A Comparison Study on the Green Building Performance Assessment Tools for Promoting Sustainable Construction

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

Assessment tools for evaluating green buildings performance have been developed mainly from the perspective of their environmental impacts and sustainable performance since 1990s. These assessment tools have been developed under different aspects for evaluation. The increasing number of application practices of assessment tools presents the growing public interest on this kind of voluntary scheme to promote sustainable construction. This paper presents a comparison study between six different assessment tools for green building performance. These assessment tools are selected with considering their importance, application and influence in the practice. Comprehensive comparisons are analyzed based on the development and application of these assessment tools in promoting sustainable construction practice. The criterions for the comparative analysis include stakeholder, application scope, assessment aspects, performance measurement, assessment process, assessment result, and maturity. Discussion are conducted with regards to identifying potential areas for improvement for the assessment tools.

Keywords

Sustainable construction Green building performance Assessment tool Environmental assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by the Key Project of the National Natural Science Fund of China (Project No: 15AZD025).

References

  1. 1.
    BCA (2007) BCA green mark. Homepage of Building & Construction Authority. Available: http://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/green_mark_buildings.html (Dec 2007)
  2. 2.
    Bemelmans-Videc ML, Rist RC, Vedung EO (eds) (2011) Carrots, sticks, and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation (vol 1). Transaction Publishers, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BRE (2007) BREEAM: building and research establishment environmental assessment method. New Offices 2006. Homepage of Building Research Establishment Limited. Available: http://www.breeam.org/ (Nov 2007)
  4. 4.
    Chau CK et al (2002) Estimating the total exposure to air pollutants for different population age groups in Hong Kong. Environ Int 27(8):617–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CIB (1999) CIB Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries. The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole RJ (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Build Res Inf 33(5):455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cole RJ (2006) Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Build Res Inf 34(4):357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies H (2001) Environmental benchmarking of Hong Kong buildings. Struct Surv 19(1):38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dickie I, Howard N (2000) Assessing environmental impacts of construction—industry consensus. BREEAM and UK Ecopoints, BRE, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsberg A, Von Malmborg F (2004) Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build Environ 39(2):223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedrich E, Trois C (2011) Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from waste management processes for municipalities–a comparative review focusing on Africa. Waste Manag 31(7):1585–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geng Y, Dong H, Xue B, Fu J (2012) An overview of Chinese green building standards. Sustain Dev 20(3):211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldemberg J, Johansson TB (1995) Energy as an instrument for socio-economic development.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(7):469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    HK-Beam Society (2004) HK-BEAM 4/04 ‘new buildings’. Homepage of HK-BEAM society. Available: http://www.hk-beam.org.hk/general/home.php (Nov 2007)
  16. 16.
    Howard N (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: in practice. In: Proceedings 2005 world sustainable building conference, Tokyo, pp 27–29Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hui SC (2003) Energy efficiency and environmental assessment for buildings in Hong Kong. In: MECM LEO seminar–advances on energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings, palace of the Golden Horses, Kuala Lumpur, pp 21–22Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IISBE (2007) GBTool (SBT07). Homepage of international initiative for a sustainable built environment. Available: http://www.iisbe.org (Nov 2007)
  19. 19.
    ISO (2007) ISO/TC 59/SC 17 N 236. Sustainability in building construction—sustainability indicators. Draft edn. ISOGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    JSBC (2004) CASBEE for new construction tool 1, 2004 ed. V. 1.02. Homepage of Japan sustainable building consortium. Available: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/ (Nov 2007)
  21. 21.
    Lee WL, Burnett J (2008) Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED. Build Environ 43(11):1882–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohammad F, Amato A (2006) Public housing and social sustainability indicators: HK-BEAM as a case study. In: Proceedings of the annual research conference of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riley D, Pexton K, Drilling J (2003) Procurement of sustainable construction services in the United States: the contractor’s role in green buildings. Ind Environ 26(2):66–69Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seo S, Tucker S, Ambrose M, Mitchell P, Wang CH (2006) Technical evaluation of environmental assessment rating tools. Research and Development Corporation, Project No. PN05, 1019Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seo S (2002) International review of environmental assessment tools and databases. 2001-006-B-02Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shen LY, Lu WS, Yao H, Wu DH (2005) A computer-based scoring method for measuring the environmental performance of construction activities. Autom Constr 14(3):297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen L, Wu Y, Zhang X (2010) Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of infrastructure projects. J Constr Eng M 137(6):441–451Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shen LY, Ochoa JJ, Shah MN, Zhang X (2011) The application of urban sustainability indicators–a comparison between various practices. Habitat Int 35(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sjöström C, Holmgren J (2005) From sustainable construction requirements to codes and standards. In: 6th international congress on global construction: ultimate concrete opportunities, Dundee, Scotland pp 455–464, 5–7 July 2005Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Syal M (2007) Impact of LEED-NC projects on constructors. Michigan State University, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    UNPF (2007) State of world population. United Nations Population Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    US Green Building Council (2005) LEED-NC for new construction: reference guide, version 2.2. US Green Building CouncilGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Warnock AC (2007) An overview of integrating instruments to achieve sustainable construction and buildings. Manag Environ Qual Int J 18(4):427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wong M (2007) Singapore wins international award for water management. Channel NewsAsia, Singapore NewsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Worldwatch Institute (2007) Vision of sustainable world. Homepage of World Watch Institute. Available: http://www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/53 (Dec 2007)
  36. 36.
    Zimmerman A, Kibert CJ (2007) Informing LEED’s next generation with the natural step. Buil Res Inf 35(6):681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Construction Management and Real Estate, International Research Centre for Sustainable Built EnvironmentChongqing UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.School of Construction Management and Real EstateChongqing UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations