Green Building and Assessment Systems

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


Globally, the buildings stock contribute to climate change impacts by consuming nearly 40, 25, and 40% of the energy, water, and resources, respectively, and are responsible for 1/3rd of the total greenhouse gas emissions. This chapter elaborates green building initiatives for sustainable development in construction, with apparent health, environmental, social, and economic benefits. The green building practices recognize the measures and approaches for (a) site and structure design efficiency, (b) efficient use of energy, water, and material resources, (c) reduction of environmental degradation, (d) enhanced IAQ, ventilation, thermal comfort, daylighting, and acoustical environment, and (e) optimization of operation and maintenance. The strategies and technologies that may be deployed in a green building project are structured explicitly in the chapter, covering specific application for sustainable site design, energy and environment, water quality and conservation, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. A variety of building assessment tools (e.g., BREEAM, LEED, HQE, DGNB, CASBEE, Green Star, Green Globes, SBTool, BOMA BESt, and other national schemes) are available today, which are collated herewith. The maturity of the assessment schemes manifests as acceptance and certification of building typologies; some of the green building rating schemes have a relatively more significant presence in building accreditation across the countries. The World GBC is an initiative to creating a single common assessment method for sustainability in construction, strengthening strategies for promoting green building in the local building policies and encouraging collaboration in the building sector.


