Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581774 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
SASBE
2,2
A review of building/
infrastructure sustainability
reporting tools (SRTs)
106 Renard Y. J. Siew, Maria C. A. Balatbat and David G. Carmichael
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
Purpose Buildings/infrastructure are recognised to have a significant impact on the environment
and the community, and hence there is pressure on industry practitioners to incorporate environmental
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
and social considerations in addition to the traditional cost, time and quality. The development of
sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) to assist in the management of green building/infrastructure
projects is pivotal in informing on progress in sustainability practices. However, the rapid growth
of SRTs in the last decade, with different criteria and methodology, has created complications
for stakeholders.
Design/methodology/approach The paper provides a comprehensive review of tools to guide
practitioners, property investors, policy makers and developers towards making informed choices in
green building/infrastructure projects. Comparative analyses, benefits and limitations of these tools
are discussed in the paper.
Findings Some of the findings from the analysis of SRTs include: an emphasis on environmental
issues; scoring which does not account for uncertainty or variability in assessors perceptions; lack of
published reasoning behind the allocation of scores; inadequate definition of scales to permit
differentiation among projects; and the existence of non-scientific benchmarks.
Originality/value The paper departs from earlier reviews to include a discussion on infrastructure
SRTs, life cycle tools, and issues broader than the environment. Changes and additions, subsequent to
earlier reviews, have been made to SRTs, making the updated review provided here useful.
Keywords Sustainable development, Infrastructure, Buildings, Rating tools, Sustainability criteria,
Sustainability indicators, Reporting
Paper type General review
1. Introduction
Sustainable development has been internationally agreed as a key goal for policy
makers to guide development at global, national and local levels (Singh et al., 2009).
The World Economic Forum (2011, p. 11) identifies the building sector as an area which
needs to be addressed because it accounts for 40% of the worlds energy use, 40% of
carbon output and consumes 20% of available water. The large use of electricity in
buildings has been identified as one of the main culprits for high emissions across the
globe. The Centre for International Economics Canberra and Sydney (2007) reports
that 23 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in Australia come from
the energy demand of the building sector, while the US Green Building Council
(USGBC, 2011) claims that both residential and commercial buildings account for
39 per cent of total emissions in the USA, and more than any other country in the
world except China.
Smart and Sustainable Built The increased recognition that buildings are substantial carbon dioxide (CO2)
Environment
Vol. 2 No. 2, 2013
emitters (Reed et al., 2009; Urge-Vorsatz and Novikova, 2008; Buchanan and Honey,
pp. 106-139 1994; Levermore, 2008), and contribute significantly to climate change, puts pressure
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2046-6099
on construction industry practitioners to incorporate sustainability goals aside from
DOI 10.1108/SASBE-03-2013-0010 the traditional project goals of cost, time and quality (Fernandez-Sanchez and
Rodrguez-Lopez, 2010). Translating sustainability goals into action at the project level Building/
is complicated by the individual characteristics of countries, their cultures, climates infrastructure
and types of buildings (Ugwu and Haupt, 2007).
Against this background, there is a widely recognised need to identify metrics and SRTs
tools that would help articulate the extent to which current activities are either
sustainable or not sustainable (Singh et al., 2009). This has been the key motivator
for the development and increased popularity of sustainability reporting tools 107
(SRTs) in the building sector and the civil engineering infrastructure sector.
Infrastructure includes transport (roads and bridges, bus and cycle ways, footpaths,
railways), water (sewage and drainage, water storage and supply), energy
(transmission and distribution) and communication (transmission and distribution)
among others (AGIC, 2012). This paper provides a review of available tools used
to assess and report sustainability in the infrastructure and building sectors. The tools
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
are commonly used in their country of origin, particularly if this is legislated, but are
adopted in other countries.
Cole (1999) suggests that SRTs, used with the intent to evaluate green
performance, usually take on a few common characteristics such as emphasis on the
assessment of resource use and ecological loadings, the assessment of design
intentions and potential through prediction rather than actual real-world performance,
use of performance scoring as an additive process and a performance summary,
certificate or label. Cole (2005) adds that SRTs are not only a means to facilitate
the reduction of environmental impacts, but also are increasingly being used as a basis
for risk and real estate valuations in obtaining development approval from the
banking industry. SRTs provide industry standard guidelines and allow comparability
across projects. For building owners and operators, using SRTs demonstrates
commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR), and permits staying ahead of
future government regulations (Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), 2012b).
Developing an ideal SRT is challenging because it needs to be able to satisfy all
stakeholders concerns (Ding, 2008).
SRTs have been in existence since the last decade within a number of countries, and
were introduced in an effort to better understand the sustainability level of buildings and
infrastructure. While it may be argued that different climates and cultures, and the
different nature of buildings/infrastructure for each country may warrant unique
reporting tools, the rapid growth of SRTs has made sustainability comparisons more
complicated for stakeholders, for example, property investors (Reed et al., 2009), who rely
on such tools to make informed investment decisions. According to Nguyen and Altan
(2011), although there are many registered building SRTs, only a few of them are widely
acknowledged. Infrastructure SRTs and life cycle tools are less commonly discussed.
This paper departs from other reviews (Ding, 2008; Reed et al., 2009; Mitchell, 2010;
Berardi, 2012; Sev, 2011), to include a discussion on infrastructure SRTs, life cycle tools,
and issues broader than the environment. Berardi (2012) provides a review of building
SRTs in three categories: total quality assessment, life cycle analysis (LCA) and energy
consumption evaluation. However, because of the wide scope adopted, the review on life
cycle tools is not extensive. Changes subsequent to the above reviews have been made to
some SRTs, for example, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),
making the updated review provided here useful. As well, this paper summarises the
empirical evidence on the benefits of engaging in SRTs, and provides a critique of the tools.
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was set up with the intention of providing an
international sustainability reporting framework (Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2011).
SASBE Under this framework, specific reporting guidelines for the construction and real
2,2 estate sector are available. However, since the context provided by the GRI guidelines
is more applicable at a corporate level, it is not reviewed here. The scope of this paper is
SRTs for building/infrastructure projects.
The structure of the paper is as follows. The following sections explore the nature
of major building SRTs, infrastructure SRTs and life cycle tools applicable to both
108 buildings and infrastructure. A critique of these tools and suggestions for future
research are given.
This paper acknowledges that the multiplicity of terms in SRTs can be confusing to
the reader. As such, it is important to clarify some of this terminology upfront.
Typically, for most SRTs, there are hierarchical levels of sustainability criteria. To
ensure consistency, the top (highest) level will be referred to here as criteria, and the
next (lower) level as subcriteria.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
LEED
LEED was developed by the USGBC in 2000. Since its inception, LEED has grown to
encompass more than 14,000 projects in the USA and more than 30 countries (Nguyen
and Altan, 2011). This tool promotes sustainable building and development practices
through a suite of reporting, and recognises projects which are committed to better
environmental and health performance (LEED, 2012). Two major building typologies
covered by LEED are:
(1) New Construction and Major Renovations v2009. The criteria and scores
(included in parentheses) available for each criterion are as follows: sustainable
Management Waste
Building/
Commissioning Construction waste infrastructure
Construction site impacts Recycled aggregates SRTs
Security Recycling facilities
Health and well-being Pollution
Daylight Refrigerant use and leakage
Occupant thermal comfort Flood risk
Acoustics NOx emissions
109
Indoor air and water quality Watercourse pollution
Lighting External light and noise pollution
Energy Land use and ecology
CO2 emissions Site selection
Low or zero carbon technologies Protection of ecological features
Energy sub-metering Mitigation/enhancement of ecological value
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
Unclassified o30
Pass X30
Good X45
Very Good X55
Excellent X70
Outstanding X85
Table II.
Source: BREEAM (2012) BREEAM award
sites (26), water efficiency (10), energy and atmosphere (35), indoor
environmental quality (IEQ) (15), innovation in design (6), regional priority
(4) and materials and resources (14) (LEED, 2009a).
(2) Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v2009. The criteria and
scores (included in parentheses) available for each criterion are as follows:
sustainable sites (26), water efficiency (14), energy and atmosphere (35), IEQ
(15), innovation in design (6), regional priority (4) and materials and resources
(10) (LEED, 2009b).
For both typologies, scores are accumulated using a base of 100 (innovation in design
and regional priority are added separately), and rated according to a scale as shown
SASBE Weightings (%)
2,2 New builds, extensions and Building-fit-out only
BREEAM criterion major refurbishments (where applicable to scheme)
Management 12 13
Health and well-being 15 17
110 Energy 19 21
Transport 8 9
Water 6 7
Materials 12.5 14
Waste 7.5 8
Land use and ecology 10 na
Pollution 10 11
Table III. Innovation 10 10
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
BREEAMs criteria
weightings Source: BREEAM (2012)
in Table IV. There are embedded prerequisites within each criterion (except for
sustainable sites Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v2009) which
must be met before a score is awarded. LEED for Neighbourhood Development (2009)
is the latest USGBC reporting tool, which incorporates site selection, design and
construction elements (Hurley and Horne, 2006) taking into account both landscape
and regional contexts (Sharifi and Murayama, 2013).
Green star
Green Star, developed by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) is a
comprehensive voluntary building SRT. It was initially developed to accommodate the
need for buildings operating in hot climatic areas (Roderick et al., 2009; Tronchin and
Fabbri, 2008). It incorporates ideas from other tools, such as BREEAM and LEED, and
other environmental criteria specific to the Australian environment (Lockwood, 2006).
Green Star covers the nine criteria shown in Table V, where scores are awarded if
targets are met.
A single, overall score is calculated based on a series of steps. First, for each
criterion, a score is determined. Then, given weightings are applied. All the weighted
criteria scores are summed. Innovation points can be obtained by either engaging with
innovative strategies and technologies or exceeding the Green Star benchmark.
Innovation points are added to the weighted criteria scores. This gives an overall score,
which is then matched to an award (see Table VI). The GCBA only certifies buildings
with 4, 5, or 6 Green Stars.
Award Score
Certified 40-49
Silver 50-59
Gold 60-79
Platinum 80 and above
Table IV.
LEED award Source: LEED (2012)
Green star criterion Purpose
Building/
infrastructure
Management Scores address the adoption of sustainable development principles from
project conception through design, construction, commissioning, tuning and
SRTs
operation
Energy Scores target reduction of greenhouse emissions from building operation by
addressing energy demand reduction, use efficiency, and generation from
alternative sources
111
Water Scores address reduction of potable water through efficient design of
building services, water reuse and substitution with other water sources
(specifically rainwater)
Land use and ecology Scores address a projects impact on its immediate ecosystem, by
discouraging degradation and encouraging restoration of flora and fauna
Indoor Environment Scores target environmental impact along with occupant wellbeing and
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
BEE = 1.0
S
A B+
Q (Quality)
B BEE = 0.5
50
0
50 100
Figure 1. L (Load)
The BEE graph
Source: CASBEE (2002)
Similar to BREEAM, the determination of an overall assessment grade is by Building/
percentage of applicable scores obtained under each criterion, including its weighting infrastructure
factor. SA, EU and IEQ are perceived to be important and therefore a minimum
percentage must be obtained in these criteria to qualify for an overall grade (see SRTs
Table VIII). The overall grade (per cent) achieved is mapped to an award (Table VIII).
