Encyclopedia
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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) [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 [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 [2][3]. BREEAM International New Construction 2016 has 10 different categories–9 environmental and 1 innovation category–and assessment issues, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. BREEAM International New Construction 2016 categories and assessment issues (Adapted from [4]).
| Management | Health and Wellbeing |
| Project brief and design | Visual comfort |
| Life cycle cost and service life planning | Indoor air quality |
| Responsible construction practices | Safe containment in laboratories |
| Commissioning and handover | Thermal comfort |
| Aftercare | Acoustic performance |
| Accessibility | |
| Hazards | |
| Private space | |
| Water quality | |
| Energy | Transport |
| Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions | Public transport accessibility |
| Energy monitoring | Proximity to amenities |
| External lighting | Alternative modes of transport |
| Low carbon design | Maximum car parking capacity |
| Energy-efficient cold storage | Travel plan |
| Energy-efficient transport systems | |
| Energy-efficient laboratory systems | |
| Energy-efficient equipment | |
| Drying space | |
| Water | Materials |
| Water consumption | Life cycle impacts |
| Water monitoring | Hard landscaping and boundary protection |
| Water leak detection | Responsible sourcing of materials |
| Water efficient equipment | Insulation |
| Designing for durability and resilience | |
| Material efficiency | |
| Waste | Land use and ecology |
| Construction waste management | Site selection |
| Recycled aggregates | Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features |
| Operational waste | Minimizing impact on existing site ecology |
| Speculative floor and ceiling finishes | Enhancing site ecology |
| Adaptation to climate change | Long-term impact on biodiversity |
| Functional adaptability | |
| Pollution | Innovation |
| Impact of refrigerants | Innovation |
| NOx 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 2.
Table 2. BREEAM rating benchmarks.
| BREEAM Rating | % Score |
|---|---|
| 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 3, where prerequisites start with an asterisk (*).
Table 3. LEED v4.1 Building Design + Construction Scorecard (prerequisites start with an asterisk *) (Adapted from [5]).
| Indoor Environmental Quality | Location and Transportation | Sustainable Sites |
| * Minimum indoor air quality performance | LEED for neighborhood development location | * Construction activity pollution prevention |
| * Environmental tobacco smoke control | Sensitive land protection | * Environmental site assessment |
| * Minimum acoustic performance | High-priority site and equitable development | Site assessment |
| Enhanced indoor air quality strategies | Surrounding density and diverse uses | Protect or restore habitat |
| 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 | Electric vehicles | Light pollution reduction |
| Interior lighting | Site master plan | |
| Daylight | Tenant design and construction guidelines | |
| Quality views | Places of respite | |
| Acoustic performance | Direct exterior access | |
| Joint use of facilities | ||
| Water Efficiency | Energy and Atmosphere | Materials and Resources |
| * Outdoor water use reduction | * Fundamental commissioning and verification | * Storage and collection of recyclables construction and demolition |
| * Indoor water use reduction | * Minimum energy performance | * Waste management planning |
| * Building-level water metering | * Building-level energy metering | * PBT source reduction-Mercury |
| Outdoor water use reduction | * Fundamental refrigerant management | Building lifecycle impact reduction |
| Indoor water use reduction | Enhanced commissioning | Building product disclosure and optimization-EDP |
| Optimize process water use | Optimize energy performance | Building product disclosure and optimization-Sourcing of raw materials |
| Water metering | Advanced energy metering | Building product disclosure and optimization-Material ingredients |
| Grid harmonization | PBT source reduction-Mercury | |
| Renewable energy | PBT source reduction-Lead, cadmium, and copper | |
| Enhanced refrigerant management | Furniture and medical furnishings | |
| Design for flexibility | ||
| Construction and demolition waste management | ||
| Integrative Process | Innovation | Regional Priority |
| * Integrative project planning and design | Innovation | Regional priority |
| Integrative Process | LEED accredited professional |
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.
-
▪ The building must use reasonable LEED boundaries.
-
▪ The building must comply with project size requirements.
A minimum of 40 points are required to obtain a positive certification. The four levels of certifications are displayed in Table 5.
Table 4. LEED certification levels.
| LEED Certification | Total Points |
|---|---|
| Platinum | 80+ |
| 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. [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 [5]. The tool has been developed with six macro-objectives in mind, as depicted in Table 5.
Table 5. Level(s) macro-objectives and their definition (Adapted from [7]).
| Level(s) Macro-Objectives | Definition |
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Make efficient use of water resources, particularly in areas of identified long-term or projected water stress. |
|
Create buildings that are comfortable, attractive and productive to live and work in and which protect human health. |
|
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. |
|
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 6, 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 6. Level(s) macro-objectives and their corresponding indicators (Adapted from [7]).
| Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions along a building’s life cycle | Use stage energy performance |
| Lifecycle Global Warming Potential | |
| Resource-efficient and circular material life cycles | Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans |
| Construction & demolition waste and materials | |
| Design for adaptability and renovation | |
| Design for deconstruction, reuse and recycling | |
| Efficient use of water resources | Use stage water consumption |
| Healthy and comfortable spaces | Indoor air quality |
| 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 | |
| Optimized life cycle cost and value | Life cycle costs |
| Value creation and risk exposure |
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 [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;
-
▪ Achieving a sustainable renovation;
-
▪ Sustainability has a positive influence on the market value of a property.
2. Compilation of Sustainability Indicators
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 7, and the others with the lowest weights are shown in Table 8.
Table 7. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Renewable energy | Design considerations toward safety | Innovation management/new product development |
| Thermal comfort | Acoustic and noise control | ||
| Site selection | |||
| 4 | Recycled/reused materials | Public transportation access & transportation plan | Use of regional resources |
| Indoor air quality performance | Thermal comfort | ||
| 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 | |||
| Visual comfort | Stakeholder engagement/management | ||
| Sustainable development supported by local laws | |||
| 2 | Climate change adaptation/disaster risk management | Public Comfort | Regional workers and personnel |
| 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 | |
| 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 8. Compiled sustainability indicators with the lowest weights (weight equal to 1).
| 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 |
| Carbon dioxide monitoring and control | Employee commitment/commitment in the workplace | Distributed income innovation and technological advance |
| Minimum IAQ performance | Project independence of political factors | |
| Envelope Insulation | Social impact reports | Stakeholder involvement/participation |
| 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 |
| Renewable raw materials | Absence of bureaucracy in the workplace | Effective project control |
| Hazardous degradable wastes | Contractor–supplier relationship | Best practice strategy |
| Hazardous non-degradable wastes | Commitment to the stakeholders’ needs | Customer-relationship management/Access to a range of customers |
| Environmental management systems/policy implications | Well-defined project scope and project limitations | |
| Flood risk assessment strategy to prevent flooding | Holistic view of benefits | Scope control through managing changes |
| Air Pollution | Product–service systems | Business ethics |
| Violation of animal’s territory | Emphasis on high-quality workmanship | 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 |
| Non-hazardous non-recyclable wastes | Comprehensive contract documentation | Project outputs emphasis |
| Environmental management plan for impacts by the Project Management Team (PMT) | Diversification | Ability to pay and affordability |
| Sustainable project delivery through project stakeholder management | Competitive tendering/comprehensive pre-tender investigation of the project | Environmental/economics accounting |
| Environmental education and training | Adaptability in project environment | |
| Eco-efficiency | Intangible asset management | Developing an efficient risk management plan by the PMT |
| Consistent and predictable load | Multidisciplinary/competent Project Management Team (PMT) | |
| Up-to-date environmental construction technologies and methods | The role of trust within the PMT | 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 |
| Appropriate and flexible environmental design details and specifications | Employing operational decision-making techniques by the PMT | |
| 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 |
| Establish environmental policy and end-user guide, and manual | Affordability | |
| Neighborhood accessibility and amenities | Expenditure on R&D | |
| Low-carbon design | Maximum car parking capacity | Lifecycle costs |
| Grid harmonization | Places of respite | Reserve funds |
As shown in Table 7, 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.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15043403
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.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
