Sustainability Assessment of Buildings Indicators

Sustainability Assessment of Buildings Indicators: Comparison

Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Dean Liu and Version 1 by João Delgado.

The building sector is responsible for a high environmental impact, namely during construction, maintenance, demolition, and lifetime. It is then urgent to develop tools for guiding all stockholders to make buildings more sustainable. In order to make the sustainability assessment of a building, it is necessary to make a survey of the most appropriate parameters for this analysis and organize them hierarchically.

green buildings
rating systems
sustainability assessment systems

1. Sustainability Certification Tools for Buildings

Parallel to academic research, government-owned/non-profit organizations onset the development of building certification tools. The first building certification tool was developed in the UK in 1990, and it was called BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) [46]^[1]. Some years later, France published a new tool, the HQE (High environmental quality), while in 1998, the USA launched the LEED tool (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). With the arrival of the new millennium, more certification systems were developed. In Portugal, the LiderA system was disclosed in 2000 and more recently, in 2017, the SBToolPT Urban, a branch of the SBTool, was reported by U. Minho [47,48]^[2][3].

The two best-known rating tools are BREEAM and LEED. BREEAM can be applied to several types of buildings, such as new constructions, infrastructures, in-use or refurbishment, while LEED has different guidelines for building design + construction, residential, operations + maintenance, among others. The present manuscript addresses the International New Construction Documentation by BREEAM and the Building Design and Construction guide by LEED [47,48]^[2][3]. BREEAM International New Construction 2016 has 10 different categories–9 environmental and 1 innovation category–and assessment issues, as shown in Table 21.

Table 21. BREEAM International New Construction 2016 categories and assessment issues (Adapted from [49]^[4]).

▪ The building must use reasonable LEED boundaries.
▪ The building must comply with project size requirements.

BREEAM Rating	% Score
Management	Health and Wellbeing
Project brief and design
* Minimum indoor air quality performance
Visual comfort
LEED for neighborhood development location	* Construction activity pollution prevention	Life cycle cost and service life planning	Indoor air quality

A minimum of 40 points are required to obtain a positive certification. The four levels of certifications are displayed in Table 5.

Table 54. LEED certification levels.

LEED Certification	Total Points

, 3 of them are composite indicators (Life cycle Global Warming Potential, Construction and demolition waste and materials and Indoor air quality), five of them are qualitative (Lighting and visual comfort, Acoustics and protection against noise, Increased risk of extreme weather events, Increased risk of flood events and Value creation and risk exposure) and one (Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans) is reported as information reporting.

Table 76. Level(s) macro-objectives and their corresponding indicators (Adapted from [51]).

Level(s) macro-objectives and their corresponding indicators (Adapted from ^[7]).

▪ Achieving a sustainable renovation;
▪ Sustainability has a positive influence on the market value of a property.

Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions along a building’s life cycle	Use stage energy performance
	Lifecycle Global Warming Potential
* Environmental tobacco smoke control	Sensitive land protection	* Environmental site assessment
Resource-efficient and circular material life cycles	Responsible construction practices	Safe containment in laboratories
	Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans	* Minimum acoustic performance	High-priority site and equitable development	Site assessment	Commissioning and handover	Thermal comfort
	Aftercare	Acoustic performance

Enhanced indoor air quality strategies	Surrounding density and diverse uses	Accessibility
Construction & demolition waste and materials		Hazards
Protect or restore habitat
Design for adaptability and renovation		Private space
Design for deconstruction, reuse and recycling
Water quality
Energy	Transport
Low-emitting materials	Access to quality transit	Open space
Construction indoor air quality management plan	Bicycle facilities	Rainwater management
Indoor air quality assessment	Reduced parking footprint	Great island reduction
Thermal comfort
Platinum	80+

Table 65. Level(s) macro-objectives and their definition (Adapted from [51]).

Level(s) macro-objectives and their definition (Adapted from ^[7]).

Level(s) Macro-Objectives	Definition
Efficient use of water resources
Use stage water consumption
Healthy and comfortable spaces

	Indoor air quality
	Electric vehicles	Light pollution reduction
Time outside of thermal comfort range
Lighting and visual comfort
Acoustics and protection against noise
Adaptation and resilience to climate change	Protection of occupier health and thermal comfort
	Increased risk of extreme weather events
	Increased risk of flood events

2. Compilation of Sustainability Indicators

After a thoroSugh literature review, sustainability indicators proposed by the present work were compiled into a single list. They were divided into five levels of weighting, where a higher weight was assigned to the indicators shared by an increased number of reviewed rating systems of sustainability. The indicators with higher weights are shown in Table 87, and the others with the lowest weights are shown in Table 98.

Table 87. Compiled sustainability indicators of the reviewed ratings systems. Higher weighting is related to a higher number of sustainability rating systems that use them.

Weight	Environment	Social	Economic
Environment	Social	Economic
Workers’ and personnel’s health and safety	Migration effects	Effects on national economy
Loss of habitats, agricultural farms and trees	Social responsibility	Use of national resources
Construction water quality impact	Social action funding/Concepts of social justice	Enhancement in the capacity of infrastructure
Considering the life cycle of products and services to reduce environmental impacts	Corporate sustainability and organizational culture	Effects on trade balance (national/regional)
Project biodiversity	Labor practices	Financing (loan interests)
Environmental impact assessment project report	Needs assessment of society/people	Opportunity-cost
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control	Human rights	Cost of equipment and their installation
Interior lighting
Carbon dioxide monitoring and control	Employee commitment/commitment in the workplace	Distributed income innovation and technological advance		Site master plan
Minimum IAQ performance	Project independence of political factors	Distributed income innovation and technological advance	Daylight
Optimized life cycle cost and value
Optimized life cycle cost and value
Envelope Insulation	Tenant design and construction guidelines	Social impact reports	Stakeholder involvement/participation	Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions
Quality views	Public transport accessibility
	Places of respite
Use of environmentally friendly refrigerants and cleaning materials, effective and low-carbon cleaning equipment and machinery	Transparent and competitive procurement processes	Target marketing and benefits	Energy monitoring	Proximity to amenities
Acoustic performance
Renewable raw materials	Direct exterior access	Absence of bureaucracy in the workplace	External lighting	Alternative modes of transport
Effective project control			Joint use of facilities
Hazardous degradable wastes	Contractor–supplier relationship	Low carbon design	Maximum car parking capacity
Water Efficiency	Energy and Atmosphere	Materials and Resources	Energy-efficient cold storage	Travel plan
Best practice strategy	* Outdoor water use reduction	* Fundamental commissioning and verification	* Storage and collection of recyclables construction and demolition	Environmental management systems/policy implications	Well-defined project scope and project limitations	Energy-efficient transport systems
* Indoor water use reduction
Life cycle costs
Hazardous non-degradable wastes	Commitment to the stakeholders’ needs	Customer-relationship management/Access to a range of customers	Value creation and risk exposure	* Minimum energy performance	* Waste management planning
Flood risk assessment strategy to prevent flooding	Holistic view of benefits		Scope control through managing changes	Energy-efficient laboratory systems
* Building-level water metering	* Building-level energy metering	* PBT source reduction-Mercury
Air Pollution	Product–service systems	Business ethics	Energy-efficient equipment
Outdoor water use reduction
Violation of animal’s territory	* Fundamental refrigerant management	Building lifecycle impact reduction	Drying space
Emphasis on high-quality workmanship	Indoor water use reduction	Enhanced commissioning	Building product disclosure and optimization-EDP	Water	Materials
Optimize process water use	Optimize energy performance	Building product disclosure and optimization-Sourcing of raw materials	Water consumption
Water metering	Life cycle impacts
Advanced energy metering	Building product disclosure and optimization-Material ingredients	Water monitoring	Hard landscaping and boundary protection
	Grid harmonization	PBT source reduction-Mercury	Water leak detection	Responsible sourcing of materials
Facility management Technologies/general improvements
Facility management Technologies/general improvements	Durable materials	Encourage competition
Non-renewable energy	Implementing a quality management system	Supply chain collaboration
Reuse of processed water	First mover advantage	Effective strategic planning
Non-hazardous recyclable wastes	Culture of accountability	Organizational culture		Renewable energy	PBT source reduction-Lead, cadmium, and copper
Non-hazardous non-recyclable wastes	Comprehensive contract documentation	Project outputs emphasis	Water efficient equipment	Insulation
	Enhanced refrigerant management	Furniture and medical furnishings		Designing for durability and resilience
Environmental management plan for impacts by the Project Management Team (PMT)	Diversification	Ability to pay and affordability			Design for flexibility		Material efficiency
Waste
Sustainable project delivery through project stakeholder management	Competitive tendering/comprehensive pre-tender investigation of the project	Environmental/economics accounting	Land use and ecology
Construction waste management	Site selection	Environmental/economics accounting
Recycled aggregates
		Construction and demolition waste managementEcological value of site and protection of ecological features
Integrative Process
Environmental education and training	Adaptability in project environment	Innovation	Regional Priority
Eco-efficiency	Intangible asset management	Developing an efficient risk management plan by the PMT	* Integrative project planning and design	Innovation	Regional priority	Operational waste	Minimizing impact on existing site ecology
		Developing an efficient risk management plan by the PMT
Consistent and predictable load	Multidisciplinary/competent Project Management Team (PMT)	Integrative Process	LEED accredited professional	Speculative floor and ceiling finishes	Enhancing site ecology
Adaptation to climate change	Long-term impact on biodiversity
Up-to-date environmental construction technologies and methods	The role of trust within the PMT	Functional adaptability
Implementing an effective change management strategy
Implementing an effective change management strategy	Environmental responsibility/justice	Following project management phases/processes
Identify and address choke points	Project manager’s leadership style	Efficient data processing for decision-making practices	Pollution	Innovation
		Efficient data processing for decision-making practices
Appropriate and flexible environmental design details and specifications	Employing operational decision-making techniques by the PMT	Impact of refrigerants	Innovation
NO_x emissions
Surface water run-off
Reduction of nighttime light pollution
Reduction of noise pollution

There are minimum BREEAM’s standards for key categories to ensure that the performance of all fundamental environmental is not overlooked; these key categories are namely Energy, Water, Waste, Management, Health, and Wellbeing. Depending on the type of building and location–according to Köppen-Geiger climate classification, different categories will receive different weightings.

Each category has several credits. During the building assessment, the total number of credits achieved is determined. For each category, the fraction of credits obtained (ratio between the number of credits obtained and the maximum number of credits for this category) is multiplied by the category weighting, giving out the category score (in %). Adding the 10 category scores, the final BREEM score is obtained. The final score is then categorized into one of the final six BREEAM ratings, as shown in Table 32.

Table 32. BREEAM rating benchmarks.

Outstanding	≥85
Excellent	≥70
Very Good	≥55
Good	≥45
Pass	≥30
Unclassified	<30

In order to achieve a given BREEAM rating, the minimum overall score must be met, as well as the minimum standards established for said rating. The LEED certification tool–v4.1 Building Design and Construction–has some similarities to the BREEAM rating tool. Instead of minimum standards, the LEED certification tool has prerequisites and credits for the different categories. The distribution is shown in Table 43, where prerequisites start with an asterisk (*).

Table 43. LEED v4.1 Building Design + Construction Scorecard (prerequisites start with an asterisk *) (Adapted from [50]).

LEED v4.1 Building Design + Construction Scorecard (prerequisites start with an asterisk *) (Adapted from ^[5]).

Indoor Environmental Quality

Location and Transportation

Sustainable Sites

Unlike BREEAM, not all prerequisites and credits are assessed for a given building type. The full scorecard shows which categories need to be assessed, and the maximum number of points for categories of LEED scores goes up to 110 possible points. The building also needs to meet the three LEED Minimum Program Requirements:

▪ The building must be in a permanent location on existing land.

Mold Prevention
Project monitoring and evaluation by the PMT, though previous experiences in projects
Bureaucratic streamlining
Sustainable maintenance
Managing knowledge and awareness to promote sustainable project delivery (PMT)
Internationalization
Acidification potential
Management considerations toward safety
Cargo delivery route & proximity
Cargo delivery route & proximity
Establish environmental policy and end-user guide, and manual

Affordability
Neighborhood accessibility and amenities
1- Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions along a building life cycle	Minimize the total greenhouse gas emissions along a building’s life cycle, from the cradle to the grave, with a focus on emissions from building operational energy use and embodied energy.
5	Renewable energy	Design considerations toward safety	Innovation management/new product development	Gold	60–79
	Silver	50–59
	Certified	40–49

The developed sustainability assessment tools assigned different names to similar categories. While BREEAM and LEED sustainability assessment tools share common names such as “Energy”, “Water”, and “Materials”, there are some categories that are only found in some of these two tools (for example, LEED has the “Sustainable Sites” category, while BREEAM has the “Management”). Zulkefli et al. [43]^[6] compared the indicators of different rating tools and organized them into the primary themes of sustainability (Environment, Social and Economic Indicators). A total of 87 indicators were proposed to assess the sustainability of buildings.

In 2015, the European Commission started the development of a common European approach to assessing the environmental performance of buildings. The proposed tool, which is still under development, is known as Level(s), which is a framework that has core indicators of sustainability for buildings [50]^[5]. The tool has been developed with six macro-objectives in mind, as depicted in Table 6

Expenditure on R&D
Low-carbon design
Maximum car parking capacity
Lifecycle costs
Grid harmonization
Places of respite
Reserve funds
2- Resource-efficient and circular material life cycles	Optimize the building design, engineering and form in order to support lean and circular flows, extend the long-term material utility and reduce significant environmental impacts.

Thermal comfort	Acoustic and noise control	3- Efficient use of water resources	Make efficient use of water resources, particularly in areas of identified long-term or projected water stress.
Site selection	Acoustic and noise control	4- Healthy and comfortable spaces	Create buildings that are comfortable, attractive and productive to live and work in and which protect human health.
4	Recycled/reused materials	Public transportation access & transportation plan	Use of regional resources	5- Adaptation and resilience to climate change
	Indoor air quality performance	Futureproof building performance against projected future changes in the climate in order to protect occupier health and comfort and to minimize long-term risks to property values and investments.
	Indoor air quality performance	Thermal comfort		6- Optimized lifecycle cost and value	Optimize the life cycle cost and value of buildings to reflect the potential for long- term performance improvement, inclusive of acquisition, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, disposal and end of life.

Out of the 16 core indicators presented in Table 76

The Level (s) framework is divided into three levels. The first level regards the conceptual design for the building project. It is the simplest level, in which early-stage qualitative assessments are applied to the conceptual design or concepts of the building. The second level covers the detailed design and construction performance of the building. This intermediate level entails quantitative assessments of the designed performance and monitoring of the building. The third and final level encompasses the as-built and in-use performance of the building after completion. It is the most advanced level, and it entails the monitoring and surveying of activity on the construction site and the building, as well as its occupants. The higher the level, the more accurate and reliable the report will be, but the framework is built so that one can choose which level/combination of levels to work at [52]^[8].

Finally, Level(s) has four briefings on the key concepts of the framework, as follows:

▪ Whole life cycle and circular thinking;
▪ Closing the gap between design and actual building performance;

Daylight
3

	Climate Change
	Visual quality	Cost of construction
	Noise Pollution		Employment (social aspects)
	Energy Efficiency		Infrastructure improvement
	Indoor air quality	Community relationships and involvement	Cost of operation and maintenance
Public acceptance of the project	Indoor air quality
Visual comfort	Stakeholder engagement/management
Visual comfort	Sustainable development supported by local laws
2	Climate change adaptation/disaster risk management	Public Comfort	Regional workers and personnel
	Climate change adaptation/disaster risk management	Cultural heritage	Supply and demand sides
	Recycled water	Natural heritage	Marketing price
	Destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer	Workers and personnel comfort	Return on Investment
	Destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer	Workers and personnel comfort	Durability of building
	Efficient lighting	Post-occupancy user satisfaction survey (to assess end-user comfort)	Direct job opportunities
	Sensitive land protection		Indirect job opportunities
	Public health and safety		Economic and political stability

Table 98.

Compiled sustainability indicators with the lowest weights (weight equal to 1).

As shown in Table 87, the most prevalent indicators in the Environment pillar are “Renewable energy”, “Thermal comfort”, and “Site selection”. In the Social Pillar, the most used indicators are “Design considerations towards safety” and “Acoustic and noise control”. Finally, in the Economic Pillar, the most mentioned indicator is “Innovation management/new product development”.

A total of 153 indicators were identified. The Social Pillar has the highest number of indicators at 56. It is followed by the Environmental Pillar with 54 indicators, and lastly, by the Economic Pillar with 43 indicators.

References

Reed, R.; Bilos, A.; Wilkinson, S.; Schulte, K.-W. International comparison of sustainable rating tools. J. Sustain. Real Estate 2009, 1, 1–22.
LiderA. LiderA—Sistema de avaliação da sustentabilidade. Available online: http://www.lidera.info/?p=faqs&RegionId=6 (accessed on 27 September 2022).
Bragança, L. SBTOOL Urban: Instrumento para a Promoção da Sustentabilidade Urbana. In Proceedings of the Simpósio Nacional de Gestão e Engenharia Urbana—SINGEURB 2017, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil, 25–27 October 2017.
BREEAM International New Construction 2016, Document reference: SD233, Version: 2016, Issue: 2.0; BRE Global, Ltd.: Watford, UK. 2016. Available online: https://files.bregroup.com/breeam/technicalmanuals/BREEAM_INC-Manual-English.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2022).
U.S. Green Building Council. LEED v4.1—Building Design and Construction. 2021. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41 (accessed on 27 September 2022).
Zulkefli, N.S.; Mohd-Rahim, F.A.; Zainon, N. Preliminary Review Of Sustainability Indicators To Greening Existing Building Based On LCSA Components. Malays. Constr. Res. J. 2020, 9, 81–93.
Dodd, N.; Donatello, S.; Cordella, M. Level(s)—A Common EU Framework of Core Sustainability Indicators for Office and Residential Buildings, User Manual 1: Introduction to the Level(s) Common Framework, Publication version 1.1; European Commission: Seville, Spain, 2021.
Dodd, N.; Donatello, S.; Cordella, M. Level(s)—A common EU Framework of Core Sustainability Indicators for Office and Residential Buildings, User Manual 2: Setting up a Project to use the Level(s) Common Framework, Publication version 1.1; European Commission: Seville, Spain, 2021.