Platinum 75 70 70 70
Gold 65 60 60 60
Silver 55 50 50 50
Bronze 40 40 40 40
Table VIII.
Source: HKGBC and BEAM Society (2012) HK-BEAM awards
SASBE Building actual performance
2,2 While SRTs generally focus on the potential environmental impact of design (design
performance), some tools only inform on actual building performance. Typically,
assessments of actual building performance are conducted on an annual basis
(NABERS, 2011). Two examples are National Australian Built Environmental Ratings
Scheme (NABERS) and Energy STAR, which are reviewed here.
114
NABERS
NABERS, launched in 1998 in Australia, informs on the actual environmental
performance of buildings, tenancies and homes. Criteria that are assessed include
water usage, energy usage, waste and indoor environment. There are four types of
reporting tools available for: offices, shopping centres, hotels and homes (NABERS,
2011). The awards range from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) to reflect on the point-in-time annual
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
energy use of a certain type of building accounting for its location and type of
operation.
. For each surveyed building, calculation of an energy efficiency ratio (actual to
predicted energy use).
. Use of the energy efficiency ratio to create a distribution of energy performance
for the population of buildings. This forms the Energy STAR performance scale
from 1 to 100, where a score of 50 means that the building is at an average level.
impact on natural resources such as air, land, water, biodiversity and materials.
Infrastructure is assessed in terms of how well it meets societys needs equitably and
how it reduces poverty via public health, culture and accessibility to services. Project
viability, macroeconomic effects, livelihood opportunity and the creation of an
equitable economy are considered. The criterion of institution encompasses four
subcriteria, namely policy, governance, skills and reporting; these represent the
capacity and effectiveness of the institutional environment in supporting the delivery
of the infrastructure (Gryc, 2012). In the assessment, the user goes through a series of
questions and is provided with illustrations of best to worst case scenarios to help in
the allocation of non-weighted scores. The aggregated scores for each criterion are then
represented using a traffic light idea where green indicates strength and red indicates
weakness.
ASPIRE
Design End of planning and Awarded based on the inclusion of design elements and
design construction requirements
As-built End of construction Includes measured sustainability performance during
construction and built into the infrastructure asset
Operation During operation Given after 24 months of operation. Based on the
measured green performance of operating
infrastructure Table XII.
AGICs three
Source: AGIC (2012) reporting types
Award Score
IO analysis
IO analysis, as used in macroeconomic studies of monetary flows, has been adapted to
environmental impact analysis (Piluso et al., 2008). IO tables (Xu et al., 2010) have rows
representing outputs, and columns representing inputs. From an IO table, a matrix of
IO coefficients can be derived. These IO coefficients (also known as technical
coefficients) represent the amount of input required to produce one unit of output
(see Xu et al., 2010 for a mathematical formulation). For sustainability analysis,
typically a simplified IO matrix is adopted (Piluso et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2010) and the
technical coefficients could potentially help answer questions such as how much CO2
has been emitted in the production of one tonne of steel (Born, 1996). Norman et al.
(2006) use IO and LCA combined to estimate the energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the manufacture of construction materials for infrastructure,
buildings and transportation.
MFA
MFA is used to characterise the flow of materials, products and substances in a defined
system (Huang and Tsu, 2003; Kahhat and Williams, 2012). It applies a conservation
law total inputs must equal total outputs plus any net accumulation (EUROSTAT,
2001). EUROSTAT (2001, pp. 20-24) suggests making a distinction between material
flows: direct vs indirect; used vs unused; domestic vs rest of the world.
PaLATE
PaLATE is a spreadsheet-based tool used in the assessment of environmental and
economic impacts for pavements and roads. The tool depends on knowing the design,
roadway cost, construction materials and transportation information (both mode and
distances), as well as any road maintenance involved. Among some of the
environmental effects covered under PaLATE are energy consumption, CO2
emissions, NOx emissions, PM10 emissions, CO emissions and leachate (Horvarth
et al., 2007).
Life Cycle Analyzer Building/
Life Cycle Analyzer is software developed specifically to analyse the entire life cycle of infrastructure
concrete in all types of production, be it site-poured or used in prefabrication. It allows
the calculation of both environmental and cost impacts of different concrete mix SRTs
designs. The output from this software can feed into major building SRTs such as
BREEAM and LEED (BASF, 2012).
119
5. Benefits of engaging with SRTs
Several studies have highlighted the positive impact of engaging with building/
infrastructure SRTs. Lee and Guerin (2010) find that LEED-certified buildings yield
positive benefits in relation to employee job performance. Miller et al. (2008) address
the question on the benefits of investing in energy savings and environmental design.
In their study, they use US-based Energy STAR office buildings as one set of green
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
2,2
120
SASBE
Table XIV.
reporting tools
Similarities across
Item BREEAM LEED CASBEE Green Star HK-BEAM
Stages of project Design, review Design, Preliminary design, Design Design, review
and construction construction design, and review and construction
and operation post design and as-built
Popularity (/10) 10 10 6 5 5
Availability (/10) 7 7 7 8 8
Methodology (/15) 11 10 13 9 11
Applicability (/20) 13 13 11.5 10 9
Data-collecting process (/10) 7 7 6 9 8
Accuracy (/10) 8 7 9 5 5
User-friendliness (/10) 8 10 6 8 8
Development (/10) 8 8 7 8 8
Presentation (/5) 3 3 4 3 4
Table XV.
Final Score (/100) 75 75 69.5 65 66
Overall score of
Source: Nguyen and Altan (2011) reporting tools
SASBE HK-BEAM:
2,2 . Mandatory adoption of BEAM Plus Version 1.2 from 1 January 2013. This
allows for standardisation and better comparability (HKGBC and BEAM Society,
2012).
. Allows for CIR in the event that developers have an alternative means of
122 meeting a credit point.
Green Star:
. Designed specifically to cater for Australias unique conditions. (Energy
modelling is consistent with the NABERS tool.) (Green Building Council of
Australia (GBCA), 2012a).
. Allows for compliance interpretation request (CIR) in the event that developers
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
Understanding how the weightings are derived and understanding the stakeholders is
important because this will have a bearing on the overall assessment of buildings/
infrastructure. Future harmonisation effects should consider this aspect in an attempt
to develop an overarching standard for weightings or, at the very least, there needs
to be specific mention or justification of the process involved in deriving these
weightings.
Fourth, there are issues over benchmarks and relative comparisons, based on the
scoring used by the tools. Sharifi and Murayama (2013) argue that the benchmarks set
are non-scientific. Mitchell (2010) claims that Green Star has been criticised for being
too idealistic, showing hallmarks of something developed by architects rather than
people with practical experience in the commercial building industry. As an example,
for Green Star under the IEQ criterion, 1 point is awarded when a daylight factor of 2
per cent is achieved over 90 per cent of the nominated area and 1 point is awarded
when high-frequency ballasts are installed in fluorescent luminaires over a minimum
of 95 per cent of the nominated area. The question remains as to how these standards
are set. There is no empirical evidence to justify that achieving a daylight factor of 2
per cent over the 90 per cent nominated area is actually beneficial to stakeholders.
Fenner and Ryce (2008) highlight that building SRTs rely heavily on designers to
estimate the amount of energy and resources consumed by building occupiers.
Fifth, there is a lack of published reasoning behind the scores allocated for each
criterion, further suggesting that users are merely applying these tools without really
understanding what lies behind the tools. Berardi (2012) and Ding (2008) claim that the
reasons behind the selection of criteria, allocation of scores and weights are not explicit.
SRTs are designed based on opinions, as opposed to a rigorous analysis of building/
infrastructure effects on the environment, economy and society (Fard, 2012; Fowler and
Rauch, 2006; Rumsey and McLellan, 2005 cited in Berardi, 2012; Udall and Schendler,
2005). For example, under the ecological value criterion for Green Star, 4 credit points
are available when the site has no threatened or vulnerable species, no reduction of
native vegetation cover or if the ecological value of the site is not diminished. No
further explanation is provided as to why these criteria are proposed or the reason
behind the allocation of 4 credit points. It is questionable as to whether rewarding
credit points for such criteria in this manner would lead to better environmental
impact. It could occur that a project developer has coincidentally acquired land, which
happens to meet all of the above criteria, without applying additional effort. It would be
helpful if more detailed rationalisation and explanation accompanied the criteria
proposed. Justification as to why certain criteria are allocated more credit points
compared to others would be helpful to users (e.g. at present there is no explanation in Building/
Green Star as to why four credit points are available for the ecological value of site infrastructure
criterion vs 1 credit point for the maintenance of topsoil criterion). Having the
reasoning behind score allocation would help with efforts to improve SRTs. SRTs
Lastly, the tools do not sufficiently account for possible project variety or for
sufficient differentiation between projects. Sharifi and Murayama (2013, p. 80) explain
this limitation, with reference to BREEAM: [y] to maintain a minimum point the 125
developer should demonstrate that 50-74% of the development site that was built on
previously developed/brownfield land will be brought back to use [y] the problem is
there is no justification for setting 50% as the minimum and awarding the same points
for two different projects that have corresponding percentages that are in the same
range but with significant differences. As a further example, in the LEED material
reused criterion, 1 point is awarded if 5 per cent of materials are reused out of the total
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
value of the project, and 2 points if 10 per cent of materials are reused. This may not
sufficiently account for possible project differences. For example, 5 per cent of reused
materials for a large project compared to 5 per cent of reused materials in a small
project have different environmental impact. Under Green Star, the electric lighting
levels criterion states that [y] one point is awarded where it is demonstrated that the
facility lighting design provides a maintenance illuminance of no more than 25%, a
project that has achieved a maintenance illuminance of 5 per cent vs another project
which has achieved 25 per cent obtain similar scores for this criterion. There are many
other examples of this blurred project differentiation, which can be observed across SRTs.
In contrast to the claimed benefits of engaging with SRTs, as noted in Section 5, a
few researchers have challenged their usefulness. Newsham et al. (2009) find that
28-35 per cent of LEED-certified buildings actually use more energy than traditional
buildings. Torcellini et al. (2006) find that actual energy usage in six
high-performance buildings is higher than predicted. Williamson et al. (2001) find
evidence that there is little correlation between a NatHERS award and actual
heating and cooling energy consumption.
This papers authors investigated whether there is any value in obtaining higher
Green Star awards (buildings), as compared with the base award of 4 stars. Green Star
only certifies buildings that achieve a 4, 5 or 6 stars. Buildings that do not meet at
least the minimum 4-star requirement are not publicly disclosed. Two databases are
compared: one from the Green Star web site (Green Building Council of Australia
(GBCA), 2012c), which rates buildings based on adherence to specific sustainable
design specifications, and the second from the NABERS web site (NABERS, 2012),
which rates buildings by measuring energy and water efficiency. Table XVI shows the
comparison, where data were available.
From Table XVI, it is seen that a better Green Star award does not necessarily
mean better performance in terms of energy and water efficiency (using NABERS
award as a gauge of building performance). For example, although the building
occupied by E has a higher Green Star award (6 star) compared to the building
occupied by B (5 star), the NABERS award (energy) is lower for E (3.5 star) compared
to B (5 star). It could be that the afore-mentioned limitations in SRTs (namely, that they
do not sufficiently account for project variety, have subjective benchmarks, etc.) result
in this conclusion. Naturally, this casts doubt over the reliability and effectiveness
of current SRTs. This also raises the concern that building developers might select the
SRT that results in the highest rating. Further investigation is warranted to validate
the findings presented here.
SASBE Green star award NABERS award NABERS award
2,2 Building occupant (design) (energy) (water)
Future research
In light of this review, much remains to be done to enhance building/infrastructure
SRTs and the current understanding of users of these tools. Some suggestions for
future research include:
. Expanding the list of criteria to include more measurable social and economic
issues. Current SRTs for buildings are predominantly focused on the
environment.
. Exploring the possibility of inter-linking different sustainability criteria. Lozano
and Huisingh (2011) observe that a majority of the guidelines and standards
address sustainability issues through compartmentalisation, that is separating
economic, environmental and social criteria. They argue that as a result of this
approach, sustainability efforts are not properly integrated.
. The GRI has been introduced to guide sustainability reporting among
corporations. There is a need to bridge the current gap and look at avenues by
which building/infrastructure SRTs can interlock with GRI.
. The need to incorporate uncertainty/variability in SRTs, given that assessors
perceptions differ.
. Currently, there are tools that report potential environmental impact and tools
that report actual performance. Future research could look into harmonising
both tools to reduce confusion. A lot of work will be required around the
integration process. Mitchell (2010) suggests that perhaps a single agency
responsible for both tools would speed up this process.
. The varying standards across SRTs developed in different countries, make Building/
comparability difficult. Having a common standard would assist in better infrastructure
benchmarking of projects internationally. A memorandum of understanding has
already been signed in 2009 between Green Star, BREEAM and LEED to jointly SRTs
develop common metrics to report CO2 emissions, and align the reporting tools
(Mitchell, 2010). Future research could work on facilitating this unification.
. More empirical research is needed to assess the validity of any benchmarks 127
proposed in SRTs. Currently, a majority of the benchmarks set are based on
perception, which may be inaccurate.
References
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
Adegbile, M.B.O. (2013), Assessment and adaption of an appropriate green building rating
system for Nigeria, Journal of Environment and Earth Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
AGIC (2012), Australian Green Infrastructure Council IS Rating Scheme, Australian Green
Infrastructure Council (AGIC), Sydney, available at: www.agic.net.au/ISratingscheme1.htm
(accessed 7 January 2013).
Baird, G. (2009), Incorporating user performance criteria into building sustainability rating
tools (BSRTs) for buildings in operation, Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1069-1086.
BASF (2012), Life cycle Analyzer, BASF, Ludwigshafen, available at: www.basf.com/group/
corporate/en/function/conversions:/publish/content/news-and-media-relations/news-
releases/downloads/2012/P210_Life_Cycle_Analizer_e.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).
Berardi, U. (2012), Sustainability assessment in construction sector: rating systems and rated
buildings, Sustainable Development, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 411-424.
Bonham-Carter, C. (2010), Sustainable communities in the UK, cited in Sharifi and Murayama
(2013).
Born, P. (1996), Input-output analysis: input of energy, CO2 and work to produce goods, Journal
of Policy Modelling, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 217-221.
Bowyer, J., Howe, J., Fernholz, K. and Lindburg, A. (2006), Designation of Environmentally
Preferable Building Materials: Fundamental Change Needed Within LEED, Dovetail
Partners Inc, Minneapolis, MN, available at: www.dovetailinc.org/files/Dovetail
LEED0606.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).
BREEAM (2012), What is BREEAM? Building Research Establishment (BRE), Watford, available
at: www.breeam.org/about.jsp?id66 (accessed 20 November 2012).
Buchanan, A.H. and Honey, B.G. (1994), Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building
construction, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 205-217.
CASBEE (2002), The Assessment Method Employed by CASBEE, Japan Green Build Council
and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, available at: www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/
english/methodE.htm (accessed 20 November 2012).
Centre for International Economics Canberra and Sydney (2007), Embodied carbon metrics will
avoid higher than desired carbon content and additional costs, cited in Davis Langdon,
available at: www.davislangdon.com/ANZ/Sectors/Sustainability/ECM/ (accessed 24
March 2012).
Chan, P. and Chu, C. (2010), HK-BEAM (Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment
Method): Assessing Healthy Buildings, BEAM Society, Hong Kong, available at:
www.mixtechnology.com/files/download/HK_BEAM.pdf (accessed 6 January 2012).
Chew, M.Y.L. and Das, S. (2007), Building grading systems: a review of the state-of-art,
Architectural Science Review, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
SASBE Cole, R.J. (1999), Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 27 Nos 4-5, pp. 230-246.
2,2
Cole, R.J. (2005), Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 455-467.
Crawley, D. and Aho, I. (1999), Building environmental assessment methods: applications and
development trends, Building Research and Information, Vol. 27 Nos 4-5, pp. 300-308.
128 Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2010), NaTHERS, Department of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra, available at: www.climatechange.gov.au/what-
you-need-to-know/buildings/homes/B/media/publications/buildings/nationwide-home-
energy-rating-scheme.pdf (accessed 23 February 2013).
Ding, G.K.C. (2008), Sustainable construction the role of environmental assessment tools,
Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 451-464.
EIA (2012), 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), US Department
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
developing the methodology SBToolPTH, Building and Environment, Vol. 46 No. 10,
pp. 1962-1971.
Miller, N., Spivey, J. and Florance, A. (2008), Does green pay off?, Journal of Real Estate
Portfolio Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 385-399.
Mitchell, L.M. (2010), Green Star and NABERS: learning from the Australian experience with
green building rating tools in Bose, R.K. (Ed.), Energy Efficient Cities: Assessment Tools
and Benchmarking Practices, The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 93-124.
Mithraratne, N. and Vale, B. (2004), Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses, Building
and Environment, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 483-492.
Morrissey, J., Iyer-Raniga, U., McLaughin, P. and Mills, A. (2012), A strategic appraisal
framework for ecologically sustainable urban infrastructure, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 55-65.
Mroueh, U.-M., Eskola, P. and Laine-Ylijoki, J. (2001), Life-cycle impacts of the use of industrial
by-products in road and earth construction, Waste Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 271-277.
NABERS (2011), Preparing for NABERS Office Rating Application, NSW Office of Environment
and Heritage, Sydney, available at: www.nabers.gov.au/public/WebPages/Document
Handler.ashx?docType 3&id 15&attId 0 (accessed 6 January 2013).
NABERS (2012), Rating Register, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, available at:
www.nabers.gov.au/public/ WebPages/ContentStandard. aspx?module 30& template
3&id 310& side Ratingsfrom20July.htm (accessed 7 January 2013).
Newell, G., MacFarlane, J. and Kok, N. (2011), Building Better Returns: A Study of the Financial
Performance of Green Office Buildings in Australia, Australian Property Institute and
Property Funds Association, University of Western Sydney and the University of
Maastricht in conjunction with Jones Lang LaSalle and CBRE, Australian Property
Institute, Sydney, available at: www.api.org.au/ assets/media_library/ 000/000/219/
original.pdf?1315793106 (accessed 5 January 2013).
Newsham, G.R., Mancini, S. and Birt, B.J. (2009), Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes,
but, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 897-905.
New South Wales (NSW) Government (2013), Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000, New South Wales (NSW) Government, Sydney, available at:
www.legislation.nsw. gov.au/maintop/ view/inforce/ subordleg 557 2000 cd 0 N
(accessed 24 February 2013).
Nguyen, B.K. and Altan, H. (2011), Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems,
Procedia Engineering, Vol. 21, pp. 376-386.
Norman, J., MacLean, H. and Kennedy, C. (2006), Comparing high and low residential density: Building/
life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, Journal of Urban
Planning and Development, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 10-21. infrastructure
NSW Government Planning and Infrastructure (2013), Using the BASIX Assessment Tool, NSW SRTs
Government Planning and Infrastructure, Sydney, available at: www.basix.nsw.gov.au/
basixcms/ getting-started/using- the-basix-assessment- tool.html (accessed 23 February
2013).
131
Piluso, C., Huang, Y. and Lou, H.L. (2008), Ecological input-output analysis-based sustainability
analysis of industrial systems, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 47
No. 6, pp. 1955-1966.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte, K.-W. (2009), International comparison of
sustainable rating tools, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Ries, R., Bilec, M.M., Gokhan, N.M. and Needy, K.L. (2006), The economic benefits of green
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
Watson, P., Jones, D. and Mitchell, P. (2013), Are Australian building eco-assessment tools
meeting stakeholder decision making needs?, available at: www.construction-innovation.
info/images/pdfs/Research_library/ResearchLibraryB/RefereedConferencePapers/Are_
Australian_building_eco-assessement_tools.pdf (accessed 3 May 2013).
Williamson, T.J., OShea, S. and Menadue, V. (2001), NatHERS: science and non-science, 35th
ANZAScA Conference, Wellington, November, available at: www.pc.gov.au/data/assets/
pdf_file/0017/45116/sub028attachment1.pdf (accessed 24 February 2013).
Wiley, J.A., Benefield, J.D. and Johnson, K.H. (2010), Green design and the market for
commercial office space, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 228-243.
Wolters, W.T.M. and Mareschal, B. (1995), Novel types of sensitivity analysis for
additive MCDM methods, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 81 No. 2,
pp. 281-290.
World Economic Forum (2011), A Profitable and Resource Efficient Future: Catalysing Retrofit
Finance and Investing in Commercial Real Estate, World Economic Forum, Geneva,
October, available at: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IU_CatalysingRetrofit
FinanceInvestingCommercialRealEstate_ Report_2011.pdf (accessed 6 January 2013).
Xu, M., Allenby, B. and Kim, J. (2010), Input-Output Analysis for Sustainability, Centre for
Sustainable Engineering, Tempe, AZ, available at: www.ce.cmu.edu/Bcse/5aug07%
20Allenby%20IO.pdf (accessed 27 January 2013).
Further reading
AS/NZS:4801 (2001), Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Specification With
Guidance for Use, Standards Australia, Sydney, available at: http://infostore.
saiglobal.com/store2/Details.aspx?ProductID386329 (accessed 16 October 2012).
BSI (2013), OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety, BSI, London, available at: www.
bsigroup.com.au/en-au/Assessment-and-Certification-services/Management-systems/
Standards-and-schemes/OHSAS-18001/ (accessed 24 January 2013).
EMAS (2013), What is EMAS?, European Commission, Brussels, available at: http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/emas/index_en.htm (accessed 23 January 2013).
ISO9001 (2008), Quality Management Systems Requirements, ISO, Geneva, available
at: www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber46486
(accessed 16 December 2011).
ISO14001 (2004), Environmental Management Systems Requirements with Guidance for Use,
ISO, Geneva, available at: www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.
htm?csnumber31807 (accessed 16 December 2011).
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
BEES National Institute of http://ws680.nist.gov/bees/ All stages in the life of a product Economic performance measured using Appendix
Standards and (A(7rkOp_kyzgEkAAAAZ (raw material acquisition, standard life cycle cost method
Technology (NIST) WExZWEwZDItMzBiY manufacture, transportation, Economic and environmental performance
S00YTVlLWJhYm installation, recycling, waste combined into one overall performance using
UtN2NiOTc4MzNm management) multi-attribute decision analysis
Y2YwJt9Z32gVssFf9Qf_
Ghok1rCVQig1))/default.aspx
BOUSTEAD BOUSTEAD www.boustead-consulting.co.uk/ LCA tool across a number of Global warming potential
Consulting UK categories (fuel production, fuel Conservation of fossil fuels
use, process, transport, biomass) Acidification
Grid electricity use
Public water use
ENVEST Edge Environment http://edgeenvironment.com.au/ LCA tool for earlier phase of Reveals operational impacts and embodied
envest/ building design impacts of building as design evolves
Provides estimates of construction cost and
whole life cycle cost
Ecoinvent Ecoinvent Centre www.ecoinvent.org/database/ Contains data sets in the area of Life cycle inventory which can be used with
agriculture, energy supply, other major LCA tools
transport, biofuels, construction
materials, metals processing,
electronics and waste treatment
GaBi PE International www.gabi- software.com/ Users have the flexibility to Life cycle assessment across different
australia/ software/gabi- construct life cycle of products at modules (design for environment, eco-
software/gabi-5/ any stage efficiency, eco-design, efficient value chains)
Life cycle cost (designing and optimising
products and services for cost reduction)
Life cycle reporting with modules across
sustainable product marketing,
sustainability reporting and LCA knowledge
sharing
Life cycle working environment (developing
manufacturing processes that address social
responsibilities)
LCA tools
Building/
133
Table AI.
SRTs
infrastructure
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
2,2
134
of SRTs
SASBE
Table AII.
Broad comparison of
criteria across a selection
BCA
Green
Mark Estidama Sustainable
Green for Pearl Green Design DGNB- Protocol
Criterion Subcriterion BREEAM LEED Star CASBEE ASPIRE Districts EPRA Community Globe Scorecard BEAM Seal ITACA AGIC
Environmental Energy
Water
Waste
Pollution/emissions/
air
Land use and ecology
Biodiversity
Materials
Management (i.e.
integrated
process, sustainable
Social procurement, etc.)
Health and well-being/
IEQ
Economic Innovation
Equity of economic
opportunity
Livelihood
opportunity
Macroeconomic effects
Note: , presence of criteria
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
(continued)
Analysis of building/
tools
Building/
infrastructure reporting
Table AIII.
135
SRTs
infrastructure
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
2,2
136
SASBE
Table AIII.
SRT Owner Web link Nature of SRT Comments
Deterministic
scoring for Weighting for
criteria criteria
(continued)
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
HK-BEAM Hong Kong Beam www.mixtechnology.com/files/ Scores are allocated to each assessment
Society download/HK_BEAM.pdf criterion taking into account international
consensus. Weightings exist for different
criteria
DGNB-Seal German Sustainable www.dgnb.de/_en/certification- Each criterion receives a maximum of 10
Building Council system/Evaluation/ points based on documented or calculated
evaluation.php quality. There is flexibility to increase the
weighting of each criterion by as much as
threefold. Three performance standards;
Gold (80%), Silver (50%) or Bronze (35%)
Protocol ITACA ITACA www.irbdirekt.de/daten/iconda/ na All performance criteria are set within
CIB9084.pdf performance scales from 2 to 5, where
0 is the minimum acceptable performance
in the industry. The overall score is also
based on this similar rating scale
Table AIII.
137
SRTs
infrastructure
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
2,2
138
embedded
SASBE
Table AIV.
International standards
BCA Sustainable
International Green Green Green Design HK- DGNB Protocol
standard BREEAM LEED Star CASBEE ASPIRE AGIC Mark EPRA Estidama Globe Scorecard BEAM Seal ITACA
ISO 14001 | | | | | | | | |
ISO 9001 | |
AS/NZS 4804 |
EMAS |
OHSAS 18001 |
Note: |, presence of a standard
About the authors Building/
Renard Y.J. Siew is a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales, where he also
graduated with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering (First Class Honours). He also holds a Certificate
infrastructure
in International Auditing (CertIA) issued by the ACCA. As an undergraduate, he was the SRTs
recipient of the Yayasan Sime Darby Scholarship, the Brookfield Multiplex Engineering
Construction Management Prize, the Australian Conferences Management Education for
Engineers (ACMEE) Award, on the Deans Honours List and a member of the Golden Key 139
International Honours Society. Passionate about volunteerism, Renard is an active member of
Engineers Without Borders (EWB).
Dr Maria C.A. Balatbat is a senior lecturer at the Australian School of Business, University of
New South Wales (UNSW) and a Fellow of CPA Australia. Maria is also a research coordinator at
the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at UNSW. She teaches advanced financial
accounting in the undergraduate and post-graduate programs. Recently, she has developed a
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
post-graduate course on reporting for climate change and sustainability and teaches this to
business and environmental management students.
David G. Carmichael is a professor of Civil Engineering and former Head of the Department
of Engineering Construction and Management at the University of New South Wales. He is a
graduate of the Universities of Sydney and Canterbury; a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers,
Australia; a Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers; and a former graded arbitrator
and mediator. He publishes, teaches, and consults widely in most aspects of project management,
construction management, systems engineering and problem solving. He is known for his
leftfield thinking on project and risk management (Project Management Framework, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 2004), and project planning (Project Planning, and Control, Taylor and
Francis, London, 2006). David G. Carmichael is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: D.Carmichael@unsw.edu.au
1. I. M. Chethana S. Illankoon, Vivian W. Y. Tam, Khoa N. Le. 2017. Environmental, Economic, and
Social Parameters in International Green Building Rating Tools. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice 05016010. [CrossRef]
2. Renard Siew. 2017. Sustainability rating tools for buildings and its wider application. Sustainable Buildings
2, 2. [CrossRef]
3. Konrad Xuereb, Ivan P. Parkin. 2016. Adapting building structures to new uses in the future. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 169:6, 233-242. [CrossRef]
4. Renard Y.J. Siew, Maria C.A. Balatbat, David G. Carmichael. 2016. A proposed framework for assessing
the sustainability of infrastructure. International Journal of Construction Management 16:4, 281-298.
[CrossRef]
5. SiewRenard Y.J. Renard Y.J. Siew Renard Y.J. Siew is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Civil and
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
Environmental Engineering and a Researcher based at the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets,
UNSW. His research interest lies in sustainable construction, sustainability/integrated reporting, ESG
research and socially responsible investment (across different asset classes: equities, infrastructure and
property/real estate). Renard did his PhD at UNSW with the support of the Australian Postgraduate
Award Scholarship. In 2013, he was selected as 1 of 15 international scholars to attend the PhD Academy
at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH). He has published in several international refereed
journals. In 2014, he won a Highly Commended Paper award for his research and was a nominee
for the Individual Leadership in Sustainability Infrastructure Award. He received his Bachelor of Civil
Engineering (First Class Honors) from UNSW under the sponsorship of the Sime Darby Foundation. He
was the recipient of the Brookfield Multiplex Engineering Construction Management Prize, Australian
Conferences Management Education for Engineers Award and UNSW Postgraduate Research Support
Scheme and was on the Deans List (every consecutive year of study). He was nominated for the
MASA-Shell Excellence Award and the International Postgraduate Student of the Year Award by CISA
for outstanding academic, extra-curricular achievements and commitment to society. His professional
experiences include being a research and teaching assistant at UNSW, a research volunteer with the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI)-Focal Point Australia, a corporate executive with the Sime Darby Group, a
market research analyst with Investing for Charity (I4C) and a management consultant with 180 Degrees
Consulting. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia . 2016. Assessing the readiness of sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) for an age-friendly built
environment. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 21:2, 122-136. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
6. Tim Rogmans, Mohammad Ghunaim. 2016. A framework for evaluating sustainability indicators in the
real estate industry. Ecological Indicators 66, 603-611. [CrossRef]
7. Nomeda Dobrovolskien, Rima Tamoinien. 2016. An Index to Measure Sustainability of a Business
Project in the Construction Industry: Lithuanian Case. Sustainability 8:1, 14. [CrossRef]
8. Renard Yung Jhien Siew. 2016. Integrating sustainability into construction project portfolio management.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20:1, 101-108. [CrossRef]
9. Renard Y. J. Siew. 2015. Australian construction response to sustainability megaforces. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 168:6, 230-244. [CrossRef]
10. Renard Yung Jhien Siew University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia . 2015. Predicting
the behaviour of Australian ESG REITs using Markov chain analysis. Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction 20:3, 252-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Professor Geoffrey Shen Shanshan Bu Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Geoffrey Shen Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong Chimay J. Anumba Department of Architectural
Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States Andy K.D. Wong
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong
Kong Xin Liang Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong . 2015. Literature review of green retrofit design for commercial buildings with
BIM implication. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 4:2, 188-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Renard Y.J. Siew Department of Engineering Construction & Management, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia . 2015. Case study of an Australian residential college. Journal of Facilities
Management 13:4, 391-398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia At 22:36 25 April 2017 (PT)
13. Mohamed Matar, Hesham Osman, Maged Georgy, Azza Abou-Zeid, Moheeb El-Said. 2015. A systems
engineering approach for realizing sustainability in infrastructure projects. HBRC Journal . [CrossRef]
14. Renard Y. J. R. Siew. 2015. Briefing: Integrated reporting challenges in the construction industry.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 168:1, 3-6. [CrossRef]
15. Saphira Patel, Thierry Giordano. 2014. Environmental assessments for the greening of public
infrastructure in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 31:5, 721-743. [CrossRef]