See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317406573

Green Building Rating Systems in Sustainable Architecture

Chapter · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 3,449

1 author:

Müjde Altın
Dokuz Eylul University
8 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adaptive Facades and Sustainable Architecture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Müjde Altın on 08 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 43

Green Building Rating Systems in Sustainable Architecture

Müjde ALTIN

INTRODUCTION
Buildings are responsible for nearly half of the energy use in the world. This
means that they are responsible for nearly half of the greenhouse gas emissions like
CO2 emissions. Green buildings are important at decreasing the harm given to the
environment by decreasing the energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and material use.
And Green Building Rating Systems (from now on will be referred as GBRSs) are the
tools that help us measure how much green these buildings are, in shortly how to assess
their sustainability. They assess the building’s sustainability and give a degree on how
much green or sustainable that building is. So in another point of view it can be said that
they urge architects to build more sustainable buildings.
There are many GBRSs around the world to certificate buildings according to their
sustainability degrees. They work through some criteria and give points/credits to the
building according to meeting these criteria. And the building finally gets its certificate
degree according to how much point/credit it gets.
Most of the GBRSs have similarities in common more than differences. This is due
to the fact that all of these systems are trying to help us create a better world and leave
our children a better and cleaner world. Therefore, the principles are and should be
nearly the same: principles to decrease the harm given to the environment. Therefore,
the aim of this study is to give an overview of mostly used GBRSs around the world
from the viewpoint of sustainability. This is going to be done by describing sustainable
development, sustainability and sustainable architecture first, and then by explaining
what a green/sustainable building is and how a building can be assessed in terms of
sustainability, then by describing some of the mostly used GBRSs around the world, by
discussing the common points of these GBRSs, in the end the results achieved through
this discussion will be put forward.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE
AND GREEN BUILDINGS
The term “Sustainable Development” was first pronounced and introduced to the
literature by Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1970’s. The most commonly used definition of
‘sustainability’ was set by the Brundtland Report (by the World Commission on
Environment and Development) as; “Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). The objectives requiring global policies on
sustainability created the expression of the concept ‘sustainable architecture’ having the
thought of ‘energy efficient architecture’ inside. (Durmuş Arsan, 2009)

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Architecture Department

of Architecture, İzmir, Turkey
 Sustainable architecture term has a long history from 1970’s until today. As
Durmuş Arsan stated in her paper, architectural applications have been called with
different names in different times. They are called as “environmental design” in 1970’s,
as “green design” in 1980’s, as “ecological design” in late-1980’s and 1990’s, and as
“sustainable design” from mid-1990’s until today (Durmuş Arsan, 2008). Today we use
“Sustainable Architecture” term for the architecture activity that has the sustainable
architecture principles in them.
“Sustainable architecture is all of the activity of construction of buildings that
protect human health and provide comfort, prefer renewable energy resources, are
environmentally conscious and use energy, water, materials and land efficiently,
considering the future generations in the present situation and in whole life span.” (Sev,
2009) Its target is to create a healthy built environment depending on resource
efficiency and ecological design principles. Sustainable designs are the ones that are
responsible to their environment and that give the minimum harm possible to their
environment. Sustainable architecture principles can be summarized as following:
* Efficient use of construction site,
* Energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources,
* Water efficiency,
* Material efficiency and use of local material and manpower,
* Indoor comfort and human health,
* Waste management,
* Recycling.
Since 1970’s, sustainability issue has been discussed throughout the world. Since
then, it has been an important issue to determine, define and measure how much
sustainable the constructed environment (in general), and a building (in detail) is. In
order to make this assessment, many methods and programs have been developed all
over the world. There’s a wide range of these assessment methods as: LCA based tools,
rating systems, technical guidelines, assessment frameworks, checklists and certificates
(Happio, 2012). A wide variety of these green building and LCA tools are being used
nowadays. One of the most suitable ways to classify these methods is the ATHENA
classification system “Assessment Tool Typology” (Trusty, 2000), which Haapio and
Viitaniemi (Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008) set as one of the most accredited ones. It is
developed by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute and it classifies these
assessment tools by end use (Trusty, 2000). It is a basic three-level classification
system. These levels are (Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008):
Level 1: product comparison tools and information
sources, e.g. BEES 3.0, TEAMTM,
Level 2: whole building design or decision support tools,
e.g. ATHENATM, BEAT 2002, BeCost, Eco-Quantum(Netherlands),
Envest 2, EQUER, LEGEP® and PAPOOSE,
Level 3: whole building assessment frameworks or systems,
e.g. BREEAM(UK), EcoEffect(Sweden), EcoProfile, Environmental
Status Model, ESCALE(France), and LEED®.
There are other classification systems. One of them is IEA Annex 31 classification
system. It classifies the assessment tools into five classes. These groups are as follows
(Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008):

