Advertisement

Building Sustainability: Credit Rating Criteria

  • Pranab Kumar Nag
Chapter
Part of the Design Science and Innovation book series (DSI)

Abstract

Nearly 600 tools and dimensions are available in evaluating building sustainability and lifecycle phases of buildings. A global set of benchmark parameters would be unanimously agreed upon in establishing a unified building rating, with due account of national and regional characteristics, climatic and environmental conditions, sociocultural structure, and building stocks in the region. This chapter peeps through the building environmental assessment tools, structural content, and parameters for different building typologies, approaches in the evaluation and accreditation, and summarization indicators of assessment. Most rating schemes seem to adopt a similar approach and categories of assessment. However, they differ regarding the framework, weights, scoring methods (e.g., point-based or weighted approach) and procedure of performance evaluations. Different scores of the categories yield the total final score, and accordingly, buildings can be certified (four levels in LEED certification, i.e., certified, silver, gold, and platinum; six levels in BREEAM certification, i.e., unclassified, pass, good, very good, excellent, and outstanding). Many popular systems, such as BREEAM, HQE, DGNB, TQB, conform to guidelines of the CEN/TC 350 that included quantifiable environmental and social indicators of sustainability assessment. Keeping in mind that the professionals would require orientation on components of the assessment scheme, quantitative valuation of a building project using BREEAM and LEED is extensively discussed herewith for easy understanding and implementation.

References

  1. Berardi, U. (2012). Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems and rated buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BRE (2004). Assessment of sustainability tools. BRE, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  3. BRE (2008). A discussion document comparing international environmental assessment methods for buildings. BRE, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  4. BREEAM (2014, 2016). Building research establishment environmental assessment method, developed by BRE (UK). http://www.breeam.org.
  5. CASBEE (2014, 2016). Comprehensive assessment system for building environmental efficiency. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/.
  6. CASBEE for New Construction Technical Manual, March 2004 Edition and Software CD 2004, 2006. http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/.
  7. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) technical committee, CEN/TC 350, Sustainability of construction works.Google Scholar
  8. Dermisi, S. (2009). Effect of LEED ratings and levels on office property assessed and market values. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 23–47.Google Scholar
  9. DGNB (2009). German sustainable building certificate: Structure—application—criteria. Stuttgart, 2nd English Edition, http://www.dgnb.de/.
  10. Dixon, T., Colantonio, A., Shiers, D., Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., & Gallimore, P. (2008). A green profession? A global survey of RICS members and their engagement with the sustainability agenda. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 26(6), 460–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodoa, Y. A., Nafida, R., Zakarib, A., Elnafatya, A. S., Nyakumac, B. B., & Bashira, F. M. (2015). Attaining points for certification of green building through choice of paint. Chemical Engineering, 45, 1879–1884.Google Scholar
  12. EN 15643-1 (2010). Sustainability of construction works—Sustainability assessment of buildings—Part 1: General framework. European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  13. EN 15643-2 (2011). Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of buildings—Part 2: Framework for the assessment of environmental performance. European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  14. EN 15643-3 (2012). Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of buildings—Part 3: Framework for the assessment of social performance. European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  15. EN 15643-4 (2012). Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of buildings—Part 4: Framework for the assessment of economic performance. European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  16. EN 15978 (2011). Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of environmental performance of buildings—calculation Method. European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  17. EN 16309 + A1 (2014). Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of social performance of buildings—Calculation methodology. European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  18. EU Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the European Union; 18 June 2010.Google Scholar
  19. EU, EPBD (2002). Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings.Google Scholar
  20. Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2011). Eco-labeling in commercial office markets: Do LEED and Energy Star offices obtain multiple premiums? Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1220–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giama, E., & Papadopoulos, A. M. (2016). Construction materials and green buildings’ certification. Key Engineering Materials, 666, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Happio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. HQE (Haute Qualité Environnementale)—France, http://assohqe.org/hqe/ 2005, by CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment).
  25. IEA Annex (2001). 31, Directory of Tools: A Survey of LCA Tools, Assessment Frameworks, Rating Systems, Technical Guidelines, Catalogues, Checklists and Certificates. Energy-Related Environ. Impact Build. http://annex31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de/pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20%20Annex%2031%20Directory%20of%20Tools%20by%20Country%20and%20.pdf.
  26. ISO 15392:2008. Sustainability in building construction—General principles. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  27. ISO 16745-1:2017. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Carbon metric of an existing building during use stage—Part 1: Calculation, reporting and communication. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  28. ISO 21929-1:2011. Sustainability in building construction—Sustainability indicators—Part 1: Framework for the development of indicators and a core set of indicators for buildings. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  29. ISO 21930:2017. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  30. ISO 21931-1:2010. Sustainability in building construction—Framework for methods of assessment of the environmental performance of construction works—Part 1: Buildings. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  31. ISO/DIS 21931-2. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Framework for methods of assessment of the sustainability performance of construction works—Part 2: Civil engineering works. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  32. ISO/TC 59/SC 17. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  33. ISO/TS 12720:2014. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Guidelines on the application of the general principles in ISO 15392. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  34. ISO/TS 21929-2:2015. Sustainability in building construction—Sustainability indicators—Part 2: Framework for the development of indicators for civil engineering works. International Standards Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  35. Johansson, O. (2012). The spatial diffusion of green building technologies: the case of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 10(3), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kok, N., Miller, N., & Morris, P. (2012). The economics of green retrofits. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 4(1), 4–22.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, Y. S. (2010). Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings. Building and Environment, 45(7), 1594–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, Y. S., & Guerin, D. A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 18(4), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, Y. S., & Kim, S. K. (2008). Indoor environmental quality in LEED-certified buildings in the US. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 7(2), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED Version 4 (updated 2016). http://www.usgbc.org/leed.
  41. Nguyen, B. K., & Altan, H. (2011). Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems. Procedia Engineering, 21, 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Preston, D. K. (2008). New report shows economic value of green building certification. http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/06/new-report-show.html.
  43. Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. J., & Schulte, K. W. (2009). An International Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools (No. eres2009_331). European Real Estate Society (ERES).Google Scholar
  44. Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A., & Schulte, K. W. (2011). A comparison of international sustainable building tools–an update. In The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Gold Coast (pp. 16–19).Google Scholar
  45. Sato, M., Arai, Y., Ikaga, T., Chikada, T., Mamiya, T., Kato, M. (2005). Study of resource sustainability assessment for building—part 1. In Outline of LCA system with LCR and LCW assessment. In Proceedings of the. (2005). Sustainable Building Conference (SB05). Japan: Tokyo.Google Scholar
  46. Sato, M., Ikaga, T., & Chikada, T. (2006). Outline of Resource Sustainability Assessment Function of LCA tool developed by Architectural Institute of Japan.Google Scholar
  47. Srebric, J., & Heidarinejad, M. (2015). Sustainability in the built environment. In Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing Workshop Volume I. Position Papers and Findings (p. 212).Google Scholar
  48. Sustainable Building Alliance (http://www.sballiance.org).
  49. TQB (Total Quality Building), Austria, 2002/2010; http://www.oegnb.net;
  50. U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2006. http://www.usgbc.org/
  51. Wei, W., Ramalho, O., & Mandin, C. (2015). Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Building and Environment, 92, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu, Z., Shen, L., Yu, A. T. W., & Zhang, X. (2016). A comparative analysis of waste management requirements between five green building rating systems for new residential buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 895–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pranab Kumar Nag
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environment and Disaster ManagementRamakrishna Mission Vivekananda UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations