No abstract

HIGHLIGHTS ABSTRACT A significant share of the technology that has emerged over the past several decades produces electromagnetic field (EMFR) radiation. Communications devices, household appliances, industrial equipment, and medical equipment and devices all produce EMFR with a variety of frequencies, strengths, and ranges. Some EMFR, such as Extremely Low Frequency (ELF), Radio Frequency (RF), and Ionizing Range (IR) radiation have been shown to have harmful effects on human health. Depending on the frequency and strength of the radiation, EMFR can have health effects at the cellular level as well as at brain, nervous, and cardiovascular levels. Health authorities have enacted regulations locally and globally to set critical values to limit the adverse effects of EMFR. By introducing a more comprehensive field of EMFR study and practice, architects and designers can design for a safer electromagnetic (EM) indoor environment, and, as building and construction specialists, will be able to monitor and reduce EM radiation. This paper identifies the nature of EMFR in the built environment, the various EMFR sources, and its human health effects. It addresses European and US regulations for EMFR in buildings and provides a preliminary action plan. The challenges of developing measurement protocols for the various EMFR frequency ranges and determining the effects of EMFR on building occupants are discussed. This paper argues that a mature method for measuring EMFR in building environments and linking these measurements to human health impacts will foster occupant health and lead to the adequate development of safeguards for occupants of buildings in future research.

Sustainable development has been a popular concept since 1987 and the issuance of the Brundtland report. A diverse number of sustainability assessment frameworks are available to examine the environmental performance of buildings and communities. With the current pace of climate change and the increasing threat of stronger, more frequent natural hazards, however, there are doubts that sustainability alone is an effective response. Sustainability assessment frameworks in recent years have been criticized for not incorporating hazard resilience. To better understand the current level of emphasis put on resilience to natural hazards in green building rating systems, this study aims to assess the level of resilience integration in existing sustainability assessment frameworks. The results demonstrate an overall lack of resilience coverage in the frameworks with only four frameworks, CASBEE, LEED, Green Globes, and DGNB having resilience coverage of 27.5%, 15%, 2.6%, and 1.1% respectively. This confirms a need for more systematic integration of resilience indicators into sustainability rating systems to create combined frameworks for sustainability and resilience.

No abstract

No abstract