Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Review

A framework for evaluating sustainability indicators in the real

estate industry
Tim Rogmans a,∗ , Mohammad Ghunaim b
a
College of Business, Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
b
Diamond Developers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The growth in the use of sustainability indicators and ratings in the real estate industry has been accompa-
Received 7 June 2015 nied by strong criticism of the most commonly used rating systems designed to evaluate the sustainability
Received in revised form 26 January 2016 performance of real estate developments. Most of these criticisms focus on the content of the different rat-
Accepted 29 January 2016
ing systems. A systematic evaluation of the methodologies of sustainability ratings is lacking. This article
builds a framework that can be used to evaluate the methodologies of sustainability ratings and applies
Keywords:
the evaluation framework to five widely used sustainability ratings for homes and communities (BREAAM,
Sustainability indicators
CASBEE, Estidama, Green Star, LEED). The evaluation results highlight three major shortcomings in the
Ratings
Measurements
rating systems that have been evaluated. First, the systems lack unambiguous definitions of sustaina-
Built environment bility. They give insufficient explanation of why certain components are included in the ratings and on
Real estate what basis these components have been accorded their weights. Second, the rating systems put more
Evaluation emphasis on sustainable design than performance, especially for the ratings for communities. Finally,
Building the ratings are generally not responsive to local conditions of a project. Each rating system has its par-
Communities ticular strengths and weaknesses and no system is superior on all dimensions. The proposed evaluation
framework can be applied to sustainability ratings in different industries and is adaptable depending on
stakeholder requirements.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603
2. Sustainability indicators in the real estate industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
3. Evaluating sustainability ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
3.1. Results of existing evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
3.2. Evaluation frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
3.3. Developing a new framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607
3.4. Evaluation of sustainability ratings in the real estate sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
Appendix A. Criteria to evaluate sustainability indicators (Reed et al., 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
Appendix B. Global Initiative for sustainability ratings (GISR) – CORE framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610

effects of ongoing urbanization on the environment make

1. Introduction
sustainability considerations in buildings and communities par-
ticularly relevant (Reith and Orova, 2015). The growing interest
Sustainability has been declared ‘the next megatrend’ facing cor-
in sustainability across the globe during the last two decades has
porations and governments (Lubin and Esty, 2010). The detrimental
resulted in a parallel growth in measures of sustainability, usually
expressed as sustainability indicators, ratings and indices.
Sustainability indicators and ratings are used in different
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 552893381. contexts. A number of ratings are available to measure the
E-mail address: tim.rogmans@zu.ac.ae (T. Rogmans). sustainability performance of countries (e.g. EIRIS, Robeco). Other

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.058
1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
604 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611
measurement systems aim to assess the sustainability performance
of companies (Delmas and Blass, 2010). More recently, a number
of more focused sustainability rating schemes have emerged, most
notably in the agriculture (Freebairn and King, 2003; Pannel and
Glenn, 2000) and real estate sectors (Berardi, 2012). Sustainability
is an important topic in the both agriculture and the real estate
sector. Estimates of the contribution of the real estate sector to
global greenhouse gas emissions range from 7.9% (IPCC, 2007) to
up to 30% (UNEP, 2009). These emissions are mainly the result
of energy consumption during the operational life of real estate
projects. However, energy consumption during the construction
phase of a project and the embedded CO2 emissions of building
materials are also significant. In addition, the real estate sector is
responsible for a host of other environmental impacts on water
resources, waste generation, air quality and biodiversity (Sharifi
and Murayama, 2013).
Although sustainability ratings do vary in scope, approach and
objectives (Bell and Morse, 2008), there has been some com-
mon ground in the field of sustainability ratings for buildings
and communities globally. Sustainability ratings are intended to
provide various stakeholders with a quick way to evaluate the sus-
tainability performance of a construction project. The ratings are
produced for various stakeholders. Potential purchasers or tenants
of a property can check the development’s sustainability char-
acteristics and make informed decisions based on their findings.
Government authorities can encourage and regulate sustainable
practices among industry participants. Policymakers can use sus-
tainability indicators to inform policymaking (Hezri and Dovers,
2006). Architects, property developers and suppliers to the con-
struction industry can use ratings to guide their work to reach a
desired standard of sustainability. They can also bolster their green
credentials by being involved in projects with high sustainability
ratings. Pressure to use sustainability ratings has come from differ-
ent stakeholders, with regulators playing a prominent role in many
countries to develop and apply common standards of sustainability
measurement.
The increasing attention to sustainability and to sustainability
ratings has been accompanied by strong criticism leveled at the
most widely used rating systems. Most existing critiques of the
available ratings in the real estate sector focus on the content of
different ratings (Reith and Orova, 2015; Haapio and Viitaniemi,
2008; Haapio, 2012; Sharifi and Murayama, 2013). Although debate
about the content of sustainability measures is important, most
existing evaluations do not address the methodologies behind the
rating systems. A critical evaluation of rating methodologies can
make discussion about the content of a rating system much more
fruitful.
An analysis of the methodologies of sustainability rating
systems inevitably starts with the question of what are the require-
ments of a sustainability rating system. In other words, how can
various stakeholders of construction projects know whether a
rating provides valuable information on relevant sustainability
characteristics? If the aim of sustainability ratings is to promote
sustainable practices, then ratings must satisfy a number of crite-
ria in order to be usable, effective and impactful. The objectives
of this article are to develop a set of criteria to evaluate sustaina-
bility indicators and to apply the criteria to several commonly used
sustainability indicators in the real estate industry. The developed
framework and its application in this article aim to shed light on
the effectiveness of these widely used sustainability ratings and
provide a usable mechanism for stakeholders to evaluate other
sustainability ratings.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2
reviews the relevant literature and describes several sustainability
indicator systems in the real estate sector. In Section 3, a set of
suggested evaluation criteria for sustainability ratings in the real
estate industry is developed. Subsequently, the sustainability indi-
cators described in Section 2 are evaluated according to the criteria
developed in Section 3. The conclusion summarizes the findings
and highlights ways in which indicator systems can be made more
relevant to industry stakeholders.
2. Sustainability indicators in the real estate industry
Sustainability measures can take the form of indicators or
ratings. In the literature, sustainability indicators are measures
that refer to one dimension of sustainability, for example energy
efficiency or water consumption. Different indicators can sub-
sequently be combined into a sustainability rating or index,
resulting in a quantitative aggregation of underlying indicators.
Such aggregation typically involves the conversion of measures
to common units and the application of weights to each mea-
sure according to its importance in the rating system’s overall
view of sustainability (De Sherbinin et al., 2013). Ratings or indices
thereby provide a simplified, coherent, multidimensional view of
a system (Mayer, 2008). Reed et al. (2006) define sustainability
indicators as “the collection of specific measurable characteris-
tics of society that address social, economic and environmental
quality”.
Defining sustainability is an ongoing challenge (Bell and Morse,
2001). If a concept or goal is not defined, then it becomes dif-
ficult to measure progress toward that goal. However, as long
as individual sustainability ratings clearly define what they are
measuring, then there is the possibility of various rating systems
with different definitions of sustainability. As an overall theme,
sustainable development is often described through the decla-
ration of the United Nations Commission on Environment and
Development (1987) as the “Development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs”. Within this context, sustainability is
said to consist of three pillars: environmental, social and economic
(Reith and Orova, 2015). In the real estate sector, environmental
sustainability considerations typically focus on energy consump-
tion and generation, water consumption and waste management.
However, the lack of a common definition of sustainability
remains a challenge for every effort to develop sustainability
indicators, regardless of the industry or country to which it
applies.
There are two broad methodological paradigms in the liter-
ature on sustainability indicators (Bell and Morse, 2001). One
is an expert-led, top-down approach using explicitly quantita-
tive indicators. Another approach is bottom-up and participatory
which emphasizes the importance of understanding local context
to set goals and establish priorities (Fraser et al., 2006). There
are also hybrid methods, combining expert led and participatory
approaches (Reed et al., 2006). Expert led approaches are particu-
larly appropriate when the stakeholders in a project may lack the
technical knowledge to define indicators. The key aim of indica-
tors using this approach is to enable comparisons in sustainability
performance across entities. In the real estate industry, residents
typically lack the required technical knowledge to design sus-
tainability ratings. In fact, enabling independent and objective
comparisons is the main driver behind the use of sustainability
indicators. Hence, the most commonly used sustainability indica-
tors in the real estate sector are expert-led. Bottom-up approaches
to developing sustainability indicators are typically at the commu-
nity level rather than for homes or buildings. (Redefining Progress,
2002; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000; Reed et al., 2006). By
definition these community driven indicator systems are highly
responsive to the local environment but not easily comparable
across locations.
 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611
Although sustainability indicators are used in a variety of
industries (Bell and Morse, 2008), such indicators are particularly
prevalent in the real estate and construction industry (Berardi,
2012). Over six hundred sustainability rating schemes related to
the built environment exist worldwide. Many ratings have a nar-
row focus on very specific items, such as the energy consumption
of a building or the sustainability impact of building materials.
These specialized ratings are most likely to be relevant to a rela-
tively small group of stakeholders, such as architects or regulators.
Of greater interest to a wide variety of stakeholders are the Total
Quality Assessment systems, which combine a variety of environ-
mental sustainability considerations and often include economic
and social topics (Berardi, 2012; Moldan et al., 2012). Scores for
various criteria are combined into an overall rating, which provides
stakeholders with a summary assessment of the sustainability of
a particular real estate project, typically a home or a community.
Multi criteria rating systems exist for different types of buildings
(such as homes, offices, schools and museums) as well as for neigh-
borhoods and communities.
The oldest and most widely used rating systems in the real estate
sector are BREEAM and LEED. These organizations now operate
globally, with LEED being used in 150 countries (USGBC, 2015).
In addition, there has been an increase in the number of coun-
try specific ratings, which have been developed in response to the
realization that the measurement of sustainability is context and
location specific. The following section highlights some of the main
characteristics of five widely used rating systems in the real estate
sector.
Launched in 1990 in the United Kingdom by BRE, BREEAM is
the oldest multi-criteria sustainability rating method for the built
environment. The standard attempts to establish best practices in
sustainable building design, construction and operation. BREEAM
is a founding member of the UK Green Building Council and the
system is used by other Green Building Councils such as those
in Norway and the Netherlands. BREAAM has been the basis for
nationally based rating systems in Canada (Green Globes), Australia
(Green Star) and Hong Kong (BEAM). BREEAM has also released its
own international version. To date, BREEAM has certified 425,000
projects with another two million projects registered and awaiting
assessment. BREEAM certifies new construction commercial build-
ings, residential buildings, residential homes, health care facilities,
prisons and communities.
In 1993, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) was established
with the aim of developing a standard that promotes sustainability
in the construction industry. With the involvement of USGBC mem-
bers and the assistance of over 60 organizations, the Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating
system was developed. LEED pays particular attention to energy
and water efficiency, reduction of CO2 emissions and the conser-
vation of resources. LEED encompasses several rating systems that
include commercial, residential and civic buildings. To date, more
than 55,000 commercial projects and 154,000 homes have been
certified by LEED globally. Outside the United States, the countries
where LEED ratings are most prevalent are Canada, China, India and
Brazil (US Green Building Council, 2015).
With more focus being directed toward sustainability standards
across the world, stakeholders in the real estate sector in some
countries determined that rating systems developed in the US and
UK, could not be applied to their specific regions and climates. As a
result, many countries have developed their own country specific
sustainability standards. For example, in 2005, the Comprehensive
Assessment System for Built Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE)
system was established by the Japanese Sustainable Building Con-
sortium (JSBC). CASBEE standards and tools are written in Japanese
and are specific to local environmental conditions (for example,
earthquake risk). CASBEE environmental standards are applied to
605
different building types and a building’s entire lifecycle, including
pre-design, new construction, existing buildings and renovation.
By 2014, the total number of buildings certificated by CASBEE was
over 350.
Another national initiative is the BCA Green Mark system.
Launched by the Singapore Building and Construction Authority
(BCA) in 2005, this scheme is an initiative to drive Singapore’s con-
struction industry toward more environment-friendly buildings
and practices. As Singapore imports most of its energy from neigh-
boring countries, the Green Mark Scheme places much emphasis on
energy efficiency within buildings and developments. To date, there
are approximately 2200 Green Mark building projects in Singapore.
A more recently developed country-specific sustainability
assessment system is the Pearl rating system by Estidama, estab-
lished by the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2008. Estidama aims to create more sus-
tainable communities, cities and global enterprises that balance
four pillars of sustainability; environmental, economic, cultural and
social. Estidama’s Pearl rating systems cover communities, build-
ings and villas. The ultimate goal of Estidama is to preserve and
enrich Abu Dhabi’s physical and cultural identity in line with the
emirate’s Vision 2030. To date, Estidama has awarded design rat-
ings to over 40 developments in the UAE (Estidama, 2015). There is
no information available on the number of units covered in these
developments.
These three national systems are described here for illustrative
purposes only. There is a significant and growing number of other
national sustainability rating systems worldwide. Several trends
point toward growth in the use of sustainability indicators in the
real estate industry. First, the number of buildings and other devel-
opments that have been rated has grown rapidly. Worldwide green
building certified space is forecast to grow from approximately 6
billion square feet in 2010 to 53 billion square feet by 2020 (Pike
Research, 2010). Secondly, there has been a substantial increase in
the number of nationally based rating systems available to deve-
lopers. Meanwhile, existing systems such as LEED and BREEAM
continue to actively market their rating services internationally.
Thirdly, existing rating providers have broadened their scope from
a focus on residential buildings, to other building types, includ-
ing commercial buildings, schools, museums and neighborhoods.
Finally, existing rating systems have broadened the topics they
cover, expanding from an initial focus on energy consumption to
broader considerations such as social and economic sustainability
(Berardi, 2011). These trends point toward a strong continuing
growth in the number and use of sustainability ratings in the real
estate sector, thereby confirming the need for a framework that
evaluates these systems in a structured manner.
As sustainability ratings grow in number and complexity, stake-
holders in the real estate industry face some difficult decisions.
Regulators must choose which rating scheme is most appropriate
to its circumstances and need to decide on local adaptations that
must be made to better fit international rating systems to their
unique environmental conditions. Architects and developers must
choose which, if any, rating to obtain for their projects and whether
to adapt their designs to comply with the rater’s view of sustaina-
bility. Investors and tenants need to interpret sustainability ratings
and must decide how to take these into account in their investment
decisions. In order to make these choices, a good understanding of
the various rating schemes is necessary.
3. Evaluating sustainability ratings
3.1. Results of existing evaluations
A number of evaluations of sustainability ratings in the real
estate sector have been published. Most existing evaluation are
606 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611
from a technical perspective, comparing the contents of the param-
eters of different rating systems. This section summarizes the main
findings from the literature.
Reed et al. (2009) compared the contents of different sustaina-
bility ratings by analyzing the different components and weightings
that make up a rating. Their effort concluded that there is a high
level of variability between rating systems. For example, they con-
cluded that if the LEED and Green Star rating systems were applied
to UK buildings, LEED and Green Star would rate the same building
higher than the UK BREEAM assessment method.
Elgendy (2010) compared Abu Dhabi’s Estidama to BREEAM and
LEED. He compared the weight given to items such as site selec-
tion, water, energy and materials in the ultimate rating score. He
concluded that the elements in the Estidama rating system contain
aspects of BREEAM and LEED, as well as some items that are unique
to the context of Abu Dhabi.
Berardi (2011) provided a descriptive analysis of BREEAM, LEED,
CASBEE, SBTool, SBC-ITACA and Green Globes, with a focus on
the evaluation criteria used in these different systems. He con-
cluded that most of the multi-criteria rating systems still focus
exclusively on environmental sustainability and fail to take into
account social and economic aspects. Saunders (2008) made a tech-
nical comparison of CASEBEE, LEED, Green Star and BREEAM, with
a focus on the rating categories, weights and rating processes of
each system. Nguyen and Altan (2011) developed an evaluation of
rating methodologies using a set of nine review criteria to evalu-
ate ratings. In their comparison, there was no discussion of how
the evaluation criteria were developed. Siew et al. (2013) provided
a descriptive comparison of building and infrastructure sustaina-
bility reporting tools. Hes (2007) summarized research done on the
actual performance of buildings that have obtained sustainability
ratings.
Several studies have been done to compare neighborhood sus-
tainability assessment tools. Sharifi and Murayama (2013) analyzed
seven neighborhood assessment tools and concluded that ratings
do not include a mechanism for local adaptability and participa-
tion. Reith and Orova (2015) provide a detailed content analysis
of five neighborhood assessment systems. Their study is based on
the premise that sustainability assessment systems must balance
dimensions of environmental, social and economic sustainability.
By analyzing and classifying each of the components of each sys-
tem in their scope, they conclude that environmental aspects are
the most important dimension in determining an overall assess-
ment score, followed by social conditions and then by economic
issues.
The evaluations in the existing literature share an approach that
is heavily structured as far as the analysis of the contents of the
rating systems is concerned. However, evaluations of the rating
process and methodology remain largely anecdotal. For example,
Frankel and Nelson (2012) stressed the importance of coming to
common standards in measuring sustainability in the real estate
sector and highlight shortcomings in existing systems. They argued
that sustainability ratings tend to reward effort over result and
consider building design over actual performance. As a result, mea-
surement systems can have the perverse effect that highly rated
buildings actually have poor sustainability performance. Berardi
(2011) pointed out that the reasons behind choices regarding the
selection criteria and the weight given to each criterion are not
explicit in the most common systems. Reed et al. (2009) suggested
that greater transparency by rating providers would ultimately lead
to a higher degree of consistency among them. King (2008) advo-
cates for a more participatory approach in designing assessment
tools and argues that sustainability considerations should play a
larger role early on in the project appraisal process. Several case
studies exist of the development of country specific assessment
schemes (e.g. Mateus and Braganca, 2011; Hikmat and Sabat, 2009).
Such case studies are often presented as potential models for others
to follow.
There have also been criticisms of sustainability ratings in the
professional press, arguing that the systems are bureaucratic, costly
and time consuming to administer. Developers complain of being
subject to ‘box ticking exercises’ that drain resources while doing
little to promote sustainability (Mouzon, 2014). Alternatives to
multi-criteria sustainability ratings include environmental labels
for specific parts of a project (e.g. sustainable timber, energy effi-
cient appliances) and sustainability reporting along recognized
standards such as those developed by the Global Reporting Initia-
tive (GRI).
Despite these recurrent criticisms of sustainability rating
methodologies, there has been no structured analysis of the
methodology of leading sustainability indicators in the real estate
industry.
3.2. Evaluation frameworks
In the context of the numerous criticisms of existing rating sys-
tems, the question remains how the methodologies behind the
sustainability indicators may be evaluated. The necessity of an
evaluation framework and the inevitable degree of subjectivity
involved in developing such a framework, have been pointed out
by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (2001):
“A framework for organizing the selection and development of
indicators is essential. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that
any framework, by itself, is an imperfect tool for organizing and
expressing the complexities and interrelationships encompassed
by sustainable development. Ultimately, the choice of a framework
and a core set of indicators must meet the needs and priorities of
users”.
In other words, a framework for the development of sustaina-
bility indicators is required, but is also inevitably imperfect. Several
attempts have been made to develop methods to assess sustaina-
bility ratings. However, little work has been published in this area
that has direct relevance for ratings in the real estate and con-
struction industry. Therefore, it is necessary to consider also rating
evaluation criteria that have been developed for sustainability rat-
ings outside the real estate sector and make adaptations where
required.
Based on a wide-ranging review of the literature, Reed et al.
(2006) provide a listing of potential criteria to evaluate sustaina-
bility indicators (see Appendix A). Although their work considered
sustainability indicators for use by local communities rather than in
the real estate sector, their analysis has relevance for many types of
sustainability indicators. They split the criteria to evaluate sustaina-
bility indicators into two categories; objectivity criteria and ease
of use criteria. Objectivity criteria are designed to test whether the
indicators accurately and objectively measure progress toward sus-
tainable development goals. Ease of use criteria assess how easy it is
for people in local communities to use the indicators. There can be
a conflict between objectivity and ease of use, in the sense that the
most scientifically rigorous indicators may be difficult and costly to
measure. In the real estate sector, rating systems are developed and
implemented primarily by professionals in the industry. Therefore,
the main focus of an evaluation of sustainability ratings in the real
estate sector should be on objectivity criteria. Relevant ease of use
criteria are most likely to center around the costs incurred to obtain
a rating and the clarity of information they provide to the end users
of a property.
In addition, the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings
(GISR), a joint project by Ceres and the Tellus Institute, has devel-
oped its own set of twelve principles that sustainability ratings
should comply with (Appendix B). The GISR principles are divided
into process and content categories. Process principles relate to
 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611
the “design, application and maintenance of a rating to ensure
excellence, credibility and integrity” (GISR, 2013). Content prin-
ciples relate to the “scope, quality and measurement aspects of
ratings” (GISR, 2013). Although these principles apply to corporate
sustainability ratings and are mainly used by the investment com-
munity, several of the principles are equally relevant for ratings
in the real estate industry. For example, GISR’s principle of trans-
parency stipulates that stakeholders need to understand a rating’s
“assumptions, scoring methodology, and extrapolations”. Another
relevant GISR principle is that of comparability, meaning that a rat-
ing should allow users ‘to compare the performance of the same
company over time and of different companies within the same
period’. The principle of sustainability context requires that sus-
tainability is assessed in the context of science based thresholds.
The principle of balance stipulates that ratings should measure
historical and perspective performance. In this way, the GISR pro-
vides an additional perspective on the conditions that effective
sustainability ratings need to satisfy. The GISR is also developing
an accreditation system for corporate sustainability ratings on the
basis of its principles. If such a structured evaluation system can be
applied to corporate sustainability rating systems, then the same
can be achieved for ratings in the real estate sector.
Other studies (e.g. Dale and Beyeler, 2001; Singh et al., 2012;
Moldan et al., 2012; Hak et al., 2007) have developed guides for the
development of sustainability indicators that are not specific to the
real estate sector. Their frameworks point toward the same princi-
ples and criteria to be used as those provided by Reed et al. (2006)
and GISR (2013). The main guide with direct relevance to the real
estate industry is the World Green Business Council’s draft ‘Quality
Assurance Guide for Green Building Tools’ (World Green Building
Council, 2013). This guide provides a step-by-step process model
for the development of green building assessment systems. How-
ever, the only required criteria for sustainability ratings explicitly
referred to in the guide are transparency and impartiality.
3.3. Developing a new framework
Drawing from the criteria mentioned in the literature, as well
as the reported criticisms of some of the prevalent sustainability
indicator systems, it is possible to design a number of relevant
criteria for the evaluation of sustainability indicators in the real
estate industry. On the basis of the objectivity criteria that sustaina-
bility indicators should be accurate, bias free, reliable, scientifically
robust and credible (Reed et al., 2006), a first requirement of sus-
tainability indicators in the real estate sector is that there is a
clear definition of sustainability or at least a description of what
the designers of the indicator system understand by the word sus-
tainability. Only on the basis of a clear understanding of the overall
concept that needs to be assessed, is it possible to design relevant
measures and targets.
There can be valid reasons why sustainability would be defined
differently across geographies, including variations in climate and
differences in culture and in social and economic conditions. How-
ever, it is not realistic, necessary or even desirable to expect all
rating systems to have a common definition of sustainability. The
main point is that there must be a clear definition or description of
what any particular rating system is designed to measure.
In order to respond to the requirements of accuracy, credibility
and scientific robustness, it needs to be clear to stakeholders why
and how various individual indicators contribute to the overall
score of a project and how these indicators relate to the system’s
overall concept of sustainability. First, there needs to be a descrip-
tion of how the system has been developed. For example, has the
design been driven by experts or through extensive stakeholder
consultation? Secondly, there should be an explanation of the
items and weights that make up the rating. Finally, there needs to
607
be some discussion of why an item such as water use has a certain
weighting in the overall rating score compared to other elements
such as energy efficiency or waste recycling. This set of criteria can
be summarized under the term transparency.
In relation to the criteria that indicators should provide timely
information and need to be able to assess trends over time, sus-
tainability indicators in the real estate sector need to measure
sustainability performance at regular intervals, for example quar-
terly or annually. This assessment needs to continue once the
construction phase of a project is completed and has entered the
operational phase. For real estate projects to be verifiably sus-
tainable, their sustainability performance must be measured on
an ongoing basis. Failure to do so would restrict a rating’s use to
measuring potential rather than actual performance (Hes, 2007).
This criterion is referred to as the possibility of a post construction
rating.
In response to the need for ratings to be relevant to the local
context, sustainability ratings should be adaptable to local cli-
matic conditions and other unique environmental aspects specific
to that location. The ratings must also account for the needs of
the stakeholders and their requirements of the project. Mouzon
(2014) pointed out that “a highly sustainable building on Cape Cod
is ridiculously unsustainable on the Gulf Coast”. Across national
boundaries and climate zones, the need for local adaptation is
paramount for sustainability ratings to have local relevance.
With respect to ease of use criteria, in order to satisfy the needs
of different stakeholders, the calculation method and final score
represented by sustainability ratings must be easy to understand
by a variety of parties, including legislators, developers, suppliers,
investors and end-users.
Finally, the costs and time required for a project to obtain a sus-
tainability rating are also relevant. If a good rating system is so
resource intensive that the rating cost provides a significant deter-
rent to the stakeholders in the project, then the system is less likely
to achieve widespread adoption. Costs related to obtaining a rating
can include fees paid to the rating provider, time required to gather
information and submit documentation, time spent with external
assessors, as well as training to be followed by a company’s employ-
ees in order to become knowledgeable about a particular rating
system.
Based on the above analysis, it is suggested that the effectiveness
of sustainability indicators and ratings in the real estate industry
can be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Is there a clear definition or description of sustainability available
in the description of the rating methodology? (Definition).
2. Transparency of the rating system. Transparency can be broken
down into information about the process by which the rating
system has been developed, the contents of the components of
the rating and calculations that are used to arrive at a rating
and the level of justification for the contents of the rating system
(Transparency).
3. Is the rating system adaptable to local conditions? This crite-
rion concerns mainly local climates and other environmental
conditions, but ratings that encompass social and economic con-
siderations also need to be relevant to local conditions along
those dimensions (Local relevance).
4. Does the rating system measure the performance during the
operation phase of the project or is it limited to the design and
construction phase? (post construction rating).
5. Are the scoring systems and final rating scores unambiguous and
easy to understand? (Ease of understanding).
6. Costs involved in obtaining a rating (Costs).
Following Reed et al. (2006), the first four criteria relate to objec-
tivity of a rating system, whereas the last two criteria deal with
608 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611

Table 1
Evaluation of sustainability ratings: homes and communities.

LEEDa BREEAMb CASBEEc Green Markd Estidamae

Ratings for homes

1. Sustainability definition
- Definition - No - No - No - No - No
- Description - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
2. Transparency
- Process - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
- Contents - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
- Justification - Yes - No - Yes - No - No
3. Local sensitivity - Possible - Possible - No - No - No
4. Post construction rating - Yes (existing buildings) - No - Yes - Yes - Under development
5. Ease of understanding
- Scoring system - Yes - Yes - No - Yes - Yes
- Final score - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
6. Costs (minimum) US $300 GBP 995 Yen 80,000 Sin $ 14,650 Free
(US $ 1450) (US $ 670) (US $ 10,750)

Ratings for communities

1. Sustainability definition
- Definition - No - No - No - No - No
- Description - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
2. Transparency
- Process - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
- Contents - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
- Justification - Yes - No - Yes - No - No
3. Local sensitivity - Possible - Possible - No - No - No
4. Post construction rating - No - No - No - No - Under development
5. Ease of understanding
- Scoring system - Yes - Yes - No - Yes - Yes
- Final score - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes
a
LEED for homes (USA).
b
BREEAM code for sustainable homes (UK).
c
CASBEE for home (Japan).
d
BCA residential new building (Singapore).
e
ESTIDAMA Pearl Villa Rating System (United Arab Emirates).

ease of use. Using the GISR categories of process and content related
criteria for ratings, the criteria of ‘Definition’ and ‘Transparency’ are
process related, whereas ‘Local Relevance’ and ‘Post Construction
Rating’ are content related criteria. The criteria of ‘Ease of Under-
standing’ and ‘Costs’ are not part of the GISR principles but they
relate most closely to content and process, respectively.
3.4. Evaluation of sustainability ratings in the real estate sector
For the purpose of this study, five leading sustainability rating
systems have been selected on the basis of their rate of adop-
tion, comprehensiveness and geographic origin. The United States’
Green Building Council’s LEED system is the most widely used rat-
ing globally. The United Kingdom’s BREEAM system is the oldest
international system in the world and has served as the inspira-
tion for a number of national schemes. Singapore’s Green Mark,
Japan’s CASBEE and the United Arab Emirates’ ESTIDAMA schemes,
as described above, provide three examples of prominent schemes
in different parts of Asia and the Middle East.
Each system has been evaluated according to the criteria devel-
oped in Section 3. The evaluations have been carried out on the
basis of publicly available materials for each of the rating systems.
In each case, the main source of information has been the technical
manual that describes the rating system. The evaluation framework
has been applied to ratings for both homes and communities. The
results are summarized in Table 1.
As mentioned, there is an inevitable degree of subjectivity
involved in the evaluations represented in Table 1. However, by
clarifying and breaking down the evaluation criteria in detail, it is
the intention to remove the potential for bias.
From Table 1, it can be seen that none of the rating systems
provide a clear and unambiguous definition of sustainability in
their manuals. Instead, each rating system provides a description
of relevant aspects of sustainability, including an elaboration of
various environmental, economic and social aspects. The rating
systems also have explanations of why sustainability is important,
the adverse effects of real estate projects on the environment and a
description of each manual’s credit content that helps in achieving
the ultimate goal of becoming sustainable.
In terms of transparency, all rating systems provide a descrip-
tion of the process by which the system has been developed,
both for homes and communities. For example, in the case of
LEED, it is explained that the system has been developed largely
on the basis of input from industry participants through a struc-
ture of committees. Although this approach promotes transparency
and consensus, LEED has been criticized by some for catering to
manufacturers rather than basing credits on scientific research
(Inbuilt, 2010). In other cases, rating systems have been devel-
oped by smaller groups of experts. In all systems, it is clear
what the components are those contribute to the rating and how
these contribute to the final rating score. In terms of justifica-
tion of the individual elements and weights of ratings, LEED and
CASBEE provide more information than the other systems. Only
LEED and CASBEE have published worksheets showing back-end
calculations that justify why a number of points are awarded
to each credit. On the other hand, BREEAM, Green Mark and
Estidama, have not published detailed explanations as to why cred-
its are awarded a specific number of points and given certain
weights.
With respect to local responsiveness, only LEED and BREEAM
provide the opportunity to adapt the rating system to local con-
ditions, either within the country of the rating system’s origin or
internationally. However, in both LEED and BREEAM there is no
automatic tailoring of the system on the basis of local conditions.
Instead, the real estate developer needs to engage in a process
of communication with the rating organization to justify why
 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611
its specific local conditions merit a different rating methodology
compared to the established standard. On the basis of such com-
munication, a project may obtain a higher rating than it would have
achieved if the standard measures and weights had been applied.
Although flexibility to local conditions is necessary to make sus-
tainability ratings applicable to a variety of natural environments,
the process of communication and justification that must be initi-
ated by the developer in this case goes at the expense of clarity and
transparency. In addition, such adaptation can involve a lengthy
and costly communication process with the rating system manager.
CASBEE, Green Mark and Estidama are location specific standards.
Using these systems outside their intended countries of use will
often result in an inaccurate evaluation of a project’s sustainability.
These systems also do not have any international versions of their
manuals.
For post construction ratings, there is a significant difference
between the rating systems for homes and communities. LEED,
Casbee and Green Mark require a commissioning agent to visit
each home in order to verify that the home is operating as per
its design. Although such verifications still do not measure actual
energy use or other environmental impacts of the building in oper-
ation, it provides at least an assurance that the building is built with
the sustainability characteristics of its original design. On the other
hand, no commissioning or testing is required for BREEAM. LEED,
CASBEE and Green Mark have a rating for completed homes, while
ESTIDAMA’s rating for completed homes is still under development.
For communities, only ESTIDAMA is reported to be developing a rat-
ing for the operational phase of projects. The other rating systems
do not measure the sustainability performance of communities
once the design and construction has been completed. For exam-
ple, with energy being an increasingly important consideration in
assessing environmental sustainability, ratings reflect whether a
building or community has been designed for energy efficiency but
do not provide insight into actual energy consumption or genera-
tion in the community. Since the ultimate goal of these ratings is to
improve sustainability performance of our communities, an opera-
tional assessment of the sustainability of communities presents an
important area for future development.
For LEED, BREEAM, Green Mark and Estidama, the systems have
relatively easy to understand manuals, with clear intended objec-
tives associated with each credit. They also have an easy to follow
point and credit system. Upon calculating the scores for all credits,
it is then easy to determine the total number of points achieved and
conclude which category of certification applies to a project. There
is a large degree of similarity in the designation of final rating scores
between the various systems. Ratings are expressed as stars, pearls,
platinum or other clearly understood classifications. Casbee on the
other hand, has a scoring system that involves point calculations
through equations and graphs for many of the credits. This makes
the calculation of the total score a little more difficult to compute.
However, once the total number of achieved points is computed, it
is then relatively easy to determine which overall rating a project
will obtain.
Finally, the minimum fee to be paid to the accrediting body in
order to obtain a rating for an individual home varies substan-
tially between different rating systems, ranging from no cost for
ESTIDAMA to US$ 10,750 for Green Star. Rating costs for commu-
nities are not easily available in a comparable way for the different
rating systems and have not been included in Table 1. Obtaining
a rating may involve more costs than just the fees paid to the
rating provider and can include items such as staff training, consult-
ing services and travel expenses for the assessors. This makes the
comparison of rating costs difficult, especially for the community
ratings.
In summary, the sustainability ratings that have been evaluated
are complex measurement systems that succeed to summarize a
609
wide range of sustainability information in an easy to understand
score. They tend to be transparent in terms of the development pro-
cess and contents of the systems. However, as the ratings are not
based on a clear definition of sustainability but only on a general
description, there is insufficient justification for why the various
components play a particular role in the ratings. There is also no
systematic way to tailor the ratings to varying local conditions.
Overall, there is a greater focus on sustainable design rather than
sustainability performance, especially for the community ratings.
This is potentially a consequence of the need to involve residents in
the development of community ratings, making the application of
standard measures across communities a concept that is challeng-
ing to implement. Finally, there is no easy way to evaluate the costs
and efforts required to obtain a rating, but it appears that there are
significant cost differences between the various systems.
Overall, there are important differences between the differ-
ent rating systems. LEED is the system with the most detailed
explanation about its rationale. LEED and BREEAM provide the
greatest potential for local adaption, whereas CASBEE, Green Mark
and Estidama are country specific. CASBEE is scientifically rigorous
but relatively difficult to understand. Green Mark and Estidama
have similar profiles according to the criteria. On the whole, it
is not possible to arrive at a clear conclusion of one system
being superior to others along all dimensions. Each system has its
particular strengths and weaknesses according to the evaluation
criteria.
The two main shortcomings that the rating systems evaluated
in this article have in common relate to local relevance and post
construction ratings. It would be a significant challenge to develop
a rating system that is sensitive to local conditions and that meas-
ures sustainability performance rather than just design. However,
developing such a system, possibly on the basis of the existing rat-
ing systems, would significantly enhance the usability and impact
of sustainability ratings in the real estate industry.
4. Conclusion
Sustainability indicators and ratings offer many potential bene-
fits to stakeholders in the real estate industry. As a result, both the
number of sustainability rating systems and the use of these sys-
tems have grown rapidly over the last decade. Although there has
been a lively debate in academic and professional circles over the
contents of these ratings, there has been little systematic assess-
ment of the methodologies used by the most common rating
systems. This article has developed a framework to assess sus-
tainability ratings in the real estate industry and has applied the
framework to five leading sustainability ratings for both homes and
communities.
The framework to evaluate sustainability ratings in the real
estate industry that have been developed in this article can be used
in multiple ways. The organizations responsible for the ratings that
have been evaluated can use the results as part of their efforts to
continuously improve the rating’s methodology. Other organiza-
tions that produce sustainability ratings can use the framework to
evaluate their own ratings. Property developers can use the frame-
work to make informed decisions about which rating system to use.
The evaluation framework can also be tailored to meet the needs
of specific stakeholders in industries other than real estate.
The framework does not offer unambiguous or scientifically
proven assessments of sustainability ratings, but does provide a
step toward making a highly subjective assessment of a rating’s
value more structured. At a minimum, the evaluation framework
provides a basis to debate the value and the design of rating sys-
tems. Within the context of a binary ‘yes’ or ‘no’ evaluation of
each of the criteria, stakeholders may argue how a rating system
610 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611

for particular evaluation criteria is appropriate to their needs. This Content

discussion itself can lead to new insights and improvements in the Materiality A rating should assess performance based on
sustainability issues relevant to the
rating systems. decision-making of stakeholders for which a
Future research could further reduce the degree of subjectivity rating is designed
in the evaluation framework and its application. New devel- Comprehensiveness Evaluating one or more aspects of
opments around Smart Cities greatly increase the amount and sustainability performance should
systematically assess for impacts on human,
types of data available to decision makers and provide additional
intellectual, natural and social capital
avenues for measuring sustainability performance. The framework Sustainability context A rating should assess performance in the
can be further developed to be applied to other sustainability context of science-based thresholds and
ratings in the real estate sector as well as to other industries, limits, or, if unavailable, widely-accepted
with the ultimate goal of improving measures of sustainability norms pertaining to long-term human and
ecological well-being
more meaningful to stakeholders and to enhance the sustaina-
Long-term horizon A rating should enable the evaluation of the
bility performance of industries with the greatest impact on the long-term performance of a company while
environment. simultaneously providing insights into short-
and medium-term outcomes in alignment
with the long-term
Appendix A. Criteria to evaluate sustainability indicators Value chain A rating should reflect all portions of a
(Reed et al., 2006) company’s value chain over which the
company exercises significant influence
Balance A rating should utilize a mix of measurement
Objectivity criteria Ease of use criteria techniques to capture historical and
prospective performance
Indicators should:
Comparability A rating should allow users to compare the
Be accurate and bias Be easily measured
performance of the same company over time
free
and of different companies within the same
Be reliable and Have social appeal and resonance
time period
consistent over space
and time
Assess trends over time Be cost effective to measure
Provide early warning Be rapid to measure
of detrimental
change References
Be representative of Be clear and unambiguous, easy to understand
system variability and interpret Bell, S., Morse, S., 2001. Breaking through the glass ceiling: who really cares about
Provide timely Simplify complex phenomena and facilitate sustainability indicators? Local Environ. 6, 291–309.
information communication of information Bell, S., Morse, S., 2008. Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable?, 2nd
Be scientifically robust Be limited in number ed. Earthscan, London.
and credible Berardi, U., 2011. Beyond sustainability assessment systems: upgrading topics by
Be verifiable and Use existing data enlarging the scale of assessment. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 4,
replicable 276–282.
Be relevant to the local Measure what is important to stakeholders Berardi, U., 2012. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating sys-
system/environment tems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 20, 411–424.
Sensitive to system Be easily accessible to decision makers Bloom, E., Wilcock, C., 2010. Green Building Certification Programs. Pike Research.
Dale, V.H., Beyeler, S.C., 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological
stresses or the
indicators. Ecol. Indic. 1 (2001), 3–10.
changes it is meant
De Sherbinin, A., Reuben, A., Levy, M., Johnson, L., 2013. Indicators in Practice: How
to indicate
Environmental Indicators are Being Used in Policy and Management Contexts.
Have a target level, Be diverse to meet the requirements of Yale and Columbia Universities, New Haven and New York.
baseline or threshold different users Delmas, M., Blass, V.D., 2010. Measuring corporate environmental performance: the
against which to trade-offs of sustainability ratings. Bus. Strategy Environ. 19, 245–260.
measure them Elgendy, K., 2010. Comparing ESTIDAMA’s Pearl rating system to LEED and BREEAM.
Be linked to practical action Carboun, Available online at: http://www.carboun.com/.
Be developed by the end-users Estidama, 2015. Frequently Asked Questions, Available at: http://estidama.upc.gov.
ae/faqs/general.aspx#10.
Frankel, A., Nelson, A., 2012. Building Labels vs Environmental Performance Metrics:
Measuring What’s Important About Building Sustainability. Research Report,
Appendix B. Global Initiative for sustainability ratings
RREEF Real Estate.
(GISR) – CORE framework Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M., McAlpine, P., 2006. Bottom up
and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator
identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable envi-
Process
ronmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 78, 114–127.
Transparency A rating should be transparent to those whose Freebairn, D.M., King, C.A., 2003. Reflections on collectively working towards sus-
decisions are affected by the application of tainability: indicators for indicators! Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 43, 223–238.
such rating Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings, 2013. Sustainability Ratings Standard
Impartiality The design and application of a rating, whose Component 1: Principles. Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR), a
primary users are external to the evaluated joint project of Ceres and Tellus Institute.
company, should be protected from undue Haapio, A., 2012. Toward sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess.
influence by such company Rev. 31 (1), 165–169.
Continuous Through periodic update, a rating should track Haapio, A., Viitaniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental assess-
improvement and integrate the best-available science, ment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (2008), 469–482.
measurement techniques, issues and Hak, T., Mondan, B., Dahl, A.L., 2007. Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assess-
ment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
indicators
Hes, D., 2007. Effectiveness of ‘green’ building rating tools: a review of performance.
Inclusiveness Development of a rating should identify and
Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 3 (4), 143–152.
systematically engage those stakeholders
Hezri, A.A., Dovers, S.R., 2006. Sustainability indicators, policy and governance:
whose decisions are influenced by the issues for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 60, 86–99.
application of the rating Hikmat, H.A., Sabat, F.A., 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for
Assurability A rating should be designed to allow for developing countries – case of Jordan. Build. Environ. 44, 1053–1064.
independent, third-party assurance that its Inbuilt, 2010. Breaam vs LEED. Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, UK.
application comports with the GISR Principles IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2007), Geneva, Switzerland.
 T. Rogmans, M. Ghunaim / Ecological Indicators 66 (2016) 603–611
King, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable construction – the role of environmental assessment
tools. J. Environ. Manag. 86 (2008), 451–464.
Lubin, D.A., Esty, D.C., 2010. The Sustainability Imperative. Harvard Business Review,
May 2010. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Mateus, R., Braganca, L., 2011. Sustainability assessment and the rating of buildings:
developing the methodology SBTool – H. Build. Environ. 46 (2011), 1962–1971.
Mayer, A.L., 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for
multidimensional systems. Environ. Int. 34, 277–291.
Moldan, B., Janouskova, S., Hak, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environ-
mental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic. 17, 4–13.
Mouzon, S., 2014. Is it time for the anti-LEED? Arch Daily, Available online at: http://
www.archdaily.com/557605/is-it-time-for-the-anti-leed/.
Nguyen, B.K., Altan, H., 2011. Comparative review of five sustainability rating sys-
tems. Procedia Eng. 21 (2011), 376–386.
Pannel, D.J., Glenn, N.A., 2000. A framework for the economic evaluation and selec-
tion of sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 33, 135–149.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., Schulte, K., 2009. International comparison of sus-
tainable rating tools. J. Sustain. Real Estate 1, 1–22.
Reed, M., Fraser, E., Dougill, A., 2006. An adaptive learning process for developing
and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol. Econ. 59,
406–418.
Redefining Progress, Earth Day Network, 2002. Sustainability Starts in Your Com-
munity – Guide for Community Indicators.
Reith, A., Orova, M., 2015. Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability?
Ecol. Indic. 48 (2015), 660–672.
611
Saunders, T., 2008. A Discussion Document Comparing International Environmental
Assessment Methods for Buildings. BREAAM.
Sharifi, A., Murayama, A., 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood
sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38 (2013), 73–87.
Siew, R.Y.J., Balatbat, M.C.A., Carmichael, D.G., 2013. A review of build-
ing/infrastructure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Smart Sustain. Built
Environ. 2 (2), 106–139.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2012. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 15, 281–299.
UNEP, 2009. Buildings and climate change. Summary for decision makers. United
Nations Environmental Programme. Sustainable Production and Consumption
Branch, Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (2009), Paris, France.
United Nations, 2001. Indicators of sustainable development. Frameworks and
methodologies. Background Paper 3, United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development, Division for Sustainable Development, New York.
United States Green Building Council, 2015. USGBC Announces Interna-
tional Rankings of Top 10 Countries for LEED Green Building, Avail-
able online at: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/usgbc-announces-international-
rankings-top-10-countries-leed-green-building.
Valentin, Spangenberg, 2000. A guide to community sustainability indicators. Envi-
ron Impact Assess. Rev. 20, 381–392.
World Commission on Environment Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
World Green Building Council Rating Tools Task Group, 2013. Quality Assurance
Guide for Green Building Rating Tools. Version 1.0 2013.