602
 1. Energy Modeling Software,
2. Environmental LCA Tools for Buildings and Building Stocks,
3. Environmental Assessment Frameworks and Rating Systems,
4. Environmental Guidelines or Checklists for Design and Management of
Buildings,
5. Environmental Product Declarations, Catalogues, Reference Information,
Certifications and Labels.
Another classification is done by Larsson (Larsson, 2004). In this system, there are
three groups which are:
1. Assessment methods,
2. Rating systems,
3. Labeling system.
Another classification system is done by Hastings and Wall (Hastings & Wall,
2007). They grouped the assessment systems into three groups. They are:
1. Cumulative energy demand (CED) systems, which focus on energy
consumption,
2. Life cycle analysis (LCA) systems, which focus on environmental aspects,
3. Total quality assessment (TQA) systems, which evaluate ecological, economic
and social aspects. (Hastings & Wall, 2007)(Berardi, 2012)
The subject of this study is Level 3 group of the Athena classification system
which includes the assessment of whole building. They are named according to the
criteria area included during the assessment. Sustainability has three dimensions which
are:
* Economy,
* Environment and
* Social.
In general if the sustainability of a building is in question, all three dimensions
should be assessed. But since the social dimension is very difficult to assess, it is
generally not being considered during the whole building assessment. Therefore they
are used to be called as “environmental assessment tools” at first, and with the criteria
getting larger containing the economy and environment both nowadays, they are being
called as “green building rating systems”. Since the assessment methods are still in
development, they are getting to cover all the three aspects of the sustainability
(economy, environment and social aspects) at the same time, being to be called as
“sustainability rating systems”. But today they are still called as “Green Building Rating
Systems”.
GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLD
There are many GBRSs all around the world today. All of them were developed
and implemented after the implementation of BREEAM in 1990. A brief summary of
GBRSs is given in Table 1. It includes the GBRSs implemented until today.

603
 Table 1. GBRSs around the world
Year of
Name Long Name Country
Implementation
Building Research Establishment
1990 BREEAM UK
Environmental Assessment Method
Building Environmental Performance
1993 BEPAC Canada
Assessment Criteria
Building Environmental Assessment
1996 HK- BEAM Hong Kong
Method
Leadership in Energy and Environmental
LEED USA
Design
1998 SB- Tool
Sustainable Building Tool Multi-National
(former GBTool)
Ecology, Energy Saving, Waste
1999 EEWH Taiwan
Reduction and Health
2000 Green Globes Green Globes Canada
GBCS Green Building Certification System South Korea
Green Star Green Star Australia
2002 SB- Tool
Sustainable Building Tool Multi-National
(former GBTool)
2003 Protocollo Itaca Itaca Protocol Italy
Comprehensive Assessment System for
CASBEE Japan
Built Environment Efficiency
2004
Eco Profile Eco Profile Norway
Green Mark Green Mark Singapore
Green Building
Green Building Standard
Standard Israel
SI- 5281
SI- 5281
2005
LiderA - Portugal
HQE Haute Qualité Environnementale France
National Australian Built Environment
Nabers Australia
Rating System
3- Star 3- Star China
GRIHA - India
2006 PromisE - Finland
Comprehensive Environmental
CEPAS Hong Kong
Performance Assessment Scheme
DGNB - Germany
2008 AQUA - Brasil
Minergie - Switzerland
GBI Malaysia - Malaysia
2009
BERDE - Philippines
United Arab
2010 Pearl/ Estidama -
Emirates
2016 Al Safat - Dubai
The following GBRSs are chosen and examined in this study due to the fact that
they are among mostly used, internationally well known and advanced systems in the
world today:
* BREEAM,
* LEED,

604
 * SB-Tool (formerly GB-Tool),
* CASBEE,
* DGNB.
BREEAM, UK
BREEAM, which is short for B uilding Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method, was developed by the Building Research Establishment and
consultants in United Kingdom. It was launched in 1990 and was the first assessment
system implemented in the world. It has been used as a model for nearly all of the
following systems like HK-BEAM in Hong Kong. (Todd, Crawley, Geissler & Lindsey,
2001)
It is available for a number of lifecycle stages such as New Construction, In-Use
and Refurbishment, and Fit-out. As of 2016 according to BREEAM web page, globally
there are more than 548,400 BREEAM certified developments, and almost 2,247,700
buildings registered for assessment in 77 countries since it was first launched in 1990
(URL: BREEAM, 2016).
BREEAM works with the criteria and it has criteria in these categories:
* Energy,
* Health and Wellbeing,
* Innovation,
* Land Use,
* Materials,
* Management,
* Pollution,
* Transport,
* Waste,
* Water.
During the assessment process, each category is divided into other issues which
have their own targets. When a target is reached, it is awarded with credits. After all the
issues and criteria have been assessed, a final score is reached and the rating is
achieved. Then the certification level is determined according to this rating result.
BREEAM assessments are carried out by independent, third party, BREEAM licensed
organizations, using assessors trained through nationally or internationally recognized
and accredited competent person schemes, to assess against various life cycle stages of
the built environment. (URL: BREEAM, 2016)
Buildings that are assessed by using BREEAM are awarded with the levels given
in Table 2 according to their score.
Table 2. Certification levels of BREEAM
Level Score
Outstanding* (≥85 score)
Excellent (≥70 score)
Very good (≥55 score)
Good (≥45 score)
Pass (≥30 score)
Unclassified (<30 score)
*additional requirements are necessary for BREEAM
Outstanding rating.

605
 It covers a wide range of building types like data centers, education buildings
(schools), healthcare buildings, industrial buildings, mixed use buildings, office
buildings, residential buildings, retail buildings, other buildings.
In BREEAM certification system, it is mandatory to have a BREEAM Accredited
Personnel. But this does not affect the score of the project.
LEED, USA
LEED, which is short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, was
launched in 1998 by the US Green Building Council in USA. This was LEED Version
1.0. After extensive modifications, LEED Version 2.0 was released in March 2000,
Version 2.1. in 2002, Version 2.2 in 2005, Version 3 in 2009 and Version 4 in 2016.
(LEED, 2009)(URL: LEED, 2016)
It is available for a number of lifecycle stages such as Building Design and
Construction, Operations and Maintenance, Interior Design and Construction,
Neighborhood Development, Homes.
The criteria are classified into five environmental categories. These are:
Sustainable Sites (SS), Water Efficiency (WE), Energy & Atmosphere (EA), Materials
& Resources (MR) and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ). Their total point is 100.
There are two more criteria which give 10 more bonus points in total. These are
Innovation in Design (ID) and Regional Priority (RP). These criteria and their
maximum total points are seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Criteria of LEED
Total Possible Points 110
Sustainable Sites (SS) 26
Water Efficiency (WE) 10
Energy & Atmosphere (EA) 35
Materials & Resources (MR) 14
Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) 15
* out of a possible 100 points +10 bonus points
Innovation in Design (ID) 6
Regional Priority (RP) 4
Buildings that are assessed by using LEED are awarded with the levels given in
Table 4 according to their points earned.
It is available for many building types including Core and Shell, Schools,
Neighborhood Development, Retail, Healthcare, Homes and Commercial Interiors.
Table 4. Certification levels of LEED
Level Points
Certified 40-49 points
Silver 50-59 points
Gold 60-79 points
Platinum 80 points and above
In LEED certification system, it is not mandatory to have a LEED Accredited
Personel, but if there is one during the certification process, +1 extra point is added to
the project.

606
 SB-Tool
The SB-Tool was formerly known as GB-Tool which is short for Green Building
Tool. It was first implemented in 1998 in Canada by a council composed of 14
countries. In 2002, its name was turned into SB-Tool which is short for Sustainable
Building Tool. Some countries have taken this tool and changed it according to their
local properties. One of them is Protocollo Itaca which was designed for Italy. Another
is SB-Tool-PT which was designed for Portugal.
The SB Method is a generic framework for rating the sustainable performance of
buildings and projects (URL: SB Method, 2016). The system covers a wide range of
sustainable building issues, not just green building concerns, but the scope of the system
can be modified to be as narrow or as broad as desired, ranging from 100+ criteria to
half a dozen (URL: SB Method, 2016). It is set up to allow easy insertion of local
criteria or local language. It is possible to decrease or increase the number of criteria
according to the requirements.
These criteria are under eight main groups. These groups are (URL: Larsson, 2015)

1. Site location, Available Services and Site Characteristics,

2. Site Regeneration and Development, Urban Design and Infrastructure,
3. Energy and Resource Consumption,
4. Environmental Loadings,
5. Indoor Environmental Quality,
6. Service Quality,
7. Social, Cultural and Perceptual Aspects,
8. Cost and Economic Aspects.
It covers all four major lifecycle stages which are: pre-design, design, construction
and operation. It can handle:
* new and renovation projects or a mix,
* up to five occupancy types in a single project,
* handles buildings up to 100 floors in height,
* provides relative and absolute outputs.
The system consists of two linked Excel files. The assessment is being done with
the use of these files.
CASBEE, Japan
CASBEE is short for Comprehensive Assessment System for Building
Environmental Efficiency and it is developed in Japan. It was launched in 2002 and
implemented in 2004.
It is available for four of the lifecycle stages which are: Pre-design, New
Construction, Existing Building and Renovation. There are four basic tools for them:
* CASBEE for Pre-design,
* CASBEE for New Construction,
* CASBEE for Existing Building and
* CASBEE for Renovation.
There are various versions of CASBEE according to specific purposes which are:
* For detached houses, (for New Construction, for Existing Building)
* For temporary construction,
*Brief versions, (for New Construction(Brief Version), for Existing Building

607
 (Brief Version), for Renovation(Brief Version), for urban development (Brief
Version))
* Local government versions, (CASBEE-Nagoya, CASBEE-Osaka, CASBEE-
Yokohama, etc.)
* For heat island effect,
* For urban development,
* For cities,
* CASBEE for market promotion.
Under CASBEE, there are two spaces: external and internal. These form the two
main assessment categories named as Q (Quality) and L (Load).
Q (Quality): Built Environment Quality
L (Load): Built Environment Load
CASBEE covers these four assessment fields(URL: CASBEE, 2016):
1. Energy efficiency,
2. Resource efficiency,
3. Local environment,
4. Indoor environment.
DGNB, Germany
The DGNB (short for Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen) certification
system was developed in 2008 by the German Sustainable Building Council.
It is available for a number of lifecycle stages such as
The criteria of DGNB have six main groups which are:
1. Ecology,(Environmental Quality)
2. Economy,(Economic Quality)
3. Socio-cultural and functional issues, (Socio-cultural and Functional Quality)
4. Techniques, (Technical Quality)
5. Processes, (Process Quality)
6. The Site. (Site Quality)
Since it has socio-cultural criteria, it can be said that DGNB is also one of the
assessment tools that assess the sustainability of the buildings, or in short “Sustainable
Building Rating Systems”. There are sustainability criteria of up to 50. The levels of
DGNB certificate are Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum.
There are schemes in DGNB for office and administrative buildings, retail
buildings, industrial buildings, hotels, residential buildings, mixed-use buildings and
educational facilities. Further schemes are constantly being developed, e.g. for
hospitals. There are 1239 projects that have been certified, in the DGNB’s database as
of 2016. (URL: DGNB, 2016)
COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
General knowledge on the GBRSs examined in this study can be seen in Table 5.
The GBRSs are placed according to the year they were implemented in chronological
order. All of them except SB-Tool were developed in a country according to that
country’s properties. But they can be tailored according to another country if desired.
SB-Tool was developed by a consortium of 14 countries and it can be said that it is one
of the first of the “Sustainable Building Rating Systems”.

608
 Table 5. GBRSs examined in the study – general knowledge
Name Developer Country Year developed
BREEAM Building Research Establishment UK 1990
(BRE)
LEED United States Green Building Council USA 1998
(USGBC)
SB-Tool International Initiative for a Consortium of 1998/2002
(former Sustainable Built Environment 14 countries (in
GBTool) (iiSBE) 1998)
CASBEE Japan Sustainable Building Japan 2002
Consortium (JSBC) under the auspice
of the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
(MLIT)
DGNB German Sustainable Building Germany 2008
Council
When examined, it is seen that all the GBRSs have their own properties. But their
certification phases are mostly the same; design, new construction, existing building,
operation, renovation in general. Their criteria are also nearly the same in general
except for CASBEE. It is held in a different way, with a different point of view.
Although different, their rating levels can be said similar. They are grading the results
of the assessment in their own results. These properties can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6. GBRSs examined in the study – properties of the rating systems
Certification
Name Criteria Rating Levels
Phases
*Management, Outstanding* (≥85 score) *Design
*Health & Wellbeing, Excellent (≥70 score) stage(DS),
*Energy, Very good (≥55 score) *Post-
*Transport, Good (≥45 score) Construction
BREEAM

*Water, Pass (≥30 score) Stage (PCS).

*Waste, Unclassified (<30 score)
*Pollution, *additional requirements
*Land Use&Ecology, are necessary for
*Materials, BREEAM Outstanding
*Innovation. rating.
*Sustainable Sites, Platinum (80-110 points) *after the
*Water Efficiency, Gold (60-79 points) construction
*Energy and Atmosphere, Silver (50-59 points) of the project.
*Materials & Resources, Certified (40-49 points)
LEED

*Indoor Environmental Quality,

*Location & Linkages, *Maximum points:110
*Awareness & Education,
*Innovation in Design,
*Regional Priority.

609
 1. Site location, Available Services Can be defined for every *pre-design,
and Site Characteristics, country. *design,
2. Site Regeneration and *construction,
Development, Urban Design and *operation.
Infrastructure,
SB- Tool

3. Energy and Resource

Consumption,
4. Environmental Loadings,
5. Indoor Environmental Quality,
6. Service Quality,
7. Social, Cultural and Perceptual
Aspects
8. Cost and Economic Aspects
Q (Quality): Built Environment S, Excellent, *Pre-design,
Quality BEE≥3.0, Q≥50 *New
L (Load): Built Environment Load ☆☆☆☆☆ Construction,
A, Very Good, *Existing
BEE=1.5–3.0 Building,
☆☆☆☆ *Renovation.
CASBEE

B+, Good,
BEE=1.0–1.5
☆☆☆
B-, Fairly poor,
BEE=0.5–1.0
☆☆
C Poor,
BEE=less than 0.5
☆
1.Ecology,(Environmental Quality) Bronze,
2. Economy,(Economic Quality) Silver,
3. Socio-cultural and functional Gold,
DGNB

issues, (Sociocultural and Functional Platinum.

Quality)
4. Techniques, (Technical Quality)
5. Processes, (Process Quality)
6. The Site. (Site Quality)
When criteria are examined, it is seen that DGNB also has criteria about socio-
cultural issues as SB-Tool has. Therefore it can be said that it was implemented a little
late, but ahead of the others that assess the ecological and economic issues (GBRSs).
CONCLUSION
Most of the GBRSs have similarities in common more than differences. This is due
to the fact that all of these systems are trying to help us create a better world and leave
our children a better and cleaner world. Therefore, the principles are and should be
nearly the same: principles to decrease the harm given to the environment.
GBRSs are assessing the buildings according to environmental/ecological and
economic issues today. In addition to the environmental and economic aspects, there is
also the social aspect of sustainability. In order to have a proper assessment, social

610
aspect also has to be taken into consideration during the assessment process. Most of the
GBRSs in the world are assessing the ecological therefore green building properties of
the buildings. Therefore they are called as “Green Building Rating Systems”. But the
trend is towards creating “Sustainable Buildings” than “Green Buildings”. As a result,
towards the future real sustainability of the buildings will be assessed. It is seen in the
change of the name of SB-Tool. Formerly, it was called as GB-Tool, short for “Green
Building Tool”. It was assessing how green the buildings were. But in time it was
developed and social aspects are added inside the assessment criteria. Then its name
was changed into SB-Tool, short for “Sustainable Building Tool”. All the GBRSs are
still being developed and most probably one day they will turn into “Sustainable
Building Rating Systems” or “Sustainable Building Assessment Tools” as GB-Tool had
turned into SB-Tool. The name doesn’t matter, but they will be better than today and
they will help creating more sustainable built environment by helping to create more
sustainable buildings.
REFERENCES
Berardi, U. (2012). Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems
and Rated Buildings. Sustainable Development (20), 411–424.
Durmuş Arsan, Z. (2008). Türkiye’de Sürdürülebilir Mimari. Mimarlık 340 (2008).
Durmuş Arsan, Z. (2009). Enerji etkin mimarlık yaklaşımları üzerine bir eleştiri. Ege
Mimarlık, (68), 18-26.
Happio, A.; Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment
tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, (28), 469- 482, Retrieved April 2011,
from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar.
Happio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 32 (2012), 165–169.
Hastings, R.; Wall, M. (2007). Sustainable Solar Housing, Vol. 1 – Strategies and Solutions.
Earthscan: London.
Larsson, N. (2004). An Overview of Green Building Rating and Labelling Systems. Dataset.
LEED, (2009). LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System.
USGBC.
Sev, A. (2009). Sürdürülebilir mimarlık. İstanbul: YEM Kitabevi.
Todd, J. A.; Crawley, D.; Geissler, S.; Lindsey, G. (2001). Comparative assessment of
environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge. Building
Research & Information 29 (5), 324–335.
Trusty, W. (2000). Introducing an assessment tool classification system, Advanced Building
Newsletter, July 2000, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, 18.
URL: BREEAM (2016). http://www.breeam.com/
URL: CASBEE (2016). http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/
URL: DGNB (2016). http://www.dgnb-system.de/en/
URL: Larsson, N. (2015). http://www.iisbe.org/system/files/SBTool%20Overview%2018
Jul15.pdf
URL: LEED (2016). http://www.usgbc.org/leed
URL: SB Method (2016). http://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common
Future(known as the Brundtland Report), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

611

View publication stats