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

net/publication/346908141

Green Building

Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_20-1

CITATIONS READS

0 826

2 authors, including:

Usha Iyer-Raniga
RMIT University
124 PUBLICATIONS   1,162 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Sustainable Development Research in the Asia Pacific View project

Inclusive and Disaster Resilient Shelter Guide Urban Informal Settlements, Honiara, Solomon Islands View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Usha Iyer-Raniga on 10 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

G
Green Building
Usha Iyer-Raniga1,2 and Karishma Kashyap3
1
School of Property, Construction and Project
Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia
2
Co-lead Sustainable Buildings and Construction
Programme, United Nations One Planet Network,
FranceParis
3
Researcher, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Synonyms
Eco-friendly building; Environmentally friendly
building; Environmentally safe building; High
performance building; Nonpolluting building;
Ozone-friendly building; Sustainable building
and construction
Definitions
Green buildings are considered to provide a solu-
tion to many of the infrastructural concerns
impacting our ecosystem today. The green build-
ing movement, almost two decades old, have seen
the most progressive trends and outcomes in the
last few years. With the amount of awareness,
knowledge, and research available on the topic,
green buildings have developed as a discipline of
its own.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_20-1
Several definitions of a green building are
discussed in the vast body of literature available.
Simply put, a green building’s structure is
designed and constructed such that resource use
is low in the construction and operation of a build-
ing. Once constructed, the building continues to
reduce environmental impacts; create economic
benefits; and improve social and well-being out-
comes. It is only when all economic, environmen-
tal, and social aspects are integrated in the
building system throughout its life cycle, that a
building can serve its purpose of being green.
Introduction
Almost every day, negative consequences of cli-
mate change are in the news and the associated
adverse impacts are being broadcast globally.
Decades of research have proven that greenhouse
gases released into the earth’s atmosphere is a
major contributing factor to climate change
(USEPA 2016). From being an issue associated
with pollution (Revkin 2018), greenhouse gas
emissions have now become central to the climate
change debate, and ongoing research continues to
find a way out of the current crises (IPCC 2018;
Revkin 2018).
Buildings in general account for approximately
40% of the total energy consumption globally
producing high volumes of and carbon emissions
(UNEP & IEA 2017). This is higher than other
2 Green Building

major infrastructure and energy sectors such as buildings preserve precious natural resources and
industries (30%) and transportation (29%) improve our quality of life (WGBC 2018).
(Pramanik et al. 2019). Due to high amounts of A green building has design, construction and oper-
energy consumption during their life cycle, par- ational practices that promotes energy efficiency,
reduces construction and ongoing performance
ticularly during the operational phase, buildings costs, and significantly reduces or eliminates its
release attendant greenhouse gases (GHG) across negative impacts on the environment and its occu-
its lifecycle, leading to detrimental effects on the pants (GBCA 2020).
environment (EPA 2009). In addition to the neg-
Concurrently, there are various terms associ-
ative environmental causes as a result of building
ated with green buildings as well pertaining to the
operations, the very act of building impacts
design, construction, or operational activities. For
resource use. Various materials and resources,
example, the two terminologies “sustainable
including the use of mining to make commonly
design” and “green design” are often used quite
used materials such as steel, concrete, and glass
interchangeably (Prum 2010; Rademacher 2018).
are consumed by the building industry (WGBC
Both terms incorporate the triple bottom line
2018; Pramanik et al. 2019). Water is also exten-
(TBL) (explained further in forthcoming section)
sively used in buildings, during the process of
pillars, namely, environmental, social, and eco-
construction, post-construction, and in operation
nomic; however, the key difference between
(Al-Qawasmi et al. 2019). Buildings also generate
them is the primary focus. Green design refers to
a huge amount of waste, again during the process
a building or structure that caters to the needs of
of construction (particularly in-situ construction)
the present requirements focusing more on the
(Wu et al. 2019), and as a result of demolition
environmental considerations, and may also
(Cha et al. 2017). As buildings need to be
include compliance to current standards (Vierra
maintained and managed during operation, partic-
2016). Sustainable design on the other hand is not
ularly office, institutional and industrial buildings,
focused on just building a structure but a future
the impact of buildings on air, water, and the
that considers social issues as well, and longer and
environment continues long after a building has
more multidimensional considerations beyond
been built. Therefore, it is essential for the built
just environmental (Iwaro and Mwasha 2013).
environment professionals and building users to
Other terms such as “Environmental or Eco-
start seriously thinking about better design, build,
logical Sustainable Design (ESD)” or “eco-
and operational approaches, while also thinking
design” have also appeared as cutting-edge jargon
about the end of life of buildings, in terms of
phrases during the past decade. The purpose of
where the deconstructed building materials end
ESD is to reduce the impacts of buildings during
up.
the construction and use phase complying with
This entry selects three explanations that best
the principles of ecological sustainability (Akadiri
define a green building in relation to its compo-
et al. 2012; Zuo and Zhao 2014), while eco-design
nents and expected outcomes. The definitions
focusses primarily on eliminating environmental
selected are nonacademic and reflect current
impacts of the design (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy
industry trends. These are:
2016). Analyzing all these different terminologies
Green building is the practice of creating structures imply that although used interchangeably (due to
and using processes that are environmentally the focus area or preference) the key intent of each
responsible and resource-efficient throughout a
building’s life-cycle from siting to design, construc- term is to work in harmony with the ecosystem
tion, operation, maintenance, renovation and (Dong et al. 2018). Heymans et al. (2019) have
deconstruction (USEPA 2016). also summarized and concluded that all different
A ‘green’ building is a building that, in its design, terms associated with green design and construc-
construction or operation, reduces or eliminates tion are all similar and simply an efficient exten-
negative impacts, and can create positive impacts, sion and reinvention of vernacular design, that
on our climate and natural environment. Green
Green Building
have improved impacts on the environment and
society.
With a description of green buildings and its
function, the following sections intend to give a
detailed account on their purpose, significance,
evolution, benefits, and challenges with respect
to delivering expected results.
This entry explores the concept of green build-
ings and presents key characteristics for the
design and operation of green buildings. The dis-
cussion includes innovative approaches to build-
ing design and operations, and attendant
considerations such as resource use. The direct
and indirect benefits of green buildings are also
explored. First, however, the impact of green
buildings is considered by understanding the key
drivers for supporting green buildings’ design and
construction.
Green Buildings Evolution: Global
Pressures and Drivers
The effects of the building and construction indus-
try are now being recognized at international
levels. The drive to design, procure, build, and
operate green buildings reflect the shift and move-
ment to a new green building paradigm (Ahn et al.
2012). The green building movement may be
traced to the oil crises of the 1970s where energy
efficiency and conservation underpinned research
influencing building design and operation
(Revkin 2018). There was an awareness that coal
and oil will not last forever, and a recognition to
move away from dependence on fossil fuels for
energy generation and use (Zhao 2018). Over the
decades since then, phenomena such as climate
change and sustainable development also
emerged globally, which have further led to vari-
ous drivers leading to the current approach focus-
ing on holistic sustainability underpinnings
through recognizing environmental, economic,
and social consequences of the impact of
buildings.
International agreements to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions such as the Paris Agreement signed
in 2015 and a dedicated “Buildings Day” for the
first time at UNFCCC Conference of Parties
3
(CoP) 21 (UNFCCC 2020) signals a clear com-
mitment to recognize the impact of the built envi-
ronment, and engage meaningfully with the built
environment community (DEE 2019; UNFCCC
2020). Such efforts follow from previous agree-
ments such as the Kyoto Protocol signed by coun-
tries to combat the rise of greenhouse gas
emissions and to put policies in place to reduce
these emissions (UNFCCC 2015). The setting up
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) by the United Nations is another
global effort. The IPCC provides policies and
strategies to combat the adverse effects of climate
change (UN 2019).
Additionally, the UN Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDGs) that came into effect in 2016
particularly SDG 11, 12, and 13 on Sustainable
Cities and Communities, Responsible Consump-
tion and Production, and Climate Action (IPCC
2018; UN 2019) bring attention specifically to the
building sector. The SDGs follow the develop-
ment of the UN Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) (UN 2017) that came into effect at the
commencement of the century. The MDGs (eight
in number) focused on social and environmental
issues but did not specifically bring focus to the
built environment in the way the SDGs have (UN
2019).
All these global efforts and increasing local
pressures faced due to changing climatic condi-
tions have acted as a major driving force for
adopting greener practices where possible. Due
to buildings having a significant impact, the
efforts have been streamlined specific to buildings
expecting better outcomes, and planning for
future projects as well. With an understanding of
the shift towards green buildings due to the vari-
ous drivers, this entry moves to discussing several
benefits of green buildings.
Green Buildings Benefits
Compared to contemporary design and construc-
tion, if undertaken properly, green buildings help
in alleviating environmental damage and reducing
the impact of overall greenhouse gas emissions
generated by buildings globally (Productivity
4 Green Building
Commission 1999; Akadiri et al. 2012; Wang et
al. 2013). Green design, procurement, construc-
tion, and operation may assist in lowering foot-
print of a building on the environment (Akadiri et
al. 2012; ACC 2020). The literature shows grow-
ing evidence of green buildings acting as an
“effective means in achieving climate change
goals and thriving communities” (WGBC 2018),
mitigating environmental impacts (Gangolells et
al. 2009; Wang et al. 2013), achieving economic
benefits (Matisoff et al. 2016; WGBC 2018) and
ecologically sound society (Chappell and Corps
2009; Wang et al. 2013). These three pillars: envi-
ronmental, economic, and social, form the basis of
what is popularly understood as the triple bottom
line (TBL) (Elkington 2018).
Apart from these direct benefits such as energy
efficiency, optimum resource utilization, and bet-
ter social quality, green buildings also have sev-
eral associated indirect benefits. Such benefits
include creation of jobs (Thomas et al. 2010),
enhanced long-term performance and mainte-
nance leading to better economic returns (Lippiatt
2000; Adeyanju 2013; Matisoff et al. 2016; WEF
2016), and higher health and well-being of its
users due to improved indoor environment condi-
tions (Heerwagen 2000; Singh et al. 2010;
Matisoff et al. 2016). Direct benefits are often
easily quantifiable which include economic bene-
fits derived from the cost savings achieved via
improvements in energy and water efficiencies.
The indirect benefits on the other hand are difficult
to quantify, however, they have a greater impact
on the overall outcomes and performance.
Achieving such benefits assist green buildings
to gain advantage over contemporary buildings
due to improved image, performance, and user
satisfaction. Green buildings promise positive
results hence in emerging economies, may pro-
mote countries to leapfrog over inefficient sys-
tems of their contemporary counterparts. By
designing and operating green buildings, the var-
ious built environment stakeholders: architects,
designers, builders, engineers, building owners
and managers, and others involved in the building
process pre- and post-occupation, have a unique
opportunity to achieve sustainable outcomes and
reduce associated adverse impacts. The green
initiatives need to be implemented at the design
stage of a building project, followed by deploying
appropriate strategies for desired performance
results postoperation (EESI 2012; Azari and Kim
2013; Gibbs and O’Neil 2015).
The case for such green buildings rests on the
approach that green buildings are not just about
energy-efficient equipment and smart technolo-
gies, it is also about how the building performs
and interacts with people using those buildings
which determines how “green” a building is (as
discussed under definitions). Additionally, green
buildings often rely on good or appropriate pas-
sive design to meet the comfort needs of end-
users. Holmgren (2017) also discusses the poten-
tial of green buildings to provide more comfort-
able conditions for occupants in contrast to their
conventional counterparts. The three aspects of
green buildings are described individually below:
1. Economic aspects
Green buildings can result in significant
economic savings directly due to savings
from energy, maintenance, and operational
costs (Ries et al. 2006; Darko et al. 2018).
Additionally, indirect economic benefits can
be achieved as well. These benefits are
achieved due to green buildings offering
higher user satisfaction levels (Deuble and de
Dear 2012; Wu et al. 2016). For example, in a
commercial setting, higher employee satisfac-
tion and productivity results in lower absentee-
ism, retaining efficient employees and better
deliverables being achieved (Ries et al. 2006).
All these factors result in higher economic
returns.
2. Environmental aspects
Green buildings maximize energy and
water efficiency, minimize waste, and utilize
optimum amount of resources. Other aspects
considered for measuring the environmental
impact is the indoor environment quality. Stud-
ies by researchers such as Heerwagen (2000),
Brown and Cole (2009), and Brownbill (2019)
confirm that appropriate indoor environment
quality conditions have a great influence on
the buildings’ embodied energy, and occupant
Green Building
satisfaction levels being directly proportional
to their comfort and productivity.
3. Social aspects of green buildings: user behav-
ior and comfort, and wellness
Building users, being a key stakeholder
group, not only influence a building’s opera-
tion but also undertake services within internal
spaces that can jeopardize activities when not
consulted/engaged. This is because no matter
how well designed or green standards/certifi-
cation achieved, energy efficient buildings
cannot afford to ignore designing for users’
sociopsychological and psychosocial well-
being to target comprehensive green building
outcomes. Understanding behaviors and atti-
tudes has increasingly gained significance
among researchers as it addresses the impacts
of a green building more holistically
(Brownbill 2019). Research within the disci-
plines of sociology, psychology, and political
science have commented on the drivers and
barriers for decision-making, occupant’s
behavior and comfort, responsible leadership,
and building-occupant interactions (Wu et al.
2016). The design of green buildings and occu-
pant satisfaction has also been