Development of Green Building Rating System Using AHP

and Fuzzy Integrals: A Case of India

Gayatri S. Vyas1; Kumar N. Jha2; and Dilip A. Patel3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The greenness of a building is measured through green building assessment tools. These tools have limitations because they cannot
be applied to all regions. The aim of this research was to develop a green building assessment tool that can rate the greenness of new buildings
in India. For this, a study was conducted by adopting nine green building components with 34 attributes relevant to the measurement of green-
ness. For evaluating the green building index (GBI), a three-level hierarchical structure was constructed in which the GBI is at Level 1, and the
nine components and 34 attributes are at Levels 2 and 3, respectively. In this study, an integrated approach consisting of an analytical hierarchy
process (AHP) and fuzzy integrals was used. The 42 responses obtained from green building experts were used to find the weights of the com-
ponents using the AHP. The relative importance of different attributes was computed using fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals. Finally, the
weighted-sum method (WSM) was employed to get the overall GBI. The results of the proposed approach are compared with Indian case stud-
ies. The findings of this article can be helpful to green building planners, designers, and developers. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-
5568.0000346. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Author keywords: Green building; Analytical hierarchy process (AHP); Fuzzy integral; India.

Introduction
The construction sector constitutes a major challenge to the envi-
ronment. Globally, buildings are responsible for at least 40% of
energy use. An estimated 42% of the global water consumption and
50% of the global consumption of raw materials are utilized by
buildings when taking into account the manufacturing, construc-
tion, and operations phases of buildings. In addition, building activ-
ities contribute an estimated 50% of the world’s air pollution, 42%
of greenhouse gases, 50% of all water pollution, 48% of all solid
wastes, and 50% of all chlorofluorocarbons to the environment
(GRIHA 2007; Bhatt and Macwan 2012; Vyas and Jha 2016).
There has been a decline in forest cover over the years in India.
For example, during the period of 2009–2011, forest cover declined
by 367 km2. Conversely, the per capita energy consumption
increased by 7.19% from 2010–2011 to 2011–2012. As per the
2013 key energy statistics (CIDC 2014), the per capita CO2 emis-
sion of India has increased steadily from 0.69 Mt in 1990 to 1.41 Mt
in 2013. Natural resource depletion (water, mineral, forest, sand,
rocks, etc.), loss of biodiversity, environmental degradation, and
loss of resilience in ecosystems are the major environmental issues
faced by India. The per capita water consumption in 1990 was
2,464 m3 per annum, but by 2025, with an expected population of
1 struction site increases labor productivity by saving travel time
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of
Engineering, Pune, Maharashtra 411005, India (corresponding author).
Email: gsv.civil@coep.ac.in
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India. Email: knjha@civil.iitd
.ac.in
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, S. V. National
Institute of Technology, Ichchhanath, Surat 395007, Gujarat. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6874-8141. Email: dapscholar@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 26, 2017;
approved on September 12, 2018; published online on January 22, 2019.
Discussion period open until June 22, 2019; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Architectural Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431.
1.4 billion, it is estimated to be less than 1,700 m3 per capita per
annum (CIDC 2014). As per a Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB 2009) report, the total water supply in India in 2009–2010,
including all Class I cities and Class II towns, was 48,093.88 mil-
lion liters per day (MLD). Wastewater generation from all Class I
cities and Class II towns was 38,254 MLD, and the treatment
capacity was 11,787 MLD, which is approximately 31% of total
sewage (CPCB 2009). According to these figures, there is a huge
potential for meeting the resource gap through the treatment of
wastewater and reuse of the same for various applications, which
can be achieved by constructing green buildings. Municipal solid
waste comprises of 30–55% of biodegradable (organic) matter, 20–
35% inert matter and 5–15% recyclables (CPCB 2015). The organic
fraction of municipal solid waste contains biodegradable matter
ranging from 30 to 55%, which can be profitably converted into use-
ful products, such as methane gas (used for cooking, heating, light-
ing, production of energy) and compost (organic manure) (GRIHA
2007).
However, currently, the practice of green building design and
the use of green rating systems aim to minimize the demand on
nonrenewable resources; maximize the utilization efficiency of
these resources when in use; and maximize the reuse, recycling,
and utilization of renewable resources. For example, the practice
of minimizing the distance between the labor camp and the con-
and reduces the use of required fuel for transportation. Thus,
adverse impacts on the environment can be minimized. In this
context, Vyas and Jha (2016) determined nine components and 34
attributes related to the greenness of a new building using princi-
pal component analysis (PCA) and presented a framework to
measure the greenness of a new building in India. The hierarchi-
cal structure of the green building rating system is presented in
Fig. 1. The details of the attributes listed in Fig. 1 and their impor-
tance were explained by Vyas and Jha (2016). However, they did
not determine the weights of those components and attributes to
measure the greenness of a new building, a necessary step for
developing the green building index (GBI).

© ASCE 04019004-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

 Attribute (Level III)

Development on brownfield, gray field, black field

Component (Level II)
Heat island effect
Loss of habitat
Site selection Daylight
Sustainable site selection
Green house gases emission
Relation between the building and its surroundings
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Air pollution
Water pollution
Noise pollution
Soil pollution
Environment
Light pollution
Embodied water for construction
Increase ventilation efficiencies
Environmental impact of materials
Material recycle
Goal (Level I) Building Water recycle
Greenness resources and Locally available materials
factors reuse Innovative water reduction technologies
Water efficient landscape / external water use
Occupant's productivity
Building Integrated project management- BIM
services and
management Renewable energy
Energy-efficient heating/cooling system
On site process
Innovative
Distance of labour
construction
Environment Low-impact construction site techniques
al health and Climatic conditions
safety Occupants health, safety and comfort
Mechanical
Mechanical systems
system
Indoor air quality
Indoor air
Plantation of adoptive plants
quality
Cost of investment
Economy
Operation and Maintenance cost

Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of the green building rating system. (Reprinted with permission from Vyas and Jha 2016, © Taylor & Francis Ltd.)

The evaluation of the GBI is a challenging and complex task
because it involves a high number of attributes, the attributes’ mea-
surement units are different, numerous technical experts are
required from varied fields, and the process varies with different
geographical conditions. However, these limitations can be over-
come with the help of multiattribute decision-making (MADM)
methods (Chang 2014), such as the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP), which was used in this study to determine the weights of
components responsible for the greenness of a building. Moreover,
classic integrals generally overlook the nonadditive nature of
the attributes lying at a given hierarchical level of the framework of the
study. However, fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals can overcome
this limitation of classic integrals. Thus, to handle the nonadditive
nature while evaluating the attributes of different components in
the development of the new green rating system, fuzzy measures
and fuzzy integrals can be advantageous. The proposed approach
incorporates the knowledge and experience of green building
experts; they are directly involved in the identification of the
framework, and their sound judgments are considered in determin-
ing the GBI. All these components are expressed on a qualitative
scale, and thus fuzzy set theory is used to signify the vagueness in
the linguistic variables. In brief, the current study used the frame-
work presented by Vyas and Jha (2016) and continued to develop
the GBI by applying AHP, the weighted-sum method (WSM),
fuzzy measures, and fuzzy integrals. The methodology developed
in this study is applicable to Indian new building construction.

