気候リスク管理の文脈におけるEUとトルコの建築エネルギー性能政策の比較
Comparison of Building Energy Performance Policies in the European Union and Türkiye in the Context of Climate Risk Management (原題)
Ayşe Başgöze, Nihan Engin
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文はEUのEPBD（nZEBからZEBへ）とトルコのBEPY（nSEB、BEP-TR、EKB）を気候リスク管理の観点から比較する。両者はエネルギー需要削減・効率・再エネ利用で共通目標を持つが、EUは改修・LCA・データ基盤・品質保証を統合し、トルコは計算・分類・認証に重点を置く。政策は気候ハザードを排除しないが、外皮性能やパッシブ設計、性能監視を通じ脆弱性低減と適応能力向上に寄与しうる。使用段階データや過熱、快適性、性能検証の統合を推奨する。
English
This study compares EU and Turkish building energy performance policies through a climate risk management lens, examining the EPBD's shift from nZEB to ZEB and Türkiye's BEPY with nSEB, BEP-TR, and EKB. Both share goals of cutting energy demand and boosting efficiency and renewables, but the EU integrates renovation, life-cycle assessment, data infrastructure, and quality assurance, while Türkiye emphasizes calculation, classification, and certification. Policies can reduce vulnerability and improve adaptive capacity via envelope performance, passive design, and monitoring, though they do not eliminate climate hazards. The authors recommend integrating use-phase data, overheating, comfort, and performance verification.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の建築物省エネ法・ZEH/ZEB政策やSSBJのScope3・不動産開示を考える上で、EUのLCA・データ基盤統合とトルコの認証中心アプローチの対比は、日本が性能検証と使用段階データをどう制度設計に組み込むかの示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
For global disclosure scholarship, this paper links building energy performance policy to climate risk management, offering a comparative view of how the EU's EPBD (with LCA and data infrastructure) and Türkiye's certification-centric BEPY address adaptation—relevant to TCFD/ISSB physical risk and real-estate transition planning.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:建築政策と気候リスク管理の接点を比較制度分析で捉える枠組みを提供する。
🏢実務担当者:不動産・建設企業がEU・トルコの規制動向を踏まえ、改修・性能検証・データ管理の優先順位を検討する材料になる。
🏛政策担当者:建築エネルギー性能制度に使用段階データや過熱・快適性・性能検証を統合する際の国際比較の参考になる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Due to its significant contribution to global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, the building sector plays an important role in reducing carbon footprints, supporting climate adaptation, and strengthening risk management. This study compares building energy performance policies in the European Union (EU) and Türkiye from the perspective of climate risk management. The analysis focuses on the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which has developed from the nearly zero-energy building (nZEB) approach toward the zero-emission building (ZEB) target, and on Türkiye’s Regulation on Energy Performance in Buildings (BEPY), including the nearly zero-energy building (nSEB) approach, the BEP-TR calculation system, and the Energy Identity Certificate (EKB). In the document analysis, five EU documents and four Turkish documents from the 2010–2024 period were evaluated in terms of design, implementation, and management/supervision dimensions. The findings show that the two approaches share common goals in reducing energy demand, increasing energy efficiency, and supporting the use of renewable energy. While policy tools do not eliminate climate hazards, they can contribute to reducing vulnerability and improving adaptation capacity through building envelope performance, passive design, and performance monitoring. While the EU approach integrates building renovation, life-cycle assessment, data infrastructure, and quality assurance into its objectives, in Türkiye, calculation, classification, and certification processes take center stage. The findings demonstrate the potential of policies to support climate risk management, rather than a measured reduction in risk. Consequently, it is recommended that use-phase data, overheating, user comfort, and performance verification processes be integrated with energy performance systems.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/6004001first seen 2026-10-14 05:54:02
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。