  1. Abidin, N. Z., & Powmya, A. (2014). Drivers for green construction in Oman and its future prospects. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(6), 929–935.Google Scholar
  2. Aliagha, G. U., Hashim, M., Sanni, A. O., & Ali, K. N. (2013). Review of green building demand factors for Malaysia. Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy, 3(11), 471–478.Google Scholar
  3. Baldo, G. L., Cesarei, G., Minestrini, S., & Sordi, L. (2014). The EU Ecolabel scheme and its application to construction and building materials. In Eco-efficient construction and building materials (pp. 98–124).Google Scholar
  4. BCA Green Mark (Singapore Building and Construction Authority, 2005).
  5. BEAT—Danish Building Research Institute (Aalborg University).Google Scholar
  6. Beyeler, F., Beglinger, N., & Roder, U. (2009). Minergie: The Swiss sustainable building standard. Innovations, 4(4), 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birgisdóttir, H., Hansen, K., Haugbølle, K., Hesdorf, P., Olsen, I. S., & Mortensen, S. (2010). Bæredygtigt byggeri: Afprøvning af certificeringsordninger til måling af bæredygtighed i byggeri. Byggeriets Evaluerings Center.Google Scholar
  8. BOMA BESt (Canada), Building Owners and Managers Association, Building Energy Standard.
  9. Bond, S. (2010). Lessons from the leaders of green designed commercial buildings in Australia. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 16(3), 314–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boué, G. (2013). Linking Green Buildings, Productivity and the Bottom Line.
  11. BREEAM. (2014, 2016), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, developed by BRE (UK).
  12. CASBEE. (2014, 2016). Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium.
  13. CASBEE for New Construction Technical Manual, March 2004 Edition and Software CD 2004 (2006).
  14. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) technical committee, CEN/TC 350, Sustainability of Construction Works.Google Scholar
  15. CEPAS—Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme, the Building Department of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2006).Google Scholar
  16. Choi, C. (2009). Removing market barriers to green development: Principles and action projects to promote widespread adoption of green development practices. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 107–138.Google Scholar
  17. Cole, R. J. (2012). Rating systems for sustainability. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, 8702–8715.Google Scholar
  18. Crawley, D., & Aho, I. (1999). Building environmental assessment methods: Applications and development trends. Building Research & Information, 27(4–5), 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darcy, S., & Harris, R. (2003). Inclusive and accessible special event planning: An Australian perspective. Event Management, 8(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DGNB. (2009). German sustainable building certificate: Structure—application—criteria. stuttgart (2nd English ed.).
  21. DK-GBC. (2014). DGNB system Denmark manual for Kontorbygninger, 1.1.Google Scholar
  22. ECBC (2007), The Energy Conservation Building Code, Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), India.Google Scholar
  23. EcoEffect (1999), developed by Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden.
  24. EcoProfile (1999). Norway’s EcoProfile system for commercial buildings.Google Scholar
  25. EEWH—Ecology, Energy Saving, Waste Reduction and Health, Taiwan.
  26. Energy Star—US EPA.
  27. Energy Star. (2008). Energy Star Compact fluorescent light bulb qualification form. 2 p.Google Scholar
  28. Envest 2. BRE Group. Watford, UK. (web-based software tool to simplify the process of designing buildings with low environmental impact and whole life costs).Google Scholar
  29. ESCALE, developed by CTSB and the University of Savoie, France.
  30. Estidama Pearl Rating System. (2011). Abu Dhabi, UAE Urban Planning Council.Google Scholar
  31. Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R., Christiansen, K., & Klüppel, H. J. (2006). The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. GB standard (China). (2006). National Project Construction Standardization Information Network.Google Scholar
  33. Gou, Z., Lau, S. S. Y., & Prasad, D. (2013). Market readiness and policy implications for green buildings: Case study from Hong Kong. Journal of Green Building, 8(2), 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Green Building Council (Korea).
  35. Green Building Index, GBI (Malaysia).
  36. Green Globes. (2010). ANSI/GBI 01–2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings. Green Building Initiative, Jessup, MD, USA.
  37. Green Public Procurement (GPP). (2016). Training Toolkit Module 3: Purchasing Recommendations. Construction—Background Product Report. Toolkit developed for the European Commission by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, 2008/2016.Google Scholar
  38. GREEN STAR (Australia), Developed by Green Building Council Australia (GBCA).
  39. GREENSHIP, Indonesia Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI).
  40. GRIHA, India (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment) (2005). The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Govt of India.Google Scholar
  41. Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. HK-BEAM Society. (2003). HK-BEAM: The Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method.
  43. HQE (Haute Qualité Environnementale)—France. (2005). By CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment).
  44. IBO ÖKOPASS (2001), Austria, (Austrian Institute for Healthy and Ecological Buildings).
  45. 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.
  46. Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2001). Review Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments. Access by Design, 24.Google Scholar
  47. ISO 14040. (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  48. Israel Standard SI—5281:2005. Buildings with reduced environment impact.Google Scholar
  49. Kashkooli, A. M. S., & Altan, H. (2010). Critical Building Life-cycle Assessment Methodology: Developing a simple tool.
  50. Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery. Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. klima:aktiv house (
  52. Larsson, N. (2016). Overview of the SBTool assessment framework, iiSBE. ( Scholar
  53. Larsson, N. (2017). Executive Director, iiSBE, Personal communication.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED Version 4 (updated 2016).
  56. LEGEP (2006). Tool for integrated lifecycle performance of buildings.
  57. LEnSE (Label for Environmental, Social and Economic Buildings). (2006/2007). The Belgian Building Research Institute. (
  58. Lider A (Portugal) (2008) Sistema de Avaliacao da Sustentabilidade (Certification System of Environmentally Sustainable Construction).Google Scholar
  59. Love, P. E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P. A., & Edwards, D. J. (2011). Achieving the green building council of Australia’s world leadership rating in an office building in Perth. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), 652–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McGraw-Hill Construction (2012). The business value of BIM in North America: Multi-year trend analysis and user ratings (2007–2012). Smart Market Report.Google Scholar
  61. Minergie, Swiss. (
  62. Minestrini, S. & L. Cutaia. (2010). EU ECO-LABEL, Award Scheme for Buildings: Supporting document to Third draft criteria. (Eds. ISPRA). Scholar
  63. Mitchell, L. M. (2010). Green Star and NABERS: learning from the Australian experience with green building rating tools. Energy Efficient, 93.Google Scholar
  64. Mötzl, H., & Fellner, M. (2011). Environmental and health related criteria for buildings. Forschungsbericht des IBO Österreichisches Institut für Baubiologie und–Ökologie GmbH im Auftrag von ANEC-Raising standards for consumers, Wien.Google Scholar
  65. Myers, G., Reed, R., & Robinson, J. (2008). Sustainable property–The future of the New Zealand Market. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 14(3), 298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. NABERS—Australia National Australian Building Environmental Rating Scheme (2000).
  67. Nibel, S., Chatagnon, N., & Archard, G. (2000). ESCALE, assessment method of buildings environmental performance, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 22–25 October. The Netherlands: Maastricht.Google Scholar
  68. Olubunmi, O. A., Xia, P. B., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Green building incentives: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, 1611–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. PAPOOSE (Programmation et Analyse de Projets d’Ouvrages et d’Opérations Soucieux de l’Environnement).Google Scholar
  70. Perfil de Calidad—Quality Profile (PdC), (Spain); Instituto Valenciano de la Edificación (IVE).Google Scholar
  71. Pettersen, T. D. (2000). EcoProfile, Norway’s EcoProfile system for commercial buildings.Google Scholar
  72. PromisE—Finnish Environmental Association and Classification system for building, Operated by VTT Technical Research Station.Google Scholar
  73. Pryshlakivsky, J., & Searcy, C. (2013). Fifteen years of ISO 14040: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Putnam, M., Geenen, S., Powers, L., & Saxton, M. (2003). Health and wellness: People with disabilities discuss barriers and facilitators to wellbeing. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69(1), 37.Google Scholar
  75. QSAS (Qatar Sustainability Assessment System), developed by BARWA and Qatari Diar Research Institute (BQDRI), jointly with T.C. Chan Center for Building.Google Scholar
  76. Queena, K., & Edwin, H. W. (2008). Incentive instruments for government and private sector partnership to promote Building Energy Efficiency (BEE): a comparative study between Mainland China and some developed countries. Building Resilience, 1384.Google Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Reeder, L. (2010). Guide to green building rating systems: Understanding LEED, Green Globes, Energy Star, the National Green Building Standard, and more (Vol. 12). Wiley.Google Scholar
  79. Samari, M., Ghodrati, N., Esmaeilifar, R., Olfat, P., & Shafiei, M. W. M. (2013). The investigation of the barriers in developing green building in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science, 7(2), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. SBTOOL. (2016). Green Building Challenge (GBC) (
  81. Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. TGBRS. (2003). Teri Green Building Rating System, India.Google Scholar
  83. TQB (Total Quality Building), (Austria, 2002/2010).
  84. Trusty, W. B. (2000). Introducing an assessment tool classification system. Advanced Building Newsletter25(7). ATHENA CLASSIFICATION, Athena Institute (Canada).Google Scholar
  85. U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). (2006).
  86. UNDP. (2011). Energy Efficiency Improvements in Commercial Buildings. United Nations Development Programme India: Global Environment Facility Project Document.
  87. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. Why buildings. (2015).
  88. US Department of Energy. (2012). 2011 Buildings energy data book. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  89. US Standard 189 (2007). (US Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings).Google Scholar
  90. Van der Heijden, J. (2013). Voluntary environmental governance arrangements in the Australian building sector. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. WBDG Sustainable Committee. (2009). Sustainable.
  92. World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
  93. Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z. Y. (2014). Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271–281.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