Comparative study of European and North American institutional frameworks concerning the fight against climate change and the biodiversity protection.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study is based on the analysis of the evolution of institutional and regulatory frameworks of four territorial jurisdictions concerning the fight against climate change and biodiversity protection in the real estate sector: European Union, United-Kingdom, United States, and Canada.When it comes to the fight against climate change, obligations for new construction and major renovations are growing. It is possible to observe the inclusion of an approach considering the life cycle of buildings, the monitoring of construction waste, or even the use of less polluting materials and energy consumptions limits with ultra-efficient buildings or even energy production. Existing buildings for their part are not left out, since they will still constitute a large majority of the real estate stock of the legal frameworks studied. Although the room for maneuver is less, the obligations mainly focus on the energy performance dimensions and requirements increasingly target owners by penalizing them in the event of non-compliance with the consumption thresholds per m2 or ft2 that have been imposed. These sanctions may result in the impossibility of renting non-compliant spaces. All these elements are accompanied by tax incentives or assistance to stimulate the achievement of these thresholds.The biodiversity protection is less established than the fight against climate change, because the government concerns about their ecosystemic impacts have emerged more recently. Nevertheless, considerable dynamism exists to frame this theme. In fact, certain frameworks are already requiring for new constructions such as the need to consider as a priority the realization of dense developments on brownfields sites in urban areas in order to limit sprawl, integrate natural elements within the building to ensure that real estate development does not result in a loss of biodiversity or the obligation to prioritize the in-depth renovation of a building before destroying it to build a new one and justifying why, if applicable. Existing buildings are not left out since obligations relating to greening rates are already effective in some jurisdictions and are on the shelf for others.Finally, in terms of data disclosure, most regulatory frameworks have obligations relating to organizations trading on public stock markets. However, some of them have obligations aiming at private organizations. For the moment the thresholds (of turnover, number of employees and number of assets under management) target large organizations, but these thresholds will fall year after year to include more companies. Jurisdictions which have not yet established obligations in this regard are working on similar requirements. These requirements or draft laws are based on benchmarks such as the TCFD, the ISSB or even EFRAG.All these elements in terms of existing or currently developing obligations complicate the development and ownership of real estate assets. It is a sector in which it becomes necessary to collaborate with partners of choice and to develop knowledge and know-how internally to manage existing stock in order to limit the holding of non-compliant properties (by transferring them or undertaking upgrading work). Monitoring and analyzing the regulatory framework is also essential to anticipate the obligations that could arise and ensure that the long-term value of the assets is preserved as well as the value creation model, because the maintenance or retrofit works on the assets as well as the collection of quality data that can be disclosed generates significant costs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».