Defining Sustainability in Afghanistan’s Built Environment: A Case Study of World Bank Building in Kabul and Comparative Analysis of Prominent Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The built environment is one of the critical areas of intervention for sustainable development. This study aims to investigate the sustainable and appropriate ways of designing Afghanistan’s built environment. To put forward a reliable mechanism of research, the study develops and uses three approaches. The first is to review the sustainable strategies applied in the design of the country’s first LEED-certified building, the World Bank Building in Kabul (WBBK). Secondly to understand the main concepts involved in the practice of designing for sustainability by analyzing five of the most influential books in the realm of design and sustainability. Finally, the findings from the review of the five books are reinforced with more literature associated with design and sustainability to analyze and evaluate the sustainable strategies of the WBBK. The study posits that although the building can promote the idea of a sustainable built environment in the country but there are several issues. Among the issues are, (1) Its high dependence on eco-technologies to reduce environmental impact rather than designing in relation to social and ecological systems, (2) Its insufficiency in providing a resilient design that is self-sufficient, flexible, and adaptive, and (3) Its lack of creating aesthetic experiences and cultural meaning for its occupants which are required for future designs and development. Furthermore, based on the findings and upon inquiring into the sustainable design of WBBK, the paper concluded with a set of recommendations to contribute towards the design of a sustainable built environment in Afghanistan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".