vol. 39, no 1, p. 16-33Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Environmental assessment tools for buildings are emerging rapidly in many countries. Do different assessment tools influence the design process and also guide ‘green’ building projects in different directions? Three assessment tools, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED-NC), Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) and EcoEffect, were tested in a case study project in Sweden: a new multi-storey residential building called Grönskär. The content and results of the three assessment tools were compared in general, while issues in the three core common categories of Energy, Indoor Environment and Materials & Waste were compared in more detail. The assessment results for the case study building varied with the three tools, and the design strategies and tactics to improve the overall rating of the building project differed for each tool. This confirms that the tools can influence sustainable building in different directions and illustrates insufficient consensus between assessment tools in terms of issues, criteria and weighting. The divergent results highlight the need for an appropriate structure of assessment tools that are both environmentally relevant and practically useful.

  • 14.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. KTH, MIljöstrategisk Analys - fms.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built Environment,, Division of Environmental Strategies Research, Department of Urban Studies, Environmental Strategies Research - fms.
    Eriksson, Ola
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Westerberg, Ulla
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Building engineering.
    Framework for Detailed Comparison of Building Environmental Assessment Tools2013In: Buildings, ISSN 2075-5309, E-ISSN 2075-5309, Vol. 3, no 1, p. 39-60Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Understanding how Building Environmental Assessments Tools (BEATs) measure and define “environmental” building is of great interest to many stakeholders, but it is difficult to understand how BEATs relate to each other, as well as to make detailed and systematic tool comparisons. A framework for comparing BEATs is presented in the following which facilitates an understanding and comparison of similarities and differences in terms of structure, content, aggregation, and scope. The framework was tested by comparing three distinctly different assessment tools; LEED-NC v3, Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), and EcoEffect. Illustrations of the hierarchical structure of the tools gave a clear overview of their structural differences. When using the framework, the analysis showed that all three tools treat issues related to the main assessment categories: Energy and Pollution, Indoor Environment, and Materials and Waste. However, the environmental issues addressed, and the parameters defining the object of study, differ and, subsequently, so do rating, results, categories, issues, input data, aggregation methodology, and weighting. This means that BEATs measure “environmental” building differently and push “environmental” design in different directions. Therefore, tool comparisons are important, and the framework can be used to make these comparisons in a more detailed and systematic way.

  • 15.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Malmqvist, Tove
    Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Environmental Strategies Research, Department of Urban Studies, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Stockholm.
    Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change: Case study on an office building in Sweden  2011In: Building and Environment, ISSN 0360-1323, E-ISSN 1873-684X, Vol. 46, no 10, p. 1863-1871Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study examined whether simplified life cycle-based calculations of climate change contributions can provide better decision support for building design. Contributions to climate change from a newly built office building in Gävle, Sweden, were studied from a life cycle perspective as a basis for improvements. A basic climate and energy calculation tool for buildings developed in the European project ENSLIC was used. The study also examined the relative impacts from building material production and building operation, as well as the relative importance of the impact contributions from these two life cycle stages at various conditions.

    The ENSLIC tool calculates operational energy use and contributions to climate change of a number of optional improvement measures. Twelve relevant improvement measures were tested. The most important measures proved to be changing to CO2 free electricity, changing construction slabs from concrete to wood, using windows with better U-values, insulating the building better and installing low-energy lighting and white goods. Introduction of these measures was estimated to reduce the total contribution to climate change by nearly 50% compared with the original building and the operational energy use by nearly 20% (from 100 to 81 kWh/m2 yr). Almost every building is unique and situated in a specific context. Making simple analyses of different construction options showed to be useful and gave some unexpected results which were difficult to foresee from a general design experience. This process acts as an introduction to life cycle thinking and highlights the consequence of different material choices.

  • 16.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Westerberg, Ulla
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Les outils de mesure de la durabilité des bâtiments: comparaison transnationale2008In: Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, ISSN 0180-930X, no 105, p. 94-103Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [fr]

    Les outils d'évaluation environnementale des bâtiments se développent rapidement dans de nombreux pays. Tous prétendent mesurer la qualité environnementale ou la durabilité des bâtiments, et donnent un maximum de points à ce qui est durable d'une manière ou d'une autre. Mais pour l'instant il n'y a pas de consensus sur le sens des mots « vert » ou « durables » en termes de critères et d'indicateurs. Que cherchent à mesurer les indicateurs existant? Trois outils d'évaluation ont été retenus, l'américain LEED-NC, le britannique Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) et le suédois EcoEffect. Ils ont trois champs d'évaluation principale en commun : l'énergie, l'environnement intérieur, les matériaux et les déchets. En revanche les contenus sont différents. Ces outils ont été comparés quant à leur but, leur contenu, et leur manière d'agréger les items. Ils ont été testés sur un immeuble neuf de plusieurs étages. Les résultats de leur application à cet immeuble divergent, ce qui pose la question de la définition d'outils d'évaluation réellement pertinents.

  • 17.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering.
    Westerberg, Ulla
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering.
    Understanding differences between the environmental assessment tools: LEED, Code for Sustainable homes and EcoEffectManuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
  • 18.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Glaumann, Mauritz
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    Westerberg, Ulla
    University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Ämnesavdelningen för byggnadskvalitet.
    What is a "green" building according to different assessment tools?2008In: Proceedings of the 2008 World Sustainable Building Conference. Vol. 2, 2008, p. 2618-2625Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Environmental assessment tools for buildings are rapidly developing in many countries. All of them claim that they measure “greenness” or “sustainability” of buildings, i.e. if maximum scores are awarded a building is sustainable in some respect. But so far there is no consensus on the interpretation of “green” or “sustainable” in terms of criteria and indicators.

    This article explores if different tools point in different directions regarding “green” building design. It also investigates characteristics of assessment tools and consequences of different approaches.

    Three distinctly different assessment tools, LEED-NC, Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) and EcoEffect have been selected. They have three core assessment areas in common, namely Energy, Indoor Environment and Materials & Waste. The content however is different.

    The tools have been compared with respect to aim, content and aggregation. They have been tested on a new multi storey residential building. Assessments within the core areas were compared. Measures to improve the overall judgement were explored. The diverging result raises the question how to design environmentally relevant and practically useful assessment tools for buildings.

  • 19.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Magnusson, Peter
    Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden; Cardiology Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Ecological worldview among urban design professionals2017In: Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, E-ISSN 2071-1050, Vol. 9, no 4, article id 498Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The built environment is responsible for a large proportion of the global use of energy, natural resources, and emissions. Architects and other urban design professionals are key actors in the building process whose behavior and decisions will influence these impacts. Because environmental attitudes are linked to pro-environmental behavior, this study aims to measure environmental worldview among urban design professionals involved in the architectural competition ‘A New City Center for Kiruna’. The mean score registered for the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale was 3.68 (standard deviation 0.51) and there were no significant differences with regard to age (mean 41.3 years) or gender (64.7% males). The ecological worldview of the participants was similar to most other samples from diverse countries, but a lower score was reported in comparison to environmentalists. The score ranged from 2.53 to 4.67 which shows heterogeneity at an individual level. Thus, future efforts to improve environmental attitudes among urban design professionals are needed.

  • 20.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. Division of Environmental Strategies Research, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
    Malmqvist, Tove
    Division of Environmental Strategies Research, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
    Eriksson, Ola
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering.
    Professionals' knowledge and use of environmental assessment in an architectural competition2017In: Building Research & Information, ISSN 0961-3218, E-ISSN 1466-4321, Vol. 45, no 4, p. 426-442Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In early design phases, architects, landscape architects and urban planners are key actors whose decisions determine the environmental impact of planning and building projects. Environmental and sustainability assessment tools for buildings and neighbourhoods have been developed to promote sustainable building, but their usage has not been thoroughly evaluated. This study investigated self-reported knowledge and usage of such tools among competitors and jury group from 10 European countries involved in the international architectural competition '€˜A New City Centre for Kiruna'€™ in Sweden. The questionnaire revealed that 13% used environmental assessment tools or management systems in the competition, although 47% had used them previously. Tool users reported greater knowledge of how to handle environmental impacts than non-users. However, the self-rated experience of handling various environmental impacts, in the competition and in general, was low for both groups. Nevertheless, the self-rated importance of environmental impacts was high among all participants. Based on this study, it is concluded that environmental assessment tools, issues and goals can be better integrated into the processes of early design in planning and building projects, and in architectural competitions. Furthermore, to limit environmental impacts in building and planning projects, professionals need to be educated about environmental strategies and solutions.

  • 21.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Sörqvist, Patrik
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Holmgren, Mattias
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Andersson, Hanna
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.
    Brister i vårt logiska tänkande ett hinder för klimatkloka beslut2019In: Husbyggaren, ISSN 0018-7968, no 1, p. 23-25Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 22.
    Wangel, Josefin
    et al.
    Division of Environmental Strategies Analysis (fms), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Wallhagen, Marita
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. Division of Environmental Strategies Analysis (fms), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Malmqvist, Tove
    Division of Environmental Strategies Analysis (fms), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Finnveden, Göran
    Division of Environmental Strategies Analysis (fms), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: what do they really certify?2016In: Environmental impact assessment review, ISSN 0195-9255, E-ISSN 1873-6432, Vol. 56, p. 200-213Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods started to emerge around a decade ago. This study analysed the content, structure, weighting and indicators of two established certification systems for sustainable urban development - BREEAM Communities and LEED for Neighborhood Development. Several limitations of these systems were identified: both have a bias for procedure and feature indicators over indicators that assess actual performance; performance demands are set according to a relative understanding of sustainable development; the focus is on internal sustainability, while upstream and downstream impacts of construction are disregarded; the number and distribution of mandatory issues do not cover essential sustainability aspects; and the disproportionately large number of non-mandatory issues makes benchmarking difficult and signals that sustainability aspects are exchangeable. Altogether, this means that an area can be certified without being sustainable. Moreover, the lack of continuous development of certification requirements in the systems means that they risk exerting a conservative effect on urban development, rather than pushing it forward.

1 - 22 of 22
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf