Ahmed Baraka

21345683

SUSTAINBLE CIVIL
ENGINEERING
Assignment 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Civil Engineering Environment Quality (CEEQUAL) ....................................................................... 4
1.2 CEEQUAL Awards .......................................................................................................................... 4
2 Envision sustainable infrastructure rating system ................................................................................ 5
3 Levels of Achievement .......................................................................................................................... 7
4 Application of Envision Rating .............................................................................................................. 7
5 Future Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 8
6 Discussion on Part 1 .............................................................................................................................. 8
7 Part 2; Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 9
7.1 Economy...................................................................................................................................... 11
7.2 Environment................................................................................................................................ 12
7.3 Society ......................................................................................................................................... 12
7.4 Management ............................................................................................................................... 12
8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 13
9 References .......................................................................................................................................... 14
List of Figures
Figure 2. 1 Envision Rating System .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. 2 Various Application of Envision Ratings .................................................................................... 8
Figure 7. 1 Flow Chart for the evaluation of Rating System ..................................................................... 11
List of Tables
Table 1. 1 Award Scoring System ................................................................................................................. 5

Table 3. 1 Envision Award Level .................................................................................................................. 7

Table 7. 1 Summary of Various parameter for the evaluation of CEEQUAL and Envision ...................... 10
1 Introduction

This assignment is written to talk about an analyze sustainable infrastructure rating systems and discuss
the use of infrastructure rating tool system in terms of the 3 pillars of sustainability which they are
(economic, social and environmental) they are also known as TBL (triple Bottom Line). In this assignment
I will be specifically talking about the two mainstream infrastructure rating frame work, which they are,
envision (USA) and civil engineering environmental quality (CEEQUAL).

1.1 Civil Engineering Environment Quality (CEEQUAL)

CEEQUAL was created in 2003 by the ICE (institution of Civil Engineers) and launched in 2004, to evaluate,
credit and award achievements of sustainability amongst it was created in the UK and it slowly spread
over Europe.

There are 9 assessment categories in order to assess any project using CEEQUAL which they’re:

1.2 CEEQUAL Awards

When a project begins the stakeholders of the project fill the CEEQUAL form and after through analysis
by the CEEQUAL authority the best project is awarded with following CEEQUAL Awards;

 Whole Project Award normally applied for jointly by or on behalf of the client, designer and
principal contractors
  Design Award applied for by the principal designers only for a project which is following all the
environmental and civil engineering quality considerations
 Construction Award applied for by the principal contractors
 Design & Build Award for Design & Build and other partnership contracts
 Client & Design Award (also available in the form of an Interim Award)

The criteria by following which a project is awarded with any of the above mentioned CEEQUAL award is
shown in the table 1.1.

Table 1. 1 Award Scoring System

2 Envision sustainable infrastructure rating system

Envision is an American rating tool which it was started by a collaboration between Zofnass program for
sustainable infrastructure and ISI (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure) as guide for sustainability. This
system was launched in 2012 and the main purpose of it is to award, grade and give recognition to the
projects that give good progression for a better and more sustainable future.

Envision has 60 sustainability credits separated in 5 different categories, which they’re:

 Quality of life (13 credits)

The purpose of it is to improve the health and safety and wellbeing for the surrounding community

 Leadership (10 credits)

 Resource allocation (14 credits)
 Natural world (15 credits)
 Climate and risk (8 credits)

The detail of each of these 5 categories is elaborated in the figure 2.1 attached in the next page.
Figure 2. 1 Envision Rating System
3 Levels of Achievement
Each of the Envision credits contains one or more defined levels of achievement: Improved, Enhanced,
Superior, Conserving, and Restorative. These levels of achievement define the level and quality of project
performance as follows.

Higher levels of achievement are reached by improving upon a lower level of achievement. For instance,
to meet the requirements for Conserving, a project must also meet the requirements for Improved,
Enhanced, and Superior. Levels of achievement have an associated point value that varies between
credits as shown in the table 3.1

Table 3. 1 Envision Award Level

4 Application of Envision Rating

The envision rating are applied to the following;

1. Energy
2. Water
3. Waste
4. Transport
5. Landscape
6. Information
 Figure 2. 2 Various Application of Envision Ratings

5 Future Challenges
The biggest challenge of using sustainability infrastructure rating systems tools is to create an
understanding for the scheme and get it embedded in people’s thinking and to make sustainability a priority. Also,
there will be resistance to sustainability infrastructure rating systems because they are third-party assessment.
People don’t like when an outsider reviews the work.

6 Discussion on Part 1
According to the Infrastructure Sustainability Score Tools has been discussed momentarily concerning
their foundation, rating system, level of achievements, award levels and checking specialists. Furthermore,
these infrastructure rating tools are examined in terms of the Triple Bottom Line, to assess their performance on
attaining sustainable level
7 Part 2; Methodology
Throughout the world various rating systems to rate the sustainable buildings are developed, these rating
systems were developed due to economic and financial development and realization by the countries
regarding the environmental crisis and the implementation of policies such as Paris agreement where
different countries came together and signed an accord for the protection of environment. On the similar
basis some systems were made so that so that the infrastructure and its sustainability regarding the design
and the material incorporated after rating them. (Diaz-Sarachaga, Jose Manuel & Jato-Espino, Daniel &
Alsulami, Badr & Castro-Fresno, Daniel, 2016)Despite the fact that the current economic framework rating
frameworks are centered around complex economies, developing natural worries are expanding the
requirement for a completely new frameworks in the Developing third World. Following are the most
prominent of all frameworks for the rating of infrastructure;

 USA has Envision

 UK has CEEQUAL
 There is Infrastructure Sustainability or IS
 Australia has a framework called RT (Rating Tools)

All these rating systems critically analyze the infrastructure from the standpoint of the Environment
aspect, Economical Aspect and Social aspect. But these tools are inclined towards the developed nations
only in terms of environmental aspect and economic aspect.

It is the need of the hour that the very basis of these systems must be upgraded in light of the third world
problems and this can only be done by incorporating policies which the poorer nations can also adopt and
by including operational management policies and SDGs (Sustainable development goals) developed by
UN, also to take into account the effects other than that of a single project system or framework (Diaz-
Sarachaga, Jose Manuel & Jato-Espino, Daniel & Alsulami, Badr & Castro-Fresno, Daniel, 2016)

The methodology to evaluate the two mainstream rating systems such as CEEQUAL and Envision can be
understood only if we realize the fact that these two are based on the three pillars of Environment,
Economics and Social. And what we need to do is to evaluate these on the basis of how much room or
space they provide for the third world country to apply these two.

The table 7.1 gives us the summary about on which parameter we need to evaluate the two mainstream
rating systems, we also need to take an account of how these two-rating system work, what main
considerations they account into while rating the system, what we need to observe here that how much
flexibility does these systems have within the framework that a third world country can also use them.

The CEEQUAL rating system has two modules one for the project and the other one is for the Term
Contracts; we would be focusing on the former one which is for projects.
 Table 7. 1 Summary of Various parameter for the evaluation of CEEQUAL and Envision

Rating System in Question

Evaluate its
operations
Economics Society
Effectiveness of
25 % Credit the Rating System 25 % Credit

Environment
Management
25 % Credit
25 % Credit
If obtains < 33 %
If obtains > 33 %

Rating System Fail and Rating System Pass and can

needs improvement be used for the said Project
 Figure 7. 1 Flow Chart for the evaluation of Rating System

If the table 7.1 is observed very carefully it can be seen that we have broadly divided the Rating system
evaluation into 4 different and unique categories the reasons for this division are explained below;

7.1 Economy
Both the system take Economy as very serious issue so it was binding for us to use this parameter into the
evaluation of CEEQUAL and Envision. The Economy parameters as define d in the above table will calculate
points against the two systems in terms of provision provided or these mentioned points such as does the
CEEQUAL takes into account the workforce development provision into account when it rates a system or
not? Or does the Envision rating system takes into account the provision for the Stimulation of sustainable
growth and development? All these needed to be asked so that after thorough analysis we can come up
with the solution that which one is a better rating system.

The most important question is to ask that either both of them (CEEQUAL and Envision) take into account
the consideration of checking the parameters which can help the investor realize that is there any
improvement that this project of their will bring into the Quality of Life standards for the community. Such
as the projects of public welfare which help the people increase their standard of living can be the subject
of both CEEQUAL and Envision and the report of the two must help the Government (Prime Funding
Source) is this project bringing ease to the life of people or not.
7.2 Environment
The most important criteria for the evaluation of the two system is the Environment concerns. It is very
much crucial to know that each project is different from the other and similar each project has unique
environmental impacts hence it is necessary that the rating system being used either it is CEEQUAL or
Envision is flexible enough to take into account all the environmental concerns that arise at the project
site. Hence it is very important to check and evaluate the both rating systems as per the parameters that
are mentioned above in table 7.1.

Such that the provision for Flood Risk Management is evaluated in CEEQUAL and Envision Rating system
for the project or not? If not than how does the particular Rating System measure this parameter of
Adequate measures for saving the lives of the residents in the building against flood.

Similarly, the most important natural resources consumption is to be checked in the two Rating systems
that is if a project’s sustainability rating is being provided by the CEEQUAL than does the CEEQUAL rating
system takes into account the consumption of water and wastage of water on the site during the
construction of the project or not? And if not than that Rating System in question is lacking in this regard
and is not giving rating as per real project scenario.

Likewise, the points mentioned must be evaluated with respect to the mainstream rating system being
employed. And if one is not getting good credits in this regard must not be used as a rating system for a
particular project because it has failed to serve its purpose of Sustainability Rating System.

7.3 Society
It must be realized that any project that starts has a direct impact on the society in which it is being
constructed some on local level and some on the international level. So, the rating system being used at
that time must have the provision of evaluating the perceptions of the society in regards with the project.

The infrastructure rating system must have the provision of evaluating the relations between the
stakeholders and the community, the methodology devised checks this point in both the rating system
that is this stakeholder and community relation being evaluated by the particular rating system such as
the CEEQUAL and Envision.

Similarly, it is also very binding to critically review a rating system in terms of how it evaluates that a
project is providing means for the employment among the local in that neighborhood where the project
is being constructed. This parameter of providing employment to the local is of prime importance and it
is binding upon the rating system to check for this as it concludes that how much a project is contribution
to the human and capital development.

7.4 Management
Now this is the point which must be evaluated by every infrastructure rating system as if some project
has very low score in this section that it means that there is no effective management of the project and
the project will fail to completed on time and hence this might result in the delayed commsiong of the
project resulting in more discomfort to the publica and hence in return the credit for society will go
down and such delay in project will put demand for extra money more than allocated causing to loose
ore credits from the economy and hence the project might be shut down due to low ratings.
Hence it is crucial upon a rating system to include the management evaluation into them and as far our
methodology is concerned, we have incorporated the management evaluation while scrutinizing the
rating system either it is CEEQUAL or Envision.

8 Conclusion
To conclude, I think rating systems should Encourage infrastructure owners and project teams to strive for
higher levels of sustainability performance; Potentially lead to adoption of green practices into regulation and
planning mechanisms, and minimum standards; Make sustainability measurable and manageable; Allow for clear
communication of sustainability goals, efforts, and achievement; Flexible framework allowing for innovation
in design and construction solutions.
9 References
Diaz-Sarachaga, Jose Manuel & Jato-Espino, Daniel & Alsulami, Badr & Castro-Fresno, Daniel. (2016).
Evaluation of existing sustainable infrastructure rating systems for their application in
developing countries. Ecological Indicators, 491-502.

Griffiths, K., Boyle, C., and Henning, T.F.P., (2018) Beyond the Certification Badge—How Infrastructure Sustainability
Rating Tools Impact on Individual, Organizational, and Industry Practice, Sustainability, MDPI

https://research.gsd.harvard.edu/zofnass/files/2015/06/Envision-Manual_2015_red.pdf

file:///C:/Users/test/Downloads/An_introduction_to_CEEQUAL_May_2018.pdf

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:456358/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Griffiths, K. Boyle, C., and Henning, T.F.P., (2017) Comparative assessment of infrastructure
sustainability rating tools, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315738452

Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M., Jato-Espino, D., and Castro-Fresno, D. (2018) Evaluation of LEED for Neighbourhood
Development and Envision Rating Frameworks for Their Implementation in Poorer Countries, Sustainability,
MDPI