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

net/publication/278244983

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ON SUSTAINABLE RATING TOOLS USED IN ASIAN

COUNTRIES

Conference Paper · May 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 1,455

5 authors, including:

Lizawati Abdullah Norhaslina Jumadi

Universiti Teknologi MARA Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
25 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Huraizah Arshad
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
3 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Musculoskeletal disorder View project

Assessing the green elements in residential property market View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lizawati Abdullah on 07 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jurnal
Full Paper
Teknologi
Article history
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ON SUSTAINABLE RATING Received
20 April 2015
TOOLS USED IN ASIAN COUNTRIES Received in revised form
2015
Lizawati Abdullah*, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Accepted
Arshad, Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy 2015

Department of Estate Management, *Corresponding author

Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, lizaw327@perak.uitm.edu.my
Universiti Teknologi MARA Perak, Malaysia

Graphical abstract Abstract

Sustainable development is important to ensure a balanced consideration of social,
environment and economic needs in the property development sector. To ensure the
success of sustainable development, a strong partnership and unity between all key
players in the development is a must. Under the World Green Building Council (WGBC),
about 80 nationals have been joining them to ensure the continuous development of
green building is enhanced and all the nations moving forward in promoting green
building to replace conventional method of development that harm our environment.
The GBI and GreenRE are the assessment tools used in assessing green building in
Malaysia. Various Asian countries have their own green assessment tools complying with
their current scenarios. However not much literatures were yet discussed. The significant
criteria recognized from the tools including the GreenRE are compiled to which then
analysed to overall identify which criteria owns the most weightage in the green
assessment tool. With immediate actions in current situation for future generation, the
impact of green building industry on environment will be beneficial for all of us and the
variety of green building criteria will ensure that green building development is vital in
producing better living place for all mankind.

Keywords : sustainable, green rating tools, GreenRE

Abstrak
Pembangunan lestari adalah penting untuk membentuk sosial, persekitaran dan
ekonomi yang stabil di dalam sektor pembangunan hartanah. Hubungan yang utuh di
antara kesemua pihak yang terlibat di dalam pembangunan dapat menjadikan
kelestarian itu mencapai kejayaan. Terdapat 80 negara yang telah bergabung tenaga
dibawah World Green Building Council (WBGC) untuk memastikan pembangunan hijau
ini tercapai dengan mengantikan kaedah konvensional dalam pembangunan yang
sebelum ini banyak memberi kesan terhadap persekitaran. Salah satu daripata kaedah
penilaian hijau yang terkini di Malaysia ialah GBI dan GreenRE. Bagi negara Asia,
kaedah penilaian yang diamalkan berbeza-beza mengikut keadaan negara masing-
masing. Walaubagaimanapun masih terdapat jurang pengetahuan pada kaedah
penilaian berkenaan.Oleh itu kesemua ciri-ciri di dalam kaedah penilaian diambil kira
termasuk GreenRE untuk mencapai satu ciri utama yang banyak mempengaruhi
dalam penilaian hijau ini.

Kata kunci: lestari, kaedah penilaian hijau, GreenRE

© 2015 Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved

(2015) | www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | |
2LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sustainable development has been defined as the
development that meets the need of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their needs. Sustainable development is
important in order to ensure a balanced consideration
of social, environment and economic needs in the
housing development sector. To ensure the success of
sustainable development, a strong partnership and
unity between all key players in the development is a
must. The effort to promote sustainable and green
building should not be relied on government only, but
the success factors should be widely enhance by the
industry players including architect, planners,
developers as well as the society.
There is little argument that buildings are contributed
substantially to climate change (Reed and Wilkinson,
2008). This argument is based on the large
environmental footprint of buildings, especially when
taking into consideration the high dependence on
resources due to an increased reliance on air
conditioning and heating (Reed et.l 2009). The
problem therefore lies with how to distinguish the level
of sustainability in a building, which will facilitate a
direct comparison between each building. This is
where sustainability rating tools can potentially play a
major role. As many countries have introduced their
sustainability rating tools nowadays, it is important to
study on how each of the tools will help to increase
the awareness and implementation of sustainable
building.
As a record, the global green building development
started back in 1990s with the introduction of US Green
building Council in 1993 and continues with the well-
known green rating system, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED). As one of the sustainable
assessment tools, green rating system helps to promote
sustainability worldwide. Main agenda of green rating
system is to accredit green building with a certain
standard among sustainable development.
The enforcement and encouragement to sustain the
built environment lead to various countries such as UK
and Australia to create and established their very-own
green rating system. Not leave behind Asian country
such as Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Malaysia.
As a result of the increasing of awareness on global
sustainability, the process of benchmarking among
building assessment tools is critically needed in order to
ensure the level of certification of green building is well
developed and recognized with other reputable
scheme available worldwide (M. Ashraf & Nurhayati,
2013).
The main purpose of this study is to critically review
building assessment tools, the green rating system. The
specific objectives are: (a) to study the green rating
tools used in Asian countries; (b) to examine the main
assessment criteria for rating tools practiced in Asia;
and (c) to fill the gap in literature regarding the
GreenRE assessment tools.
2.0 SUSTAINABLE GREEN DEVELOPMENT
The definition of sustainable development introduced
in 1987 during World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED, 1987) which raised the issue on
sustainability to ensure socio-economic and
environment wisely protected and preserved. Based
on the report, sustainable development precisely
described as “development which meets the needs of
the present without comprising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”.
It is hard to define the degree of sustainability as
sustainable equates to a situation where quality
remains the same or increases. If quality declines, then
the system can be regarded as unsustainable (Bell &
Morse, 2008). Therefore the assessment tools provide
better understanding of sustainability measure.
Other scholar defined sustainability as the capacity to
endure (Milica, 2011). Further in ecology term, the
word describes how biological systems remain diverse
and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy
wetlands and forest are examples of sustainable
biological systems. For humans, sustainability is the
potential for long-term maintenance of well being,
which has environmental, economic and social
dimension (Milica, 2011).
The issue of sustainability has been a controversial and
much disputed subject within the field of construction.
Sustainable and green are connected. Green Building
is defined as the foundation of the sustainable
construction development (Milad Samari et al., 2013).
Other researcher defined the green building as
“environmentally sound” building or “sustainable
building” - as building design and construction using
methods and materials that are resource efficient and
that will not compromise the health of the
environment or the associated health and well-being
of the building’s occupants, construction workers, the
general public, or future generations (Landman, 1999).
3LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)
Green building is one of the agenda to where cities,
the built environment can realize sustainability
objectives. Green buildings are designed to reduce
negative impacts on the environment while increasing
the occupant health, by addressing these five
categories (Milad Samari et al., 2013):
i. Sustainable site planning,
ii. Safeguarding water and water efficiency
iii. Energy efficiency, renewable energy and
lower greenhouse gas emissions
iv. Conservation and the reuse of materials and
resources, and
v. Improved health and indoor environmental
quality
Green building assessment tools offer a means to
demonstrate that a building has been successful at
meeting an expected level of performance in a
number of declared criteria (Ali & AL Nsairat, 2009).
Since the introduction of LEED in US, other countries
start developing their very own green rating tools.
There are few amount of research evaluate the
performance and comparison between tools.
So far, however, there has been discussion about
green rating tools, (Reed et al., 2009) made an
international comparison between LEED, BREEAM,
Green Star and CASBEE, as well as the characteristic of
each tool.
Michael (2013) conduct a comparative analysis of
seven well-known sustainable rating systems includes
BREEAM, CASBEE, LEED among stakeholders in Nigeria
to assess the most suitable tools to be adopted.
In another research, (Bahaudin et al., 2013) have
review on the criteria between various green building
rating systems specific for Non Residential New
Construction. Alyami & Rezgui (2012) focused on the
similarities and differences between 4 international
well-known rating tools.
3.0 OVERVIEW OF GREEN RATING TOOLS
Green rating tool is introduced since the preservation
of our environment has become a global issues. With
the inception of green rating tools of Green Building
Index (GBI) in 2009 and Green Real Estate (GreenRE) in
2013, its make the whole nation to build green and
increase their awareness towards more sustainable
development. As global issues especially on climate
change and emissions of green house gases (GHG)
contributed by the built structure, the significant efforts
are being made in all sectors of the construction
industry to create products and buildings that are
environmentally eco-friendly. Therefore, as an
emerging market in Malaysia, green building has been
recorgnised by multi discipline industry player, either by
public or private sector such as planners, architect,
engineers, surveyors governmental agencies and
developers on the future of sustainable development.
In Malaysia, the establishment of green rating tool
started in 2009 when the Malaysian Institute of
Architects (PAM) and Association of Consulting
Engineers Malaysia (ACEM) have developed Green
Building Index (GBI) to increase the awareness and
creating more and more sustainable and green
architecture. However, before 2009, many of industry
players have subscribed other rating tools offered
around the world such as Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)(US), Green Star (Australia)
and Green Mark (Singapore) in their green
development projects. With different climate and
characteristics of the country agendas, the
establishment of various green rating is very unique
and the selection of more than single green rating tool
in a particular project in that country shown that the
development of green building can be borderless and
the effort on producing more comprehensive and
market viability on green rating could be a tough
challenge by service provider.
This study seeks to compare among selected green
rating tools in Asia namely BCA Green Mark, CASBEE,
KGBCC and local rating tools GBI and GreenRE in
order to identify the similarities and differences. These
particular tools also have been choose according to
the years of establishment more than five years except
for local tools.
3.1 BCA Green Mark
Green Mark is an initiative of Building and Construction
Authority of Singapore (BCA) in greening built
environment. Introduced in 2005, BCA Green Mark
starts with 17 green buildings and increased to almost
1700 building in 2013. The BCA Green Mark
programme divided into 4 under categories of green
buildings certificate. There are five main areas to
assess: energy efficiency, water efficiency,
environmental protection, indoor environmental
quality, and other green features and innovation.
Details criteria scoring are as per below:
Table 1: Assessment Criteria BCA Green Mark
Criteria Scoring Weighting Score
Energy Efficiency 116 61%
Water Efficiency 17 9%
Environmental Protection 42 22%
Indoor Environmental Quality 8 4%
Green Features and Innovation 7 4%
TOTAL 190 100%
Sources: Building & Construction Authority, Singapore
Government, 2011
 4LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)

