A Framework for Comparing Assessment Criteria of Environmental and Sustainability Rating Systems

Subject Areas : environmental management

Seyed Majid Mofidi Shemirani ¹ , Mansoureh Tahbaz ² , AYDA MEHRABAN ³

1 - Associate Professor of Department of Architecture, School of Architecture & Urban Studies, University of Science & Technology, Tehran.
2 - Associate Professor of Department of Architecture, School of Architecture & Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
3 - Ph.D, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Department of Art and Architecture, Tehran. * (Corresponding Author)

Received: 2016-07-26 Accepted : 2016-11-16 Published : 2019-04-21

Keywords: Sustainability Rating Systems, Assessment criteria, Weighting coefficients, Relatice importance of criteri, Comparative framework,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: Nowadays, enviromental impact of buildings is assessed by several sustainability rating systems. Analyzing relative importance and prioritizing of assessment criteria, as the principal measures for rating systems, indicate the general trend of those systems in accordance with three pillars of sustainability, i.e. environment, economics and society. Method: Having gathered data in the form of library-based study, this paper proposes a framework to compare and analyze the criteria of widely-used assessment systems, including BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, DGNB and HQE. By chossing an analytical-comparative method, assessment criteria for 5 rating systems are explored and classified. In order to acquire the relative importance of each criterion, weigthing coefficients are adopted and the weighted percentages are calculated. Findings: The comparative framework organized by three principles of sustainability, mainly covers 11 categories including Energy, Water, Site, Environmental Loads, Material, Waste, Indoor Environmental Quality, Socio-cultural issues, Economics, Technical and Functional Quality and Sustainable Management. Sub-criteria of each category provide the possibility for evaluating rating systems sufficiency at the micro level. Discussion and Conclusion: Rating systems concepts and trends have a major role in organizing criteria structure. For example, DGNB, which has an assessment structure in compliance with the three principles of sustainable architecture, much of criteria are assigned to economic and social issues, while BREEAM, LEED and HQE, considered as first generation of rating systems, mostly deal with environmental issues. In the holistic systems such as DGNB and CASBE issues such as performance, technical capabilities and building service are generally highlighted, whereas atomistic systems such as BREEAM, LEED and HQE give importance to preservation of resources including energy, water, land, etc. However, in both systems, energy and indoor environment quality are significantly considered.

References:

1. Lee WL, 2013. A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental assessment schemes. Energy and Buildings,Vol. 62, pp. 403-413.


2. Ali H, Al Nsairat F, 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries – Case of Jordan. (44), pp. 1053-1064.


3. Alyami H, Rezgui , 2012. Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustainable Cities and Society(5), pp. 52-62.


4. Nguyen BK, Altan , 2011. Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems. Procedia Engineering(21), pp. 376-386.


5. Kajikawa , Inoue T, Goh , 2011 Jul. Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators. Sustainability Science,Vol. 6(2), pp. 233-246.


6. Suzer O, 2015. A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs other major certification systems. (154), pp. 266-283.


7. Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, Bianchi F, Sambuco S, 2015. A comparison between environmental sustainability rating systems LEED and ITACA for residential buildings. (86), pp. 98-108.


8. Chandratilake SR, Dias WPS, 2013. Sustainability rating systems for buildings: Comparisons and correlations. (59), pp. 22-28.


9. Gou , Lau SY, 2014. Contextualizing green building rating systems: Case study of Hong Kong. , pp. 282-289.


10. Wallhagen , Glaumann , Eriksson , Westerberg , 2013. Framework for Detailed Comparison of Building Environmental Assessment Tools. buildings,Vol. 3, pp. 39-60.


11. Alyami H, Rezgui , Kwan , 2013. Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach. (27), pp. 43-54.


12. Ng , Chen , Wong J, 2013. Variability of building environmental assessment tools on evaluating carbon emissions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review(38), pp. 131-141.


13. Lee WL, 2012. Benchmarking energy use of building environmental assessment schemes. (45), pp. 326-334.


14. Roderick Y, McEwan , Wheatley , Alonso. COMPARISON OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT BETWEEN LEED,BREEAM AND GREEN STAR. In Eleventh International IBPSA Conference; 2009; Glasgow, Scotland.


15. Wu , Shen L, Yu TW, Zhang , 2015. A Comparative Analysis of Waste Management Requirements between Five Green Building Rating Systems for New Residential Buildings..


16. Schwartz Y, Raslan R, 2013. Variations in results of building energy simulation tools, and their impact on BREEAM and LEED ratings: A case study. ,Vol. 62, pp. 350-359.


17. Wei , Ramalho , Mandin , 2015. Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. (92), pp. 10-19.


18. Reed , Krajinovic-Bilos. An Examination of International Sustainability Rating Tools: an Update. In 19th PRRES Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference; 2013.


19. BRE BREEAM. , 2016 Jan 22. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.breeam.com/"http://www.breeam.com/ .


20. USGBC LEED. , 2015 Sep 14. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.usgbc.org/leed"  http://www.usgbc.org/leed .


21. JSBC CASBEE. , 2016 Feb 1. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english"http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english .


22. DGNB DGNB System. , 2016 Feb 20. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.dgnb-system.de/en/" http://www.dgnb-system.de/en/ .


23. HQE Association HQE. , 2016 Mar 15. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.behqe.com/"http://www.behqe.com/ .


24. BRE , 2014. BREEAM UK New Construction(Non-domestic Buildings-Technical Manual) [BREEAM UK New Construction/ Non-domestic Buildings/ Technical Manual]. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.breeam.com/"http://www.breeam.com/ .


25. USGBC , 2014. LEED v4 for BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION [LEED v4 for BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.]., 2014 25 Dec. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.usgbc.org/leed"http://www.usgbc.org/leed .


26. JSBC , 2014. CASBEE for building (New Construction), Technical Manual [CASBEE for building (New Construction), Technical Manual].: IBEC, 2015 Jul 25. see information in:   HYPERLINK"http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/"http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/ .


27. DGNB , 2015. Kriterienübersicht für Neubau Büro- und Verwaltungsgebäude [ Kriterienübersicht für Neubau Büro- und Verwaltungsgebäude]., 2015 Oct 25. see information in:   HYPERLINK "http://www.dgnb-system.de/de/system/Systemversion2015.php"  http://www.dgnb-system.de/de/system/Systemversion2015.php .


28. CertiveA , 2012. Assessment Scheme For The Environental Performance Of Buildings, Non-residential Buildings [Assessment Scheme For The Environental Performance Of Buildings, Non-residential Buildings]., 2015 Nov 9.


29. Chandratilake , Dias , 2015. Ratio based indicators and continuous score functions for better assessment of building sustainability. Energy,Vol. 83, pp. 137-143.