© ASCE 04019004-2 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

 Also, its application can be extended to developing countries by
considering the climate and topography.
Thus, the main objectives of the current study were as follows:
(1) to develop a methodology to evaluate the greenness of a new
building, (2) to illustrate the methodology using the case study of a
live construction project, and (3) to evaluate the developed rating
system by comparing it with the existing rating systems.
Literature Review
Green building assessment methods contribute significantly to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the understanding of the relationship between buildings and the
environment (Cole 1998). However, the interaction between build-
ing construction and the environment is still unidentified. The
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM), developed in 1989 in the United Kingdom,
was the first green building performance assessment method. The
BREEAM new construction guidelines were later revised
(BREEAM 2011) for new construction (e.g., eco-homes and educa-
tional, industrial, health-care, multiresidential, and office buildings),
considering both design and postconstruction stages (Kibert 2013).
The BREEAM concept has been adopted by several countries across
the world in developing their respective green building environmen-
tal assessment rating systems. The major green building rating sys-
tems are as follows: (1) Green Star rating system launched by
Australia in 2002; (2) Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) piloted by the United States in 1998 (LEED 2015);
(3) the Green Globe system of the Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA), Canada’s national environmental program
(Al Khalil 2002); (4) the Sustainable Building Tool (SBTool)
developed by the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built
Environment, an international project that has involved more than
25 countries since 1998 (iiSBE 2012); and (5) the Comprehensive
Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency
(CASBEE) launched by Japan in 2001. The green ratings of Indian
buildings were started by the Indian Green Building Council
(IGBC) in 2006 based on the revised LEED. The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI) developed the Green Rating for
Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA 2007). The Eco-Housing
Assessment Tool was developed by the International Institute for
Energy Conservation (IIEC 2006) of Mumbai, India, for the Pune
and Mumbai suburbs in 2006 (it was later revised in 2009). The rat-
ing points and certification levels of the different green building
rating systems are provided in Table 1.
Almost all green building rating systems have been designed to
suit a specific country. Evidence (Cole 1998; Crawley and Aho
1999; Kohler 1999; Cooper 2002; Chang et al. 2007; Ding 2008;
Bhatt and Macwan 2012; Alyami and Rezgui 2012; Vyas et al.
2012) suggests that existing green building rating systems were
developed for different regions to serve local purposes, and they are
not fully applicable to different countries having different climatic,
cultural, and geographical features and built environments. The rat-
ing system developed should also consider the geographic, cultural,
and climatic variations across the country. More specifically, cer-
tain environmental attributes, such as climatic conditions, geo-
graphical characteristics, cultural aspects, economic conditions,
resource consumption (e.g., water and energy), embodied water for
construction, construction materials, building information modeling
(BIM), government policy and regulation, population growth, and
public awareness, may obstruct the direct use of certain existing
environmental assessment systems.
The GRIHA system (2007) considers 34 criteria; the Eco-
Housing Assessment Tool (IIEC 2006) considers 74 criteria,
© ASCE 04019004-3
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004
including climate; and the LEED India considers 51 criteria. In the
LEED India, GRIHA, and Eco-Housing systems, the relative im-
portance (weight) of criteria is not considered. Existing literature
reveals that due to many qualitative and/or subjective attributes, it
becomes difficult to measure them while getting experts’ judgments
and stakeholders’ opinion. A rating system also needs to incorpo-
rate some important attributes, such as embodied water, economic
conditions, embodied carbon, loss of habitat, greenhouse gas emis-
sion, BIM, geographical and climatic conditions, and social and cul-
tural aspects of the region, which are not considered in the existing
rating systems. Moreover, users and stakeholders expect such rating
systems to be user-friendly when evaluating the greenness of a
building. Therefore, by applying AHP and the fuzzy integral
approach, this study attempted to develop a green building rating
system that includes the attributes that are missing from existing rat-
ing systems even though they are considered to be important
according to green building experts. The framework to achieve this
objective is explained in the next section.
Framework for the Evaluation of the GBI
For the sake of convenience, the research method is presented in
schematic form in Fig. 2; the components are described in the fol-
lowing subsections.
Adoption of Green Building Attributes and Components
Vyas and Jha (2016) identified nine components and 34 attributes
that can be used as a framework for measuring the greenness of
buildings in an Indian context. The nine components are (1) site
selection (SS), (2) environment (EN), (3) building resources and
reuse (BRR), (4) building services and management (BSM), (5)
innovative construction techniques (ICT), (6) environmental health
and safety (EHS), (7) mechanical systems (MS), (8) indoor air qual-
ity (IAQ), and (9) economy (EC).The nine components were chosen
because they indicate the impact of the green building concept on
cost reduction, pollution reduction, environmental impact and
safety, energy reduction, and air quality. The attributes correspond-
ing to the nine components are presented in Fig. 1. These were
derived using PCA. Presently, the Indian rating systems do not con-
sider certain attributes, such as (1) embodied water and carbon for
construction, (2) economic conditions, (3) loss of habitat, (4) green-
house gas emission, (5) BIM, (6) low-impact construction techni-
ques, and (7) onsite process. Embodied water and carbon for con-
struction are used through the combined processes of extracting raw
materials from cradle to grave. Embodied water is the total water
required for construction. The water embodied in building construc-
tion has rarely been considered. Embodied water for construction is
significant in the assessment of green buildings (Vyas and Jha
2016). The economy plays an important role in the adoption of
green building rating systems. Due to the environmental crises, con-
struction patrons are demanding assurance of buildings’ long-term
environmental and economic performance. The construction sector
is responsible for external and internal pollution, global greenhouse
gas emissions, loss of habitat, and environmental damage.
The use of BIM can help with the different facets of sustainable
design, such as determining the proper building orientation based
on sun-path analysis, building-form analysis, optimization of the
building envelope, daylight analysis, analysis of the potential for
water harvesting, energy modeling (minimization of energy costs),
and planning for the reuse of materials (Vyas and Jha 2016; Ahmad
and Thaheem 2018).
J. Archit. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Overview of green building rating systems used internationally

Green building

© ASCE
rating system BREEAM Green Star LEED Green Globe SBTool CASBEE IGBC GRIHA Eco-Housing

Year and origin 1989, Japan 2002, Australia 1998, United States 1996, Canada 1996, iiSBE 2001, Japan 2006, India 2007, India 2006, India (Pune and
Mumbai City only)
Certification level • Outstanding = • 1–3 stars = 10–44 • Platinum = 73–100 • 1 green globe = 85 • Acceptable • S: Excellent; BEE = • Platinum = 73– • 1 star = 50–60 • 1 star = 50–60
and percentage 85 • • –100 practice = 0 3.0 or more and Q = 100 • •
4 stars = 45–59 Gold = 55–72 2 stars = 61–70 2 stars = 61–70
score • Excellent = 70 • 2 green globes = • Good prac- ≥50 • Gold = 55–72
• 5 stars = 60–74 • Silver = 45–54 • 3 stars = 71–80 • 3 stars = 71–80
• Very good = 70–84 tice = 3 • A: Very good; • Silver = 45–54
• 6 stars = 75–100 • Certified = 36–44 • 4 stars = 81–90 • 4 stars = 81–90
55 • 3 green globes, 55 • Best prac- BEE = 1.5–3.0 and •
• No rating = ≤35 Certified = 36– • 5 stars = 91–100 • 5 stars = >90
• Good = 45 –69 tice = 5 Q = <50
44
• 4 green globes = (weighted • Bþ: Good; BEE =
• Pass = 30 • No rating = ≤35
35–54 score) 1.0–1.5
• Unclassified = –
• B : Fairly poor;
<30
BEE = 0.5–1.0
• C: Poor; BEE =
<0.5
Green building • Management • Management (8.1) • Sustainable sites • Project manage- • Site selec- • Improvement in Q • Sustainable • Sustainable site • Site planning (14)
parameters (%) (11) • (23.63) ment—policies tion and pro- (environmental architecture and planning (21.2) •
Indoor environment Environmental
• Health and (18.2) • Water efficiency and practice (5) ject planning quality): Q1 (indoor design (5) • Health and well- architecture (8)
well-being • Energy (19.6) (9.09) • Site (11.5) (7.6) environment), Q2 • Site selection being (9.6%) • Energy conser-
(14) • Energy and atmos- • Energy (38) • Energy and (quality of service), and planning • Building planning vation and man-
• Transport (7.4)
• Energy (17) phere (31.82) resource Q3 (outdoor (14) and construction
• • Water (8.5) agement (24)
Water (8.1) consumption environment) •
• Transport (7) • Materials and • Water conserva- (7.7) • Efficient building
• Materials (17) Resources, build- (21) • Reduction in L
• resources (12.73) tion (18) • Energy: end use materials (19)
Water (6) ing materials, and
• Land use and ecol- • • Environme- (environmental • Energy efficiency (36.5)
• Materials (11) Indoor environ- solid waste (10) • Water conserva-
ogy (5.4) ntal loadings load) : L1 (energy), (28)
mental quality • • Energy: tion and man-
• Waste (7) • Emissions and (25.2) L2 (resources and
Emission (12.8) (13.64) • Building materials renewable (7.7) agement (15)
• effluents (7) materials), L3 (off-
Land use and

04019004-4
• Innovation (3.4) • • Indoor envi- and resources •
Innovation in • Indoor environ- site environment) Recycle, • Solid waste
ecology (9) ronment (16)
design (5.45) ment (20) • recharge, and management
• Pollution (9) quality (21) Built environment
• Regional priority • Indoor environ- reuse of water (12)
• Service efficiency (BEE) =
• Innovation (9) (3.64) mental quality (6.7) • Other measures
quality Q/L
(12) • Waste manage-

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

• (8)
(15.1) Life-cycle CO2 • Innovation and ment (4.8)
• Social and assessment of
development (7) • Building operation
economic building during
construction and and maintenance
aspects (5) (1.9)
operation stage is
• Cultural and •
carried out Innovation (3.9)
perceptual
aspects (5)
References BREEAM (2011); Kibert (2013) LEED (2015); Kibert Kibert (2013) iiSBE (2012) JSBC and IBEC (2014) IGBC (2011) GRIHA (2007, 2014) IIEC (2006)
Kibert (2013) (2013)

J. Archit. Eng.

Adopting 9 green building components and
34 attributes from Vyas and Jha (2016) as
shown in Fig. 1
Establishing combined matrix for 9
components
Determining priority vector, consistency
index, and consistency ratio
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Computing weight for 9 components using the
AHP
Applying fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals
to 34 attributes
Applying weighted sum method (WSM) for
developing Green Building Index (GBI)
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the research method.
Low-impact construction is an approach to land development (or
redevelopment) that works with nature to manage stormwater as
close to its source as possible (Vyas and Jha 2016). Minimizing the
onsite processing of building components by incorporating prefab-
rication and precast construction techniques helps to reduce air,
noise, and soil pollution.
Vyas and Jha (2016) conducted a questionnaire survey of green
building experts in India and performed a PCA of the results. The
PCA determined the important attributes to be used in the newly
developed rating system. Although such attributes as the housing
density (number of units/area), onsite processes, geographical and
climatic conditions, social and cultural aspects of the region, and
fire risk were also considered in the initial questionnaire, these
attributes were not found prominent based on experts’ judgment
and the PCA analysis. Hence, these were omitted from subsequent
analysis.
Questionnaire Design for the Computation of Weights
by the AHP and Fuzzy Measures
Based on the nine components and 34 attributes described previ-
ously, a questionnaire was developed to elicit the responses of green
building experts to obtain their weights. For this, a questionnaire
survey was adopted because the participating green building experts
were situated in distant locations throughout the country.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts: Part 1 pertained to the
determination of weight using the AHP, and Part 2 elicited
responses for the application of fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals.
The Part 1 questionnaire for the AHP was designed to elicit
responses from Indian green building experts for the computation
of relative weights for different green components on Saaty’s
(1986) 9-point scale, where 1 = equally important, 3 = moderately
more important, 5 = strongly more important, 7 = very strongly
more important, and 9 = extremely important. Experts were also
allowed to judge the criteria using intermediate (in between) terms
(i.e., 2, 4, and 6). However, no respondents used these intermediate
terms.
In Part 2 of the questionnaire, questions on 34 attributes were
designed on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = extremely
© ASCE
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004
unimportant to 7 = extremely important. The respondents were
asked to evaluate the performance and the importance of the attrib-
utes using this scale.
The respondents included field experts having an average expe-
rience of 11 years in green construction in India, and hence their
opinions are of great importance. The average experience of the
respondent is the average of the experiences of all respondents
working on green building specialization. The respondents
included IGBC-accredited professionals (IGBC-AP designation)
and GRIHA evaluators who have worked on at least five green
building sites and academicians and students pursuing their post-
graduate and Ph.D. programs who have completed a minimum of
two courses on sustainability.
Out of 110 questionnaires sent, 44 responses were received.
However, two responses were eliminated because of inadequate
completion, and thus 42 valid responses in total were available for
the analysis.
Computing the Weights of the Nine Components by
the AHP
The study determined the weight of each component of the green
building using the AHP because it offers a number of advantages
over conventional approaches, such as entropy, mean, and weighted
mean. The conventional approaches provide a set of systematic
steps for problem solving without involving the relationships
among the components, but AHP uses pairwise comparisons among
the decision components, and hence decision makers achieve the
desired goal in an enhanced way, incorporating a group consensus
(Saaty 1986). Although there are certain limitations of the AHP,
they have been addressed in this study. For example, the problem of
rank reversal does not apply to this study because all nine compo-
nents were considered for analysis. Similarly, the problem of incon-
sistency was avoided by using the geometric mean, in which a more
consistent respondent is given higher weight, but a response with
inconsistency is not ignored altogether. The study used the method-
ology adopted by Wakchaure and Jha (2012). Finally, the third limi-
tation, which is the variation in verbal expressions from one person
to another and their dependence on the type of elements involved in
the comparison, was eliminated by consulting only those green
building experts who had completed the first round of the survey.
The AHP was used to prioritize parameters based on different crite-
ria to obtain the output. The AHP helps the decision maker to sense
the depth of the problem by giving an indication of values that can
be considered as low, high, or medium, and it avoids a biased
approach (Vaidya and Kumar 2006; Wakchaure and Jha 2012).
Therefore, the AHP is appropriate for this kind of problem because
the nine first-level green building rating components are independ-
ent and expert judgment is involved in the process. When multiple
experts (in this study, 42, as mentioned earlier) judge the same crite-
ria, there are chances that responses of some respondents might
exceed the consistency ratio beyond 0.1. Under such situations, the
best way is to approach such respondents again and request a revi-
sion in their responses. Needless to say, this is a time-consuming
process, and there is no guarantee that the revised consistency ratio
will be less than 0.1. Some researchers (Vaidya and Kumar 2006;
Ding 2008; Ali and Al Nsairat 2009; Bhatt and Macwan 2012) also
recommend combining all the responses by their geometric mean
and finding out the weights. Although using the geometric mean
ensures that the consistency ratio of the combined responses
becomes less than 0.1, Saaty (1986) does not approve of this. Saaty
recommends considering all responses irrespective of their consis-
tency ratio and further recommends that responses with low consis-
tency ratio should be given more weight in the analysis, whereas
04019004-5 J. Archit. Eng.
 responses with a high consistency ratio should be given lower
weight (Wakchaure and Jha 2012).
The step-by-step procedure for determining the evaluation crite-
ria weights by the AHP is as follows:
• Step 1: Develop a hierarchical model for the calculation of
weight for the components. A hierarchical model for the AHP at
the component level (nine components) is provided in Fig. 1.
• Step 2: Construct pairwise comparison matrices for each
response among all the components in the extent of the hierar-
chy system. A pairwise comparison matrix for each response
is constructed as presented in Eq. (1), where x12–x1n are the
responses of respondents 1 to n.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
weights of the nine components by the AHP, it necessary to deter-
mine the relative importance of attributes and to integrate them.
Because the attributes are interdependent, l -fuzzy measures and
fuzzy integrals were employed to decide and evaluate the relative
importance of attributes under each green building component
(Banon 1981; Patel and Jha 2017). The steps performed for l -fuzzy
measures and fuzzy integral are explained as follows (Patel and Jha
2017):
• Step 1: Define the membership functions of fuzzy linguistic
sets. As mentioned earlier, in the real evaluation process,
respondents were asked to evaluate the performance and the
importance of the attributes on a 7-point scale. Accordingly,