3.3 KGBCC

First green rating tool introduced in South Korea is

between 1997 t0 2000 and named Green Building
Certification Criteria in 2001 (Bahaudin et al, 2013).
There are six main assessment criteria for this tool is:
land use & commuter transportation, energy
resources, consumption & environmental loads,
ecological environment, indoor environment and
quality. One of the main reasons why South Korea is
Figure 1: Assessment Criteria BCA Green Mark
highlighting on green buildings is because the country
has the lowest rate of energy efficiency consumption
3.2 CASBEE
(Bahaudin et al, 2013). Details criteria scoring are as
per below:
CASBEE first introduced by Japanese Green Building
Council (JaGBC) in 2001 for various types of buildings,
Table 3: Assessment Criteria KGBCC
focus 4 main distinct tools from pre-design to Criteria Scoring Weighting
renovation phase. It applies the Building environmental Score
efficiency (BEE) and base on two categories of Land use & Land Use 7 6%
analysis; quality assessment is taken at building and commuter Transportation 5 4%
load assessment through the impact on environment transportation
or neighborhood. The six main criteria for assessment: Energy resources, Energy 23 17%
quality category -indoor environment, quality of consumption & Material Resources 21 15%
service, quality environment on site, load category – environmental Water Resources 14 10%

energy, resources and material, off-site environment. loads, Environmental 6 4%

Pollution Loads
CASBEE results are presented as a measure of eco-
Management 10 7%
efficiency or BEE (Building Environmental Efficiency).
Ecological Ecological 19 14%
Each item is assessed and given a score on a scale of
environment, Environment
one to five where level 1 is considered as meeting
Indoor Indoor Environmental 31 23%
minimum requirement, level 3 as meeting typical
environment Quality
technical and social levels and level 5 represent a high
TOTAL 136 100%
level of achievement in all those criteria. The results are
plotted on a graph, with environmental load on one Sources: http://wfi.worldforestry.org, retrieved 2014
axis and quality on the other. Base on CASBEE
Assessment, the best buildings will fall in the section
representing lowest environmental load and highest
quality. (K.M. Fowler and E.M. Rauch, 2006) as per
below:

Figure 3: Assessment Criteria KGBCC

3.4 Green Ship

Figure 2: CASBEE home page, retrieved 2014
GREENSHIP Rating System is an assessment tool
Table 2 : Assessment Criteria CASBEE developed by the Green Building Council of Indonesia
Weighting Score
Criteria Non Factory (GBCI) to determine whether a building can be
factory declared eligible certified as green building or not. The
Quality: Built Indoor environment 0.4 0.3
Environment Quality of service 0.3 0.3
tool is aimed to be used by the home developers,
Quality (Q) Outdoor environment 0.3 0.4 architects, mechanical and electrical professionals,
Load: Built Load category – energy 0.4 landscape designers, or even the property owner in
Environment Load Features and Innovation
(L) Resources and material 0.3 attempting and advocate a sustainable issue This
Off-site environment 0.3 rating system is divided into six aspects namely
Sources: CASBEE home page, retrieved 2014 appropriate Land Use (Appropriate Site Development
/ ASD),Energy Efficiency & refrigerants (Energy
Efficiency & Refrigerant / EER), Conservation of Water
(Water Conservation / WAC), Source & Cycle Materials
5LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)

(Materials & Cycle Resources / MRC), Air Quality & Management

Leisure Air (Water Indoor Health & Comfort / IHC), and Material Resource 11 11%

Environmental Management Building (Building & Water Efficiency 10 10%

Innovation 7 7%
Environment Management). The Greenship rating
TOTAL 100 100%
system has been launched in 17th June 2010 and it is
Sources: http://www.greenbuildingindex.org, retrieved 2014
currently used as benchmark the environmental
capability or performance of different buildings in
Indonesia. The main focus of establishments of
Greenship is as a voluntary effort to keep natural
resources sustainable and to combat global warming.
Details criteria scoring are as per below:

Table 4: Assessment Criteria Green Ship

Criteria Scoring Weighting Score

Energy Efficiency and Conservation 26 26% 3.6 GreenRE
Water Conservation 21 21%
Appropriate Site Development 17 17% GreenRE rating tool is introduced by Real Estate
Material Resource and Cycle 14 14% and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia
Indoor Health and Comfort 10 9% (REHDA) in 2013 for three types of building including
Building Environmental Management 13 13% Residential Building (RES), Non-Residential Building
TOTAL 101 100% (NRB) and Existing Non Residential Building (ENRB). Non
Sources: Green Building Council Indonesia, retrieved 2014 residential building may includes other residential
building such as office, retail mall, institutional, hotel
and hospital, industrial and other building types.
GreenRE is a voluntarily rating tool that designed to
cater for two main requirements which are Energy
Related Requirements and Other Green Requirements
that need the development to fulfill minimum credit
points of 30 credits and 20 credits for each
requirement respectively. The main five criteria of the
Figure 4: Assessment Criteria Green Ship rating tool consist of: Energy Efficiency, Water
Efficiency, Environment Protection, Indoor Environment
3.5 GBI Quality, Other Green Features and Carbon Emission of
Development. Details criteria scoring for residential
In 2008, Green Building Index (GBI) is the first green
building are as per below:
rating tool introduced in Malaysia. The introduction is in
line with the introduction of Malaysian green policies,
National Green Technology Policies, 2009. The Table 6: Assessment Criteria GreenRE
developed GBI as a rating tool in the country will Criteria Scoring Weighting Score
53%
enable developers to design and construct Energy Efficiency 83
sustainable, green buildings that can give credits to Water Efficiency 16 10%
the energy savings, water saving, healthy indoor Environment Protection 40 26%
environment, good connectivity to the public transport Indoor Environmental Quality 6 4%
and greenery features for developing such projects Other Green Features 7 4%
which include recycling and reusing materials (GBI, Carbon Emission of Development 4 3%
2013). GBI assessment criteria cover 6 areas: energy TOTAL 156 100%
efficiency, indoor environment quality, sustainable site Sources: GreenRE home page, REDHA, retrieved 2014
planning and management, material & resources,
water efficiency and innovation. Details criteria scoring
are as per below:

Table 5: Assessment Criteria GBI

Criteria Scoring Weighting Score
Energy Efficiency 35 35%

Indoor Environmental Quality 21 21%

Sustainable Site Planning & 16 16%

Figure 6; Assessment Criteria GreenRE

6LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)
4.0 GreenRE VS Other Asian Rating Tools
GreenRE is the latest sustainable tools applicable in
Malaysia after Green Building Index (GBI). The
encourage and enhance the participation of industry
professionals in encouraging the design and build
green and sustainable buildings. As an accreditation
record, GreenRE is already certified almost 15 building
as in December 2014 with just a year after their
establishment. It’s incorporates internationally
recognized best practices to provide the industry with
a more efficient and practical green tool.
GreenRE tools is like other assessment tools available in
Asian which is applicable for all types of building either
for Residential Building (RES), Non-Residential Building
(NRB) and Existing Non Residential Building (ENRB). It
will be assess through the building’s performance in
terms of energy efficiency, water efficiency,
environmental protection, indoor environmental
quality and carbon emissions of the development.
The objective of GreenRE is to establish a minimum
environmental sustainability standard in the planning,
design, construction and operation of building
projects, to mitigate the environmental impacts of built
structures. In terms of rating tools it is designed to cater
for two main requirements which are Energy Related
Requirements (minimum 30 credits) and Other Green
Requirements (minimum of 20 credits). Based on the
types of certification, GreenRE offer 4 types of
certification namely platinum, gold, silver and bronze.
Classification score for 90 and above – will be given
GreenRE Platinum, 85 to < 90 for GreenRE Gold, 75 to <
85 for GreenRE Silver and 50 to < 75 for GreenRE
Bronze. It same goes to BCA Green Mark with the total
score for 50 to < 75 points is for Green Mark certified.
Unlike Green ship, this scheme will give certified with
minimum score 40-49 points, which is lower as
compare to GreenRE and BCA Green Mark. However
in order to certified as platinum requirement GBI is only
require the total scoring of 86 points beside 90 points in
GreenRE and BCA Green Mark. In the provision of
building certification given as in 2014, BCA Green
Marks had lead by 2,200 of building and GBI is at 296
of building as compare only 15 building has been
recognized as green building under GreenRE
accreditation which is so new and only cover in
Malaysia area.
For GreenRE, the method of certification will be more
at Design and Construction Stage unlike CASBEE, the
assessment tool is developed in the suite of
architectural design process, starting from the pre-
design stage, design and post design stages.
Meanwhile, in KGBC, their system is used to assess the
entire building construction process that promotes
establishment of this tool is specially designed for all
the Real Estate and construction industry to
technological development. Accordingly, the 6
different scheme tools are applicable to be used in
different types of building either for new residential
and non residential developments or existing
residential or non residential development to address
sustainable features. However, the intention of
sustainable operation and management of Existing
Non-Residential Building in the GreenRE require the
operational and management (O&M) to comply and
earn the needed points on that criterion. This issue is
vital due to the contribution of pollutant and energy
inefficiency will be produced by the non-residentia
building over their life cycle and without proper
maintenance and management of the building, the
green building will not be performing as what they
should be. The GreenRE may lack of Interior Design
and Construction, Negihbourhood and Communities
Development and Homes as mentioned in CASBEE
and KGBCC tools.
Based on the literature, all rating tools produce
different assessment approaches in term of their
evaluation stage together with their strength and
weaknesses. However as compared to their
implementation, BCA Green Marks will provide more
comprehensive rating tool in term of their criteria’s and
their method of certification. The BCA Green Marks
rating tool covers all the requirement including
innovation like GBI and GreenRE, but for the other
three tools, CASBEE, KGBCC and Green Ship does not
require sustainable innovation elements. Regardless,
only GreenRE does cover the criteria for Carbon
Footprint of Development that contributes on the
efficiency of energy and water and the emission in
their scoring points. For GreenRE, the coverage criteria
of certification such as land development, Sustainable
site& Management and Operation, Neighbourhood
and Communities is not address due to lack of
comprehensiveness on its rating tool as compared to
KGBCC, CASBEE and Green Ship and GBI tools. As
mentioned earlier, the application of green rating tool
will be depending on the local needs and the agenda
of the country towards environmental, human well
being and economics nevertheless with the different
of criteria and assessing approach. Summary of
primary featuresof BCA Green Mark, CASBEE, KGBCC,
Green Ship, GBI and GreenRE are shows in table 8 as
per below:
7LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)

Table 8 : Primary Features of BCA Green Mark, CASBEE, KGBCC, Green Ship, GBI and GreenRE
Entry Tools Main Characteristics Building Type Assessments Assessment Green Building
approaches Score Certification/ac
creditation
Records
Rating system that Residential and Required to be  Classification
1 BCA Green evaluate a building non residential re-assessed score: 2,200
Mark for its environmental buildings every three (as in September
impact and years to i. 90 and above 2014
(Singapore) performance maintain the – Green Mark
Green Mark Platinum
status ii. 85 to < 90 -
Green Mark
Gold plus
iii. 75 to < 85-
Green Mark
Gold
iv. 50 to < 75-
Green Mark
certified
2 CASBEE Developed in the Residential and Divide by : Score are given
suite of non-residential i) Q (Quality): base on:
(Japan) architectural design type of building Built I. class C 450
process, starting (construction Environment (poor), (as in April 2015)
from the pre-design companies, Quality II. class B-,
stage, design and design offices, Evaluates III. class B+,
post design stages real-estate "improvement IV. class A,
developers) in living V. and class S
amenity for (excellent),
the building
users
ii) L (Load): Built
Environment
Load
Evaluates
"negative
aspects of
environmental
impact
3 KGBCC System that used to Residential Currently has 4 The grades of
assess the entire building include issues to be certification are
(South building he semi assess which divided into two 1786
Korea) construction residential are: grades, 'best' (as mid of year
process that buildings, office i. Land use and and 'excellent'. 2011)
promotes buildings (public commuter
technological and private), transportation I. Best: 85 points
development and commercial ii. Energy or more
quality competition buildings and resources II. Excellent: 65
in green building remodeled consumption points or more
materials. buildings and
environmental
loads
iii. Ecological
environment
iv. Indoor
environmental
quality
4 Green Ship Rating system Residential and Green Score are given
initiated by GBCI non residential assessment is base on: Not available
(Indonesia) (Green Building buildings base on three
Council Indonesia) types: 80 and above -
used to measure  New building Greenship
the green  Existing Platinum
performance of building 60 to 79 – Gold
property in  Interior space 50 to 59 - Silver
Indonesia. A green 40 to 49-
building assessment The Green ship Certified
and certification rating system is
8LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)

scheme based on divided into six

schemes from other areas but for
countries, but new buildings,
designed for the total score is
Indonesia as follows
according to i) Design
Indonesia national Recognition –
regulation, climate (DR), with
and environment maximum
characteristics. point= 77
Final Assessment
– (FA) with
maximum point=
101

The certificates
for new buildings
and existing
buildings are
valid for three
years.
5 GBI Green rating tool for Residential: Rating awarded Classification
buildings to linked houses, is only valid for 3 score:
(Malaysia) promote apartments, years. Buildings i. 86+ points – 296
sustainability in the condominiums, will have to be Platinum (as in April 2015)
built environment townhouses, re-assessed ii. 76 to 85
and raise semi-detached every three points – Gold
awareness of and bungalows years to ensure iii. 66 to 75
environmental that buildings points – Silver
issues. It is Non residential: are well- iv. 50 to 65
developed commercial, sustained points -
specifically for the institutional and Certified
Malaysian-tropical industrial in nature
climate,
environmental and
developmental
context, cultural
and social needs
6 GreenRE Rating tools that Residential Rating tool that  Energy
designed the Real Building (RES), designed to Related 15
(Malaysia) Estate and Non-Residential cater for two Requirements As in December
construction Building (NRB) main - minimum of 2014)
industry to and Existing Non requirements 30 credits
encourage and Residential which are
enhance the Building (ENRB)  Energy  Other Green
participation of Related Requirements-
industry Requirements A minimum of
professionals to  Other Green 20 credits
design and build Requirements
green, sustainable  Classification
buildings in a more score:
integrated manner.
v. 90 and above
– GreenRE
Platinum
vi. 85 to < 90 -
GreenRE Gold
vii. 75 to < 85-
GreenRE Silver
viii. 50 to < 75-
GreenRE
Bronze

5.0 TOOLS COMPARISON OVERVIEW implemented in Malaysia which is GreenRE.

Accordingly, the difference in assessing sustainable
For further explanation on above rating tools, the features in each country were due to many factors
discussion will analytically compare Asian wide rating such as law and regulations, climate, types of property
tool used and focusing on the new rating tool to be assess, geographical factors and etc. Some of
9LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)
the tools have been transformed and improve so
many times due to requirements to suit with the current
needs. Often a rating tool can be linked back to
common aspects with other systems, often depending
on the particular influences upon each property
market (Reed et al 2011). However not all of Asian
country had their own tools to measure up their
building sustainability. Most of them had used LEED or
BREEAM that originated from US and UK to rate their
green building such as China, Philippine, Vietnam and
others. However each of these tools is eventually lead
to a certification to be recognized as green building.
BCA Green Mark is one of leading tools in assessing the
green building where it applicable to cover the whole
Singapore and nearby region. The main criteria to be
asses for BCA green mark are energy efficiency with
61% of score level. The least scoring criteria are for
green features and innovation which only 7 marks or
4% from the total score criteria. Meanwhile CASBEE
originate from Japan assessing criteria is focusing
between built environment quality and load
environment quality. Both will be measure by BEE
(Building Environmental Efficiency) and will be fall to
level 1- 5. According to M. Ashraf and Nurhayati
(2013) a building is considered sustainable when
getting a steeper slope, which is achieved by getting
higher value of Q and lower value of L.
KGBCC on the other hand, is a green tool applicable
in South Korea will assess the building within 4 main
categories with 9 area of scoring. Base on the
requirement, the highest point criteria to be score is in
Indoor Environmental Quality (23%) and the least
criteria to be score is in transportation (4%) which is fall
under Land use & commuter category. However items
not included in Korean GBCC as compared to other
countries’ systems is Parking capacity, Material and
Resources: Using certified wood products,
Environmental pollution loads: Heat island effect and
light pollution reduction, Management: system
performance monitoring, Indoor environmental
quality: Monitor carbon dioxide concentrations,
Manage temperature and humidity. Next green tools
used in Asia were Green ship that initiate by Green
Building Council Indonesia with the main focus of
assessing is in residential and non residential
development. This green tool wills asses for three main
developments such as for new buildings, existing
buildings and interior space. Accordingly, the assessing
main criteria for Green Ship tool is Energy Efficiency
and Conservation (26%) followed by Water
Conservation (21%) and Appropriate Site
Development (17%). The least weighting score is for
Indoor Health and Comfort which total score at 9%
from the total 101 points.
Unlike in Malaysia, the green development recognition
now is available with two tools namely Green Building
Index (GBI) develop by PAM (the Association of
Architects, Malaysia) and the latest one is GreenRE
initiate by REDHA. Both tools are suit with the Malaysia
environment and climate as compare to others tools in
other country that were used a long ago before the
establishment of these tools. GBI and GreenRE rating
tools were highly concern for energy efficiency as their
major score rating criteria. For GBI, the energy
efficiency of score rating represents 35% from the total
score of 100 criteria. Meanwhile, for GreenRE the
energy efficiency score will be rate as 83 or 53% from
the total score of 156 criteria items. It shows that
Malaysia anxiety is more on how the development will
put their energy sources as their priority in order to be
recognized as green building. This energy efficiency is
actually will helps in controlling the cost, reduce
environmental impact and increase the value of
buildings. However the least criteria to be assess under
GBI tools is innovation which represents total scoring at
7% and the least criteria for GreenRE are under
Carbon Emission of Development at 4%.
In terms of assessment criteria those 6 discussing tools
have similarities whereby all tools are having energy
efficiency criteria (38% from the total scoring).
Amongst of those tools, BCA Green Mark is highly
appreciated the energy efficiency criteria with the
total score given is 61% followed by GreenRE at 53%
and GBI at 35%. Energy efficiency is a way of
managing and restraining the growth in energy
consumption which may put most of the country
considered it as priority towards green accreditation.
It’s also an approach that used in the building design
and system to optimize the energy efficiency of
buildings. BCA Green mark for example, has highlight
the energy efficiency features for the buildings is on
the effectiveness of saving energy by air conditioning
system, natural ventilation, building envelope, daylight
and etc. Buildings which currently apply the energy
efficiency will actually help in reducing energy use
and costs and it is also seen as a solution to the
problem of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The next criteria that give vital elements of scoring in
assessing green buildings are for environment and
ecological protection and indoor quality environment.
Both represent 13% from the total score of 6 tools. In
terms of environment and ecological protection,
GreenRE represent the highest score at 26% which is
the second major scoring of green assessment criteria
after energy efficiency. As such, the GreenRE of
environmental quality criteria will focuses on the
design, practices and selection of materials and
resources that would reduce the environmental
impacts of built structures. Meanwhile for indoor
environment quality assessment criteria KGBCC
recorded at 23% which is the highest criteria to be
score amongst its other 9 criteria. Indoor quality is
10LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)

actually encompass the conditions inside a building
such as the air quality, lighting, thermal conditions,
ergonomic and etc that will effect to occupants or
residents inside the buildings. The main purpose of
having a good indoor environment quality is to protect
human health, enhances the lives of building
occupants, better ventilation and reduces liability for
building owners due to the people will spend 90% of
their time inside the buildings. Thus will make all six
schemes cover the indoor environmental quality with
respect to different elements. KGBCC for example
their indoor environment quality criteria is including
creation of delightful public space such as the
provision of green space for resident, noise and
acoustics (indoor noise level by outdoor noise), and
thermal environment by installation of thermostatic
control system (Kee Shik Shin et.al 2005).
collected, used, purified, and reused on-site. Green
Ship for example the criteria that fall under this
category will be test on Water Calculation, Water
Recycling, Alternative Water Resource, Rainwater
Harvesting, Water Fixtures and etc.
Others criteria that be assess amongst 6 scheme tools
are material resources and Sustainable site&
Management, both at 10% from the total average
score, Green Features and Innovation (3%), Land
Development (1%) , Atmosphere pollution (1%),
Carbon Footprint of Development (1%) and
Commuting transportation (1%). Summary of
Assessment criteria for green building rating tools for
BCA Green Mark, CASBEE, KGBCC, Green Ship, GBI
and GreenRE are shows in table 7 as per below:

Water Efficiency and waste management criterion is

another criterion that covers for accreditation to all 6
scheme discussing. With the average of total score at
12%, Green Ship rating tools is the highest total score to
be asses in this category at 21% and rank it’s as
second major elements after their energy efficiency.
The reason of having water efficiency and waste
management in green building is due to water
consumption liability is more than its supply. This will
significantly effect to the energy consumption. Prior to
that, the buildings should use water efficiency system
by increasing the dependence on water that is

Table 7 Assessment criteria for green building rating tools

Assessment criteria BCA Green CASBEE KGBCC Green GBI GreenRE Average
Mark Ship Total Score
Energy Efficiency 61% 35% 17% 26% 35% 53% 38%

Water Efficiency 9% 10% 10% 21% 10% 10% 12%

and waste
management
Environmental and 22% 14% 13% 26% 13%
ecological
Protection
Indoor 4% 15% 23% 9% 21% 4% 13%
Environmental
Quality
Green Features 4% 7% 4% 3%
and Innovation
Land Development 6% 1%

Material Resources 20% 15% 14% 11% 10%

Atmosphere 4% 1%
pollution
Sustainable site& 20% 7% 17% 16% 10%
Management
Carbon Footprint 3% 1%
of Development
Commuting 4% 1%
transportation
TOTAL 100%
*Remarks: Data for CASBEE is for market promotion publish by Japan sustainable building consortium (JSBC, 2011)
 11LizawatiAbdullah, Norhaslina Jumadi, Roshdi Sabu, Huraizah Arshad & Faza Fayza Mohd Fawzy/ Jurnal Teknologi (2015)
Figure 7: Average total Score Assessment criteria for green building rating tools
5.0 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the most significant assessment criteria
for the green assessment tools as per analysed is the
energy efficiency. This shows that energy efficiency
criteria is fundamental in complying with the green
development as it could contributes most towards
the unsustainability if not considered into. By
managing the energy efficiently the energy sources
are utilised sustainably thus creates a sustainable
green development and encourages sustainable
environment.
References
[1] Ali, H.H. and Al Nsairat, S.F. 2009. Developing a green
building assessment tool for developing countries – Case of
Jordan, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 1053–1064.
[2] Alyami, S.H. and Rezgui, Y., 2012. Sustainable Building
Assessment Tool Development Approach, Journal of
Sustainable Cities and Society, 5(1), p. 52-62.
[3] Bahaudin, A.Y., Elias, E.M. and Saifudin, A.M., 2013. A
Comparison of the Green Building’s Criteria, presented at
3rd International Building Control Conference 2013, Kuala
Lumpur.
[4] BCA Green Mark. (2015). BCA homepage. Retrieved April
2, 2015, from
http://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/green_mark_buildings.
html
[5] Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2008. Sustainability indicators:
measuring immeasurable? 2nd ed. London: Sterling, VA:
Earthscan.
[6] CASBEE. (2015). CASBEE homepage. Retrieved April 10,
2015, from
http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm
[7] Fowler, K.M. and Rauch, E.M. 2006. Sustainable Building
Rating System Summary, completed by the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, operated for the U.S.
Department of Energy by Battelle.
View publication stats
[8] GBI. (2015). Green Building Index homepage. Retrieved
Mac 16, 2015, from http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/
[9] GreenRE. 2015. GreenRE homepage. Retrieved April 16,
2015, from http://www.greenre.org/
[10] Green Ship Indonesia. 2015. Green Building Council
Indonesia homepage. Retrieved Mac 10, 2015, from
http://www.gbcindonesia.org/
[11] Landman, M. 1999. Breaking through the Barriers to
Sustainable Building: Insights from Building Professionals on
Government Initiatives to Promote Environmentally Sound
Practices, a thesis submitted TUFTS UNIVERSITY September
1999.
[12] LEED. (2015). LEED homepage. Retrieved Mac 15, 2015,
from http://new.usgbc.org/
[13] M Ashraf, F. and Nurhayati, A. M. 2013. Green Building
assessment tools: Evaluating different tools for green roof
system. International Journal of Education and Research
Vol. 1 No.11 November 2013
[14] Michael, B.O. A. 2013. Assessment and Adaptation of an
Appropriate Green Building Rating System for Nigeria,
Journal of Environment and Earth Science Vol. 3, No.1,
2013.
[15] Milica, V. 2011. About Sustainable Architecture – A
Definition, Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial
Planning of Serbi.
[16] Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte, K-W. (2009).
International Comparison of Sustainable Rating Tools,
Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 1 -22.
[17] Samari, M., Godrati, M., Esmaeilifar, R., Olfat, P. and Mohd
Wira, M.S. 2013. The Investigation of the Barriers in
Developing Green Building in Malaysia, Modern Applied
Science; Vol. 7, No. 2; 2013, Published by Canadian Center
of Science and Education.
[18] Shin, K.S., Park, S.D. and Lee, S.M. 2005. Green Building
Certification Systems In Korea, The 2005 World Sustainable
Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005
(SB05Tokyo).
[19] Wilkinson, S.J., Reed, R.G. and Cadman, D. 2008. Property
Development. Taylor and Francis, London.