| 摘要: |
| 基于“健康中国”战略和提升建筑
健康性能的需求，本文以健康建筑及其评价
标准为研究对象，回顾了健康建筑内涵认知
的改变，以及国内外健康建筑评价的研究进
展，在此基础上提出了健康建筑评价的认知
框架，将健康建筑评价要素分为“健康建筑
环境品质要素”“引导健康行为的建筑空间
与设施要素”“健康建筑设计要素”和“健康
建筑运营服务要素”四大类。其次，梳理了国
内外建立健康建筑评价标准的探索，选择美
国WELL建筑标准、新加坡Green Mark健康
工作场所认证和我国《健康建筑评价标准》，
从与绿色建筑评价体系关系、评价对象和阶
段、评价内容、评价方法等四方面进行比较
分析，归纳总结出这三个评价标准的特征与
问题。最后，结合我国的国情，从评价理念转
变、评价认证推广、评价对象分类指导、评价
指标动态调整、评价方法优化等五个角度，对
我国健康建筑评价标准的进一步完善提出了
建议，为推动健康建筑的建设提供参考。 |
| 关键词: 健康建筑 评价标准 评价指标体系 WELL建筑标准 新加坡Green Mark |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20200605 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:浙江大学国家制度研究院“后疫情时代”前瞻预判研
究课题（YQZD2004） |
|
| Comparative Analysis and the Cognitive Framework of Healthy Building Assessment Standards |
|
WANG Zhuoyao,QIAN Zhenlan,WANG Zhu,WANG Ke
|
| Abstract: |
| The built environment has considerable impact on human’s health and the issue
of healthy building has received increasing attention in recent years. Healthy building
is considered as the further development and deeper demand of green building. The
development of healthy building is an important link to realize the strategy of “Healthy
China”. Healthy building assessment system plays a critical role in the promotion of
healthy building. A reasonable and clear healthy building assessment system does not only
help to define the connotation and characteristics of healthy building, but also provides
effective guidance for the design, construction and operation of healthy building. At
present, the healthy building assessment standard in China is at its starting point. Therefore,
it’s necessary to learn and draw lessons from other countries’ advanced experiences in
developing healthy building assessment standard.
First, this paper tries to clarify the concept of healthy building by sorting out its
connotation changes. With the development of society and constantly deepened researches,
the concept of healthy building has been expanded continuously. The concept of healthy
building goes far beyond the built environment that is beneficial for physical health, and
includes the pursuit of psychological and mental health, as well as new demands, such as the
adaptation of climate change and social diversity, etc. This paper also reviews the literature
on healthy building assessment system and figures out that the researches on healthy
building assessment system are at the initial stage and there are no unifying understandings
in academic circles. On the basis of the above reviews, this paper puts forward the cognitive
framework of healthy building assessment system and classifies the healthy building
assessment elements into the following four categories: the environment quality of healthy
building, architectural space and facilities to lead healthy behaviors, healthy building design
and technical measures, the operation and service for healthy building.
Further, this paper sorts out the explorations of healthy building assessment standards
and design guidelines in various countries. The WELL Building Standard (WELL for short)
in the United State, Green Mark for healthier workplace (GM-HW for short) in Singapore
and Assessment Standard for Healthy Building (ASHB for short) in China are selected for
further analysis for their comprehensiveness and relatively wide influence. A comparative
analysis among these three healthy building assessment standards is conducted from the
following aspects: the relationship with the green building rating system, assessment object
and stage, evaluation framework and indicates, scoring method. In summary, WELL and GM-HW are closely related to the green building rating systems compared to ASHB in China. WELL and GM-HW have more evaluation
stages than ASHB, which guarantees the implementation of healthy buildings. In terms of assessment content, ASHB places more emphasis
on healthy building hardware facilities while WELL and GM-HW focus more on soft environment supports. These three assessment standards
all adopt scoring method based on point value, but differ in details, such as the grade division and score requirement of each category. Then
the strengths and weakness of these three healthy assessment standards are summarized so as to learn the advantages of WELL and GM-HW.
Finally, combining with our national conditions, this paper puts forward five recommendations for the further development of healthy
building assessment standards in China as follows: 1) The aim of healthy building assessment should transform from result evaluation to
process guidance and control; 2) The connection with green building rating system needs to be strengthened to promote the development of
healthy building; 3) Refined evaluation and classified guidance are needed depending on the characteristics of different assessment objects;
4) The healthy building assessment indicators should be enriched and adjusted according to the feedback from the practice, and therefore
a dynamic indicators adjustment mechanism is required to be developed; 5) The scoring method of healthy building assessment should be
optimized to be more operational and reasonable. |
| Key words: Healthy Building Assessment Standard Assessment Indicators System WELL Building Standard Singapore’s Green Mark |