2 3 linguistic variables for Xij (linguistic evaluation value of jth

1 x12 … x1n
6 7 component for ith attribute of green building rating system
6 1=x12 1    x2n 7 for a given new construction building project) and Wij (lin-
6 7
A¼ 6 6 .. .. ..
7
.. 7 (1) guistic weight value of jth component for ith attribute of the
6 . . . . 7 green building rating system) and their membership functions
4 5
were defined as consisting of seven elements, described later
1=x1n 1=x2n    1 in the article. The symmetrical trapezoidal-shaped member-
ship functions, which are used most often, were employed in
• Step 3: Calculate priority vectors. A priority vector or a rela-
this study.
tive weight for each respondent is calculated as the row • Step 2: Aggregate fuzzy values of both attributes and weights.
average.
Saaty (1986) recommends the use of the geometric mean for
• Step 4: Determine the maximum eigenvalue l max. The eigen-
the synthesis of judgments. According to the linguistic values
value is calculated as
defined in Step 1, after taking the geometric mean of the k
X
λmax ¼ total of column  relative weight (2) (number of respondents) values, the fuzzy evaluation value of
the jth component for the ith attribute, f Xij , and the fuzzy
weight value of the jth component for ith attribute, W fij ; are
• Step 5: Calculate consistency index and consistency ratio. A
computed following Eqs. (6) and (7).
consistency index (CI) is calculated for each of the nine com-
ponents using Eq. (3). fij ¼ ðXij  Xij2      Xijk Þ1k
X (6)
ðλmax  M Þ
CI ¼ (3)
ðM  1Þ fij ¼ ðWij  Wij2      Wijk Þ1=k
W (7)
where M = number of components. The consistency ratio (CR)
is obtained using Eq. (4). • Step 3: Conduct defuzzification. Delgado et al. (1998) recom-
mend using multiple transformation functions for defuzzifica-
CI
CR ¼ (4) tion. In this study, three methods were used to obtain the
RI defuzzification
 value
 (Patel and Jha 2017): (1) distance meas- 
where RI = random index obtained by Saaty’s table (Saaty and e
urement M1 W ij (Chen 2000), (2) central value M2 W e ij
Kearns 1985). (Delgadoet al.
• Step 6: Prepare a combined matrix by synthesizing the 42  1998), and (3) center of gravity (center of
area) M3 We ij .
responses based on the consistency ratio of the 42 responses.      
A combined matrix is prepared based on the 42 responses. The mean of M1 W e ij ; M2 We ij , M3 W e ij is the final
 
Assuming a comparison between the components i and j, a cell defuzzification number M W e ij given in Eq. (8).
entry rij in the combined matrix is derived based on Eq. (5).
h i w þw þw1 þ…þw
     
  e ij þ M2 W
M1 W e ij þ M3 W
e ij
rij ¼ xw1ij1  xw2ij2  xw3ij3      xwnijn ð 1 2 3 nÞ
(5) e ij ¼
M W (8)
3
where x1ij , x2ij , ..., xnij are the cell values given by respondents
• Step 4: Compute fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral. The
R1, R2, ..., Rn, respectively, while comparing the ith component
with the jth; and the terms w1 ; w2 ; …; wn are the priority l -fuzzy measure can be computed by using Eq. (9). For
weights derived from subtracting the respective consistency gðX Þ ¼ 1, this is as follows:
ratios from 1 for the respondents R1, R2, ..., Rn (Wakchaure and Y
n
Jha 2012). λþ1¼ ð1 þ λgi Þ (9)
• Step 7: Calculate the priority vector, l max, CI, and CR for the i¼1
combined matrix. These are calculated as explained earlier.
One can refer to Patel and Jha (2017) for the derivation of
Applying Fuzzy Measures and Fuzzy Integrals on Eq. (9).
34 Attributes Hence, if the fuzzy densities are known, gi, for i = 1,2, …,

n, the l -fuzzy measure can be constructed. For gij ¼ S W e ij ,
The study used l -fuzzy measures and integrals (Sugeno 1974) to
evaluate the attributes of each component. After determining the this is as follows:

© ASCE 04019004-6 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

  
 l h  i  Measurement of Green Building Components at the

e i1 ; X
e i2 ; …; X
e il
 1 Y 
e ij  1
gλ ¼ X ¼  1 þ λS W  Second Level of the Hierarchy Using AHP
λ  j¼1 
As mentioned earlier, a seven-step procedure was used to calculate
(10) the weights of the second level of the GBI using AHP. As suggested
      h i   in the seven-step procedure, the CRs for the respondents R1, R2, ...,
e ij ¼S X
Suppose h X e ij . If S X
e il >S Xe iðl1Þ >…> S X
e i1 ; R42 were calculated, and it was found that for some of the respond-
then the fuzzy integral can be computed using Eq. (11). ents, the CR exceeded the limit of 0.1.
n  h io Thus, in line with Saaty’s (1986) recommendation as explained

~ i1 ; X
hi ¼ hðXij Þ gλ X ~ i2 ; …; X
~ il  gλ X~ i1 ; X
~ i2 ; …; X
~ iðl1Þ þ    earlier, a combined matrix of 42 respondents (R1, R2, ..., R42) was
h i prepared following Eq. (5). For illustration, in comparing the com-
þ hðXi1 Þgλ X~ iðl1Þ ¼ gλ ðXil ÞfhðXil Þ  h Xiðl1Þ
g þ    ponents EN (environment) and SS (site selection), the response
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

  given by the respondents R1, R2, R3, ..., R42 were 7, 1, 6, ..., 2,
~ i1 hðXi1 Þ
þ gλ X (11) respectively. The CR of the respondents R1, R2, R3, ..., R42 were
computed to be 0.7271, 0.2698, 0.3455, ..., 0.0935, respectively.
Thus, the cell entry in the combined matrix provided in Table 2
Applying WSM for Developing GBI is given by
1
The WSM is the simplest but most widely used MADM method. Xij ¼ ½7w1  1w2  6w3      2wn ðw1 þw2 þw3 þþwn Þ
The MADM is especially suitable for the design/planning aspect,
which aims to achieve the optimal goals by considering the various ¼ ½30:2729  50:7302  70:6545
interactions within the given constraints (Tzeng and Huang 2011). 1
Each building project is assessed with reference to every green at-      20:9065 0:2729 þ 0:7302 þ 0:6545þþ0:9065
tribute. In this way, the overall or composite performance score of
the project is calculated using Eq. (12). ¼ 1:246
Xn
Pi ¼ j¼1
Wj ðhij Þnormal (12) where w1, w2, and w3 are priority weights obtained by 1 – CR. In a
similar manner, all the cell elements of Table 2 were obtained. The
where Wj = weight of component; and (hij)normal = h index obtained normalization matrix and weight of the nine green building compo-
from the fuzzy integral. nents are provided in Table 3.

Illustration of Measurement Measurement of Green Building Attributes at the Third

Level of the Hierarchy Using Fuzzy Measure and Fuzzy
To compute the composite performance score of the project, the Integral
evaluation procedure proceeds from Level 3 (attributes) to Level 1 To illustrate the measurement of attributes at the third level of the
(GBI), as presented in Fig. 1. hierarchy, one of the green building components, building resource
and reuse (BRR), is explained here. This component has five attrib-
Table 2. Combined matrix utes, (1) material recycle (BRR1), (2) water recycle (BRR2), (3)
SS EN BRR BSM ICT EHS MS IAQ EO
locally available material (BRR3), (4) innovative water reduction
technologies (BRR4), and (5) water-efficient landscape (BRR5), as
SS 1.000 0.801 0.947 0.986 0.847 0.588 1.438 0.774 0.459 presented in Fig. 1. The procedure consisted of four steps.
EN 1.246 1.000 1.030 2.051 1.490 0.503 1.716 0.942 0.855 In Step 1, respondents were asked to weigh the importance of
BRR 1.054 0.971 1.000 1.482 0.791 0.401 1.687 0.612 0.649 the 34 attributes on a 7-point scale, from extremely unimportant
BSM 1.012 0.488 0.679 1.000 1.122 0.459 2.004 0.580 0.512 (EUI) to extremely important (EI), as presented in Table 4.
ICT 1.180 0.674 1.265 0.890 1.000 0.972 1.024 0.677 0.552 For example, the responses of one respondent were (EI, LI, N,
EHS 1.695 1.986 2.491 2.239 0.960 1.000 3.303 1.010 0.868 LUI, EUI). The respective fuzzy values would thus be (0.85, 0.90,
MS 0.695 0.582 0.593 0.500 0.974 0.302 1.000 0.409 0.499 1.00, 1.00), (0.55, 0.60, 0.70, 0.75), (0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60), (0.25,
IAQ 1.287 1.060 1.642 1.725 1.477 0.987 2.450 1.000 0.878 0.30, 0.40, 0.45), and (0.00, 0.00, 0.10, 0.15), as presented in
EO 2.177 1.140 1.541 1.842 1.814 1.118 2.000 1.142 1.000
Table 4.

Table 3. Normalized matrix

SS EN BRR BSM ICT EHS MS IAQ EO Relative weight = row average Weight (%)
SS 0.088 0.092 0.085 0.078 0.081 0.093 0.086 0.108 0.073 0.087 8.713
EN 0.110 0.115 0.092 0.161 0.142 0.079 0.103 0.132 0.136 0.119 11.903
BRR 0.093 0.112 0.089 0.117 0.075 0.063 0.102 0.086 0.103 0.093 9.332
BSM 0.089 0.056 0.061 0.079 0.107 0.073 0.121 0.081 0.082 0.083 8.306
ICT 0.104 0.077 0.113 0.070 0.095 0.154 0.062 0.095 0.088 0.095 9.533
EHS 0.149 0.228 0.223 0.176 0.092 0.158 0.199 0.141 0.138 0.167 16.716
MS 0.061 0.067 0.053 0.039 0.093 0.048 0.060 0.057 0.079 0.062 6.200
IAQ 0.113 0.122 0.147 0.136 0.141 0.156 0.147 0.140 0.140 0.138 13.800
EO 0.192 0.131 0.138 0.145 0.173 0.177 0.120 0.160 0.159 0.155 15.497

© ASCE 04019004-7 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

 Table 4. Linguistic values of wij and xij and their membership functions GBIi ¼ h1  W1 þ h2  W2 þ    þ h9  W9 (13)
wij xi Membership function
Extremely unimportant Extremely poor (EP) (0.00, 0.00, 0.10, 0.15) GBIi ¼ h1  0:073 þ h2  0:094 þ h3  0:094 þ h4  0:082
(EUI) þ h5  0:092 þ h6  0:165 þ h7  0:056 þ h8
Very unimportant (VUI) Very poor (VP) (0.10, 0.15, 0.25, 0.30)
Little unimportance Little poor (LP) (0.25, 0.30, 0.40, 0.45)  0:144 þ h9  0:197
(LUI)
Neutral (N) Neutral (N) (0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60) For illustrating the GBI, the case of an institutional building in
Little importance (LI) Little good (LG) (0.55, 0.60, 0.70, 0.75) India in a hot and dry climate was considered for the different green
Very important (VI) Very good (VG) (0.70, 0.75, 0.85, 0.90)
building attributes in linguistic terms and entered into a Java pro-
Extremely important (EI) Extremely good (EG) (0.85, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In Step 2, by accumulating the 42 evaluation values, the fuzzy
linguistic values of BRR can be obtained. Afterward, their corre-
sponding defuzzification values can be computed in Step 3. Thus,
the fuzzy linguistic values of the five attributes (from BRR1 to
BRR5) were defuzzified and determined as 0.7173, 0.7505, 0.6748,
0.7309, and 0.6867, respectively. In Step 4, the value of l is
obtained using Eq. (9), as follows:
1 þ λ ¼ ð1 þ 0:7173Þð1 þ 0:7505Þð1 þ 0:6748Þ
ð1 þ 0:7309Þð1 ¼ 0:6867Þ; thus λ ¼ 0:998
For a given project, the values of the five attributes in descending
order are as follows: h(BRR2) > h(BRR4) > h(BRR1) > h(BRR5) >
h(BRR3). According to Eq. (10), the fuzzy measure for BRR can be
obtained as follows:
gλðx1 Þ ¼ 0:7505; gλðx1 ; x2 Þ ¼ 0:7505 þ 0:7309
þ ð0:998Þ ð0:7505Þ ð0:7309Þ ¼ 0:9338
gλðx1 ; x2 ; x3 Þ ¼ 0:9338 þ 0:7173 þ ð0:998Þ ð0:9338Þ ð0:7173Þ
¼ 0:9823
gλ ðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 Þ ¼ 0:9823 þ 0:6867
þ ð0:998Þ ð0:9823Þ ð0:6867Þ ¼ 0:9953
gλðx1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ; x5 Þ ¼ 0:9953 þ 0:6748
þ ð0:998Þ ð0:9953Þ ð0:6748Þ ¼ 1
Using Eq. (11), the value for BRR can be computed as follows:
hðBRRÞ ¼ hðBRR2 Þ  1 þ ½hðBRR2 Þ  hðBRR4 Þ  0:9953
þ ½hðBRR4 Þ  hðBRR1 Þ  0:9823
is the second stage after establishing the components. This tool can
þ hðBRR1 Þ  hðBRR5 Þ  0:9338
þ ½hðBRR5 Þ  hðBRR3 Þ  0:7505
Similarly, the other data can easily be computed using MATLAB
or Microsoft Excel. The l s of the remaining greenness components
were calculated and obtained as follows: (1) SS = –0.999, (2) EN =
–0.999, (3) BSM = –0.992, (4) IC = –0.938, (5) EHS = –0.767,
(6) IAQ = –0.868, and (7) EC = –0.878.
Measurement of GBI at First Level of the Hierarchy
Using WSM
Finally, at the first level of the hierarchy, the GBI can be calculated
by applying the WSM, and thus the following formula is obtained:
gram. The GBI values for 21 Indian green buildings (certified by ei-
ther the GRIHA or IGBC) were calculated, and the results were
compared. The case study is discussed in later in the article.
Result and Discussions
The major motivation for launching and operating environmental
assessment methods is to promote energy efficiency and reduce car-
bon emissions (Lee and Burnett 2008). For example, both BREEAM
and LEED focus on these two factors (Alyami and Rezgui 2012;
Poveda and Young 2015; Darko et al. 2017). This is probably attribut-
able to the fact that the consumption of fossil fuels contributes to
numerous negative environmental phenomena, such as pollution, acid
rain, erosion, and elevated concentrations of greenhouse gas emis-
sions in the atmosphere (Dasgupta et al. 2014). Therefore, this issue
has been given top priority in the area of sustainable development and
green building principles (Berardi 2012; Cole and Valdebenito 2013).
However, certain essential factors require customization to suit the
Indian context, including (1) the adaptation of green building rating
components and attributes and (2) the development of an appropriate
weighting system. The multiple consultation stages during response
collection and interviews of experts were crucial in verifying the
applicability of selected building assessment categories and criteria.
This consultation process was a powerful method to engage with the
built environment because the complexity of this field cannot be con-
solidated by the use of a single tool. Expertise contribution, using the
human capability for synthesizing various factors on common
ground, is therefore the only method of forming a comprehensive and
coherent assessment system. Human judgment can also be converted
into mathematical form and used more accurately in the evaluation of
certain specific circumstances through the use of AHP and fuzzy inte-
grals. Therefore, the development of the GBI used this technique in
the delivery of an applicable weighting system, which is at the core of
the correct functioning of the assessment method.
Developing a green building weighting system of attributes is
considered a necessary stage for developing assessment tools. This
define the importance of each attribute according to the local con-
text within which the tool is developed. In this study, the AHP
method was used to determine the weights of components accord-
ing to participants’ responses. Environmental health and safety was
ranked as the most important assessment category, with a relative
share of 16.716%. The components of economy and indoor air qual-
ity had a share of 15.497 and 13.800%, respectively, in the total cer-
tification. Ali and Al Nsairat (2009) developed a rating system for
Jordan (a developing country) and found that the main categories
were site (10.3%), energy efficiency (23.0%), water efficiency
(27.7%), material and resources (10.3%), indoor environmental
quality (11.8%), waste and pollution (6.4%), and economics
(10.0%). In comparing the results of this study, it is found that the
results obtained are reasonable (Ali and Al Nsairat 2009). The

© ASCE 04019004-8 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

 process of designing a green building assessment tool rests on con-
textual information about the major branches that make up the
building among the local context of environmental, social, cultural,
and economic aspects. In addition, it must be initiated using a sys-
tematic process, based on reviewing and analyzing practical inter-
national assessment systems. The proposed green building rating
system for new construction is based on focusing on following com-
ponents: site selection, environment, building resources and reuse,
building services and management, innovative construction techni-
ques, environmental health and safety, mechanical systems, indoor
air quality, and economy. Each component is defined by a number
of attributes. Each attribute is defined by parameters.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
After reviewing the results, the final framework of the system
was determined; it is composed of nine components, 34 attributes,
and 68 parameters. These attributes and parameters are given in
Appendix S1. Finally, this framework was translated into an assess-
ment system that identifies the green rating of a building in terms of
the assessment items.
The assessment system is classified as a criteria-based tool,
which is defined as a system of assigning relative points to a
selected number of attributes on a certain scale consisting of five
levels: five green leaves, four green leaves, three green leaves, two
green leaves, and one green leaf. The system includes the new con-
struction of the building and its nearby environment. The proposed
system can be implemented at the initial stage of construction. This
system defines economic, social, and environmental aspects of sus-
tainability. These assessment items are classified in different hier-
archical levels: category level, component level, attribute level, and
parameter level. A Java program was developed to calculate the
GBI, which represents the overall level of greenness of a building.
In the developed program, a user has to enter the attribute data in
linguistic terms, and the program will automatically give an overall
green rating of the building, making this rating system very simple
and easy to use.
Even though the development in this study is based on data col-
lected from the Indian construction industry, the methodology
would suggest much broader geographical applicability; the system
can be applied to develop a GBI for international use using a similar
analysis.
Guidelines/Recommendations for Computing the GBI
As presented in Appendix S1, each component is defined by a num-
ber of attributes. To measure each attribute, the relevant parameters
were identified. The parameters of each attribute were decided
based on existing literature and opinions of practitioners. The value
of each parameter was determined based on Indian standards and
international standards, as indicated in Appendix S1.
From the case study data, the attribute development on brown-
field/gray field/black field was determined to have three relevant pa-
rameters: (1) brownfield redevelopment, (2) gray-field (underused
building area) redevelopment, and (3) black-field (blighted urban
area) redevelopment (Appendix S1). The answer to each of these
parameters is to be provided by the assessor in terms of yes/no/not
applicable. A yes response would be considered extremely good
(EG), whereas a no response would be considered extremely poor
(EP) (Appendix S1). In the case of a not applicable response, the at-
tribute will not be considered in the rating system.
Similarly, the attribute loss of habitat is measured by one param-
eter: construction on prohibited land (Appendix S1). Its actual mea-
surement is very difficult. The assessor will measure this parameter
in terms of yes/no/not applicable. If the response is no, the EG con-
dition as per Appendix S1 would be considered, and if the response
© ASCE 04019004-9
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004
is yes, then EP will be considered. The answer no will be consid-
ered only when the construction is not on land that is specifically
identified as a habitat for any species on the endangered list of
the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). Here also, for the not appli-
cable response, the attribute will not be considered in the rating
system.
For the attribute heat-island effect, the parameters measured
include heat-island effect—roof and heat-island effect—nonroof.
The parameter heat-island effect—roof depends on the solar reflec-
tance index (SRI) of the roof surface, and its value is determined
from ASTM-C 1371 (ASTM 2015). The parameter heat-island
effect—roof is measured on a fuzzy scale considering the values of
the SRI, as follows: (1) EG if the range of SRI is 71–100%, (2) VG
if the range of SRI is 60–70%, (3) G if the SRI range is 50–59%, (4)
N if the SRI range is 45–49%, (5) LP if the SRI range is 35–44%,
(6) VP if the SRI range is 30–34%, and (7) EP if the SRI range is 25
–29%. For the parameter heat-island effect—nonroof, the suggested
green building measures are (1) providing shade/using light-
colored material (minimum reflectance 0.3)/open grid (minimum
30%) of nonroof impervious area including parking, walkway, and
so forth; (2) placing at least 50% of parking spaces underground or
covered by structured parking and/or; (3) using an open-grid pave-
ment system (less than 50% impervious) for a minimum of 50% of
the parking lot area. The green building assessor has to enter the
combined percentage of measures, as follows: EG if the range is 71
–100%, VG for 50–70%, G for 45–49%, N for 10–45%, LP for 31–
35%, VP for 26–30%, and EP for 20–25%.
The measurement scale for 68 parameters is provided in
Appendix S1. It may be noted that the certification standard is based
on the addition of points for each of the items of the assessment sys-
tem. When all favorable conditions and maximum possible values
for each parameter are considered, a maximum score of 0.76 is
obtained for the GBI. This is because the GBI is developed by using
fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals. Five performance levels are
considered: five green leaves (0.76–0.61), four green leaves (0.55–
0.60), three green leaves (0.47–0.54), two green leaves (0.39–0.46),
and one green leaf (<0.39), as presented in Fig. 3.
One green leaf does not meet the criteria of a green building
according to the proposed system. The categorization criteria of the
greenness levels were based on the analyses of the developed rating
systems, such as the GRIHA, IGBC, and Eco-Housing systems.
It should also be pointed out that certain attributes, such as
greenhouse gas emissions and loss of habitat, are difficult to quan-
tify in terms of cost, so these were omitted from the cost analysis.
To make the GBI easy to implement by prospective users, a Java
program was developed. Java is a preferred computer programming
language for making an easy-to-use interface. A flowchart of the
Java-based program is given in Fig. 4.
As mentioned earlier, in the developed program, users are sup-
posed to give their feedback on all 68 parameters in terms yes/no/
not applicable or in terms of some quantitative value.
Once these inputs are provided, the program directly gives the
GBI value based on the predefined weights of components and
attributes. A typical snapshot of the Java-based computer program
for the site-selection component is provided in Fig. 5. The program
similarly considers the other components and their related attributes
and parameters.
The Java program developed in this study for the computation
of the GBI is user-friendly, and different stakeholders will find it
transparent, customizable, and logical to use. The GBI derived
from the detailed analysis in this study is recommended for cal-
culating the greenness of a building. The drop-down boxes pro-
vided in the program for different options are based on national
J. Archit. Eng.
 GBI Rating Benchmark

Five green leaves 61 to 75

Four green leaves 55 to 60

Three green 47 to 54
leaves
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Two green leaves 39 to 46

One green leaf < 38

Fig. 3. Certification criteria in the newly developed rating system.

Comparison of Newly Developed Rating System with

Start Existing Indian Rating Systems

The newly developed rating system was compared with 21 IGBC-

Input values from user in the form
of radio buttons or input numbers
Are input values
in the range?
Yes
Multiply the values corresponding
to fuzzy number.
Defuzzify the values
Multiply the sum with
corresponding AHP weight
Add all values to get GBI
Fig. 4. Flowchart for the development of Java-based GBI.
and/or GRIHA-rated buildings. Out of these buildings, it was found
that there are nine 5-star- or platinum-rated buildings, five 4-star- or
gold-rated buildings, two 3-star- or silver-rated buildings, and five
2-star-rated buildings. When these buildings were evaluated using
the proposed rating system, a total of nine buildings obtained 5
No Go to the next leaves, three buildings obtained 4 leaves, four buildings obtained 3
condition for leaves, three buildings obtained 2 leaves, and two buildings
ranges obtained 1 leaf. It was observed that for some buildings, the green
rating decreased because these were originally rated 4–5 years ago.
This shows that IGBC and GRIHA rating systems and the newly
developed green building rating system are closely correlated
because they give similar results. However, the new rating system
is easier for stakeholders to understand because it uses linguistic
terms and gives the immediate status of the green certification of the
building.
Table 5 provides a comparison of the newly developed green
building rating system and other Indian green building rating sys-
tems. In the newly developed rating system, the economy has a
weight of 15.497%, but the other rating systems, except the one
developed by Ali and Al Nsairat (2009), do not include this compo-
nent. Whereas the Eco-Housing, IGBC, and GRIHA systems
resulted in values of 14, 14, and 17% weights, respectively, for the
site-selection component, the newly developed rating system
resulted in a weight of 8.713%. Other points of differences among
the four rating systems are as presented in Table 5.

Summary and Conclusions

and international codes. A prospective user should select the
appropriate option to calculate a realistic GBI. The GBI should
be calculated and reviewed at various stages of green building
projects (e.g., planning, designing, construction, operation and
maintenance).
When all data pertaining to a building are entered into the Java
program, the final outcome is obtained in terms of the number of
green leaves. Most of the green building experts opined that the sug-
gested criteria for assessing green buildings are comprehensive, ef-
ficient, and appropriate for India.
The proposed assessment framework consists of nine components,
34 attributes, and 68 parameters to develop a green rating system
for new building construction. Site selection, environment, building
resources and reuse, building services and management, innovative
construction techniques, environmental health and safety, mechani-
cal systems, indoor air quality, and economy are considered as the
nine components. The parameters of each attribute were determined
based on existing literature and the expert opinions of practitioners.
Attributes and components were determined with the help of PCA

© ASCE 04019004-10 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Snapshot of the site-selection component with attributes and their parameters.

Table 5. Comparison of newly developed rating system with Eco- consumption (e.g., water and energy), construction materials,
Housing, IGBC, and GRIHA government policy and regulation, BIM, and public awareness,
among others.
Rating system The system proposed in this study can produce noteworthy bene-
Newly developed fits that are not likely to result from standard practices; in addition,
rating system Eco-Housing IGBC GRIHA it will enhance social and economic impacts rather than merely con-
Component (%) (%) (%) (%) centrating on the more conventional approach of minimizing the
Sustainable site 7.34 14 14 17 environmental impact. If sustainable decisions are made from pre-
Environment 9.45 14 19 10 design to the operation stage through demolition, many of the nega-
Building resources 9.43 10 16 8 tive outcomes can potentially be prevented or reduced. Such a com-
and reuse prehensive tool will help in ensuring a building is more sustainable
Building services 8.25 10 15 6 and environmentally adaptive. The scientific approach, multidisci-
and management plinary stakeholder knowledge, and rich practitioner experiences
Innovative con- 9.25 2 7 5 have been used in developing the new green building rating system.
struction techniques This study proposes a number of recommendations for the develop-
Environmental 16.50 20 15 11 ment of a green building rating system. In general, the development
health and safety of such an assessment framework should be grounded in technical
Mechanical 5.61 6 2 8 knowledge and scientific research. Multidisciplinary green building
systems stakeholders should contribute to the development of such an
Indoor air quality 14.46 24 12 35 approach because it requires active participation and a collaborative
Economy 19.71 0 0 0 process. The main aim should be strategies and goals for sustain-
ability. The assessment framework should include the local context
of the country, depending on its culture, issues, players, practices,
in a previous study. In this study, the weights of each component and institutions. Thus, it will be vital for each country to propose its
and attribute were calculated using the AHP (for the second level) own attributes in its own way to serve its shared objectives.
and fuzzy integrals (for the third level), respectively. In this system,
each attribute is evaluated based on its respective parameters, and
each component is evaluated based on its attributes. Finally, the Acknowledgments
GBI is computed using the WSM at the top level of the framework.
The GBI represents the greenness of the building for new construc- The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the green
tion. Thus, a new rating system has been developed, and it possesses building experts who participated in the survey.
some useful features.
The newly developed green building assessment tool also
considers and includes environmental attributes, such as cli- Supplemental Data
matic conditions, geographical characteristics, cultural aspects,
economic attributes (e.g., cost of investment and operation and Appendix S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www.
maintenance costs), embodied water for construction, resource ascelibrary.org).

© ASCE 04019004-11 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004

 References
Ahmad, T., and M. J. Thaheem. 2018. “Economic sustainability assessment
of residential buildings: A dedicated assessment framework and impli-
cations for BIM.” Sustainable Cities Soc. 38: 476–491.
Al Khalil, M. I. 2002. “Selecting the appropriate project delivery method
using AHP.” Int. J. Project Manage. 20 (6): 469–474. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0263-7863(01)00032-1.
Ali, H. H., and S. F. Al Nsairat. 2009. “Developing a green building assess-
ment tool for developing countries—Case of Jordan.” Build. Environ.
44 (5): 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.015.
Alyami, S. H., and Y. Rezgui. 2012. “Sustainable building assessment tool
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 02/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
development approach.” Sustainable Cities Soc. 5: 52–62. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.004.
ASTM. 2015. Standard test method for determination of emittance of mate-
rials near room temperature using portable emissometers. ASTM-C
1371. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Banon, G. 1981. “Distinction between several subsets of fuzzy meas-
ures.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 5 (3): 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165
-0114(81)90057-9.
Berardi, U. 2012. “Sustainability assessment in the construction sector:
Rating systems and rated buildings.” Sustainable Dev. 20 (6): 411–424.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.532.
Bhatt, R., and J. E. M. Macwan. 2012. “Global weights of parameters for
sustainable buildings from consultants’ perspectives in Indian context.”
J. Archit. Eng. 18 (3): 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE
.1943-5568.0000069.
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method). 2011. “New construction rating system.” Accessed
July 21, 2014. https://www.breeam.com/discover/technical-standards
/newconstruction/.
Chang, C. W. 2014. “Develop a ranking algorithm for the green building
project.” Qual. Quantity 48 (2): 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11135-012-9812-2.
Chang, K. F., C. M. Chiang, and P. C. Chou. 2007. “Adapting aspects of
GBTool 2005—Searching for suitability in Taiwan.” Build. Environ. 42
(1): 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.015.
Chen, C. T. 2000. “Extension of the TOPSIS for group decision-making
under fuzzy environment.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1.
CIDC (Construction Industry Development Council). 2014. “Country
Report India.” In Proc., 22nd Asia Construct Conference, 15–16. New
Delhi, India: CIDC.
Cole, R. J. 1998. “Emerging trends in building environmental assessment
methods.” Build. Res. Inf. 26 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080
/096132198370065.
Cole, R. J., and M. J. Valdebenito. 2013. “The importation of building envi-
ronmental certification systems: International usages of BREEAM and
LEED.” Build. Res. Inf. 41 (6): 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09613218.2013.802115.
Cooper, I. 2002. “Transgressing discipline boundaries: Is BEQUEST an
example of 'The new production of knowledge'?” Build. Res. Inf. 30 (2):
116–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132102753436495.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2009. Status of water supply,
wastewater generation and treatment in class I cities and class II towns
of India. Rep. No. Cups/70/20090-10. New Delhi, India: CPCB.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2015. “Annual review 2015–16.”
Accessed March 6, 2015. http://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/MSW
_AnnualReport_2015-16.pdf.
Crawley, D., and I. Aho. 1999. “Building environmental assessment meth-
ods: Applications and development trends.” Build. Res. Inf. 27 (4–5):
300–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132199369417.
Darko, A., C. Zhang, and A. P. C. Chan. 2017. “Drivers for green building:
A review of empirical studies.” Habitat Int. 60: 34–49. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.007.
Dasgupta, P., J. F. Morton, D. Dodman, B. Karapinar, F. J. Meza, M. G.
Rivera-Ferre, A. T. Sarr, and K. Vincent. 2014. “Part A: Global and sec-
toral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Rep. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In Climate
© ASCE 04019004-12
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(2): 04019004
change 2014: Impact, adaptation, and vulnerability, edited by C. B.
Field et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Delgado, M., F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and L. Martínez. 1998.
“Combining numerical and linguistic information in group decision
making.” Inf. Sci. 107 (1-4): 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020
-0255(97)10044-5.
Ding, G. K. C. 2008. “Sustainable construction—The role of environmental
assessment tools.” J. Environ. Manage. 86 (3): 451–464. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment). 2007. “GRIHA
2007 manual.” Accessed July 21, 2011. http://www.grihaindia.org.
GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment). 2014. “GRIHA
2014 manual.” Accessed September 21, 2011. http://www.grihaindia
.org.
IGBC (Indian Green Building Council). 2011. “IGBC green new build-
ings.” Accessed August 1, 2016. https://igbc.in/igbc/redirectHtml.htm
?redVal=showGreenNewBuildingsnosign.
IIEC (International Institute for Energy Conservation). 2006. Eco-housing
assessment criteria. Mumbai, India: IIEC.
iiSBE (International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment). 2012.
“SBTool. Part A and B.” Accessed August 1, 2013. http://www.iisbe
.org/sbmethod.
JSBC (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium) and IBEC (Institute for
Building Environment and Energy Conservation). 2014. “SCASBEE
new construction manual.” Accessed July 21, 2014. http://www.ibec.or
.jp/CASBEE/english.
Kibert, C. J. 2013. Sustainable construction: Green building design and
delivery. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kohler, N. 1999. “The relevance of green building challenge: An observer’s
perspective.” Build. Res. Inf. 27 (4–5): 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1080
/096132199369426.
Lee, W. L., and J. Burnett. 2008. “Benchmarking energy use assessment of
HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED.” Build. Environ. 43 (11): 1882–
1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.11.007.
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). 2015. “Better
buildings are our legacy.” Accessed August 1, 2013. https://new.usgbc
.org/leed.
Patel, D. A., and K. N. Jha. 2017. “Developing a process to evaluate con-
struction project safety hazard index using the possibility approach in
India.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (1): 04016081. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001205.
Poveda, C. A., and R. Young. 2015. “Potential benefits of developing and
implementing environmental and sustainability rating systems: Making
the case for the need of diversification.” Int. J. Sustainable Built
Environ. 4 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.12.003.
Saaty, L. 1986. “Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The
most livable cities in the United States.” Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 20 (6):
327–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(86)90043-1.
Saaty, T. L., and K. P. Kearns. 1985. International series in modern applied
mathematics and computer science. Vol. 7 of Analytical planning: The
organization of systems. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Sugeno, M. 1974. “Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications.” Ph.D.
thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
Tzeng, G. H., and J. J. Huang. 2011. Multiple attribute decision: Making
methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Vaidya, O. S., and S. Kumar. 2006. “Analytic hierarchy process: An over-
view of applications.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 169 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028.
Vyas, G. S., and K. N. Jha. 2016. “Identification of green building attributes
for development of an assessment tool: Case of India.” Civ. Eng.
Environ. Syst. 33 (4): 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2016
.1247832.
Vyas, G. S., K. N. Jha, and D. A. Patel. 2012. “Development of a framework
for green building rating system.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Const. in
Developing Countries. Greenville, NC: East Carolina Univ.
Wakchaure, S. S., and K. N. Jha. 2012. “Determination of bridge health
index using analytical hierarchy process.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 30
(2): 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.658075.
J. Archit. Eng.