Sustainability Science

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 167–178

The development of sustainable assessment method for Saudi Arabia built environment: weighting system

Case Report

Abstract

Our built environment is responsible for some of the most serious global and local environmental change. The construction industry, therefore, faces pressure to increase the sustainability of its practices reflected in the development of stringent regulations and environmental assessment methods, designed to mitigate such negative impacts. However, these well-known methods (e.g., BREEAM, LEED, SBTool, and CASBEE) have not originally been designed to suit developing countries (including Saudi Arabia). This paper proposes to customize an adapted weighting system that prioritizes Saudi environmental assessment method (SEAM) categories. The research methodology involves the use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Expert choice software was the main tool to analyze the input data. This research instrument involves the participation of a number of leading, global experts in the field of environmental and sustainable development, as well as professionals and highly informed local experts from government, academia, and industry. The results reveal that well-known environmental assessment methods are not fully applicable to the Saudi Arabia built environment, as reflected in the resulting categories, criteria and weighting system of SEAM.

Keywords

Sustainable development Environmental assessment method SEAM 

References

  1. Al Saud M (2010) Assessment of flood hazard of Jeddah area 2009, Saudi Arabia. J Water Resour Prot 2(9):839–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Harbi KM (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Project Manag 19(1):19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali HH, Al Nsairat SF (2009) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries—case of Jordan. Build Environ 44(5):1053–1064. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali H, Alfalah G (2010) Sustainable architectural applications in the Gulf States-post occupancy evaluation case study of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 17th symposium for improving building systems in hot and humid climates, Austin Texas August 24–25Google Scholar
  5. Al-Sanea SA, Zedan MF, Al-Hussain SN (2012) Effect of thermal mass on performance of insulated building walls and the concept of energy savings potential. Appl Energy 89(1):430–442. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.08.009
  6. Alyami SH, Rezgui Y (2012) Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustain Cities Soc 5:52–62. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alyami SH, Rezgui Y, Kwan A (2013) Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Badri MA, Abdulla MH (2004) Awards of excellence in institutions of higher education: an AHP approach. Int J Educ Manag 18(4):224–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bahammam A (1998) Factors which influence the size of the contemporary dwelling: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int 22(4):557–570. doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(98)00018-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BRE (2008) Multi-residential, BREEAM Scheme Document., vol SD 5064 issue: 2.0. BRE Global LtdGoogle Scholar
  11. BRE (2013) BRE home page. http://www.bre.co.uk/index.jsp. Accessed 1 June 2013
  12. Burdová EK, Vilčeková S (2012) Energy performance indicators developing. Energy Procedia 14:1175–1180. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CASBEE (2011) CASBEE homepage. http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/. Accessed Aug 2011
  14. Chandratilake SR, Dias WPS (2013) Sustainability rating systems for buildings: comparisons and correlations. Energy 59:22–28. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang K-F, Chiang C-M, Chou P-C (2007) Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005—searching for suitability in Taiwan. Build Environ 42(1):310–316. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chew MYL, Das S (2008) Building grading systems: a review of the state-of-the-art. Archit Sci Rev 51(1):3–13. doi:10.3763/asre.2008.5102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chowdhury S, Sumita U, Islam A, Bedja I (2014) Importance of policy for energy system transformation: diffusion of PV technology in Japan and Germany. Energy Policy 68:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole RJ (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 26(1):3–16. doi:10.1080/096132198370065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cole RJ (2000) Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices. Constr Manag Econ 18(8):949–957. doi:10.1080/014461900446902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cole RJ (2001) Lessons learned, future directions and issues for GBC. Build Res Inf 29(5):355–373. doi:10.1080/09613210110064286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cole R (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467. doi:10.1080/09613210500219063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cole R (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 34(4):357–371. doi:10.1080/09613210600724624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. El-Ghonemy AMK (2012) Future sustainable water desalination technologies for the Saudi Arabia: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(9):6566–6597. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grace KCD (2008) Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J Environ Manag 86(3):451–464. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green M (2004) Recent developments in photovoltaics. Sol Energy 76(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(7):469–482. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hajjar NTaB (2014) Energy and environment in Saudi Arabia: concerns and opportunities. Economic policy, Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02982-5
  28. Hamakawa Y (1997) An accelerated promotion of the New Sunshine Project and recent advances of PV Technologies in Japan. Proc of ISES’97Google Scholar
  29. Hepbasli A, Alsuhaibani Z (2011) A key review on present status and future directions of solar energy studies and applications in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(9):5021–5050. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horvat M, Fazio P (2005) Comparative review of existing certification programs and performance assessment tools for residential buildings. Archit Sci Rev 48(1):69–80. doi:10.3763/asre.2005.4810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IES (2013) IES-VE home page. http://www.iesve.com/software/ve-pro/analysis-tools/ve-navigators. Accessed 15th June 2013
  32. KACST (2002) Strategic priorities for building and construction technology. KACST. http://www.kacst.edu.sa/en/research/Documents/BuildingAndConstruction.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2012
  33. Kajenthira A, Siddiqi A, Anadon LD (2012) A new case for promoting wastewater reuse in Saudi Arabia: bringing energy into the water equation. J Environ Manag 102:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kajikawa Y, Inoue T, Goh TN (2011) Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators. Sustain Sci 6(2):233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanagaraj G, Mahalingam A (2011) Designing energy efficient commercial buildings—a systems framework. Energy Build 43(9):2329–2343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kawazu Y SN, Yokoo N, Oka T. Comparison of the assessment results of BREEAM, LEED, GBTool and CASBEE. In: In proceedings of the 2005 sustainable building conference (SB05), Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim J-H, Augenbroe G, Suh H-S Comparative study of the leed and ISO-CEN building energy performance rating methods. In: 13th conference of international building performance association, France, 2013Google Scholar
  38. Lee WL, Burnett J (2006) Customization of GBTool in Hong Kong. Build Environ 41(12):1831–1846. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee WL, Chau CK, Yik FWH, Burnett J, Tse MS (2002) On the study of the credit-weighting scale in a building environmental assessment scheme. Build Environ 37(12):1385–1396. doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00006-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL (2008) The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 189(1):194–207. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mahdi IM, Alreshaid K (2005) Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Project Manag 23(7):564–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mao X, Lu H, Li Q (2009) A comparison study of mainstream sustainable/green building rating tools in the world. In, 2009Google Scholar
  43. Masdarcity (2013) Masdar city offical website. http://www.masdarcity.ae/en/. Accessed 7th July 2013
  44. Meesapawong P, Rezgui Y, Li H (2013) Planning innovation orientation in public research and development organizations: using a combined Delphi and analytic hierarchy process approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change (0). doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.023
  45. Obaid RR (2008) Present state, challenges, and future of power generation in Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the IEEE Energy2030, Atlanta, GA USA, 17–18 November, 2008Google Scholar
  46. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ouda OK (2013) Towards assessment of Saudi Arabia public awareness of water shortage problem. Resour Environ 3(1):10–13Google Scholar
  48. Pohekar S, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raslanas S, Stasiukynas A, Jurgelaitytė E (2013) Sustainability assessment studies of recreational buildings. Procedia Eng 57(0):929–937. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.118
  50. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6):19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sam K (2010) Chapter 2—basic LEED™ concepts. In: LEED practices, certification, and accreditation handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp 19–48. doi:10.1016/b978-1-85617-691-0.00002-3
  53. SENS (2013) Home page of Saudi Environmental Society. http://www.sens.org.sa/index.php. Accessed 7th October 2013
  54. Sev A (2011) A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations. Civil Eng Environ Syst 28(3):231–245. doi:10.1080/10286608.2011.588327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. SGBC (2013) Home page of Saudi Green Building Council. http://www.saudigbc.com/. Accessed 7th October 2013
  56. Taleb HM, Sharples S (2011) Developing sustainable residential buildings in Saudi Arabia: a case study. Appl Energy 88(1):383–391. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. To K, Fernández JE (2012) Alternative urban technology demonstration projects for innovative Cities. Paper presented at the third international engineering systems symposium, CESUN, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  58. Todd JA, Geissler S (1999) Regional and cultural issues in environmental performance assessment for buildings. Build Res Inf 27(4–5):247–256. doi:10.1080/096132199369363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. USGBC (2013) USGBC home page. https://new.usgbc.org/. Accessed 1 June 2013
  60. Wong JK, Li H (2008) Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Build Environ 43(1):108–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wong J, Li H, Lai J (2008) Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building systems: part 2: construction and validation of analytical models. Automation Construct 17(3):303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ying X, Zeng G-M, Chen G-Q, Tang L, Wang K-L, Huang D-Y (2007) Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality—a case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecol Model 209(2):97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zayed T, Amer M, Pan J (2008) Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. Int J Project Manag 26(4):408–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zetland D, Gasson C (2013) A global survey of urban water tariffs: are they sustainable, efficient and fair? Int J Water Resour Dev 29(3):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zheng G, Jing Y, Huang H, Zhang X, Gao Y (2009) Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) and extenics theory for building energy conservation assessment. Energy 34(11):1870–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.BRE Institute in Sustainable Engineering, School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  3. 3.Architectural, Civil and Environment Discipline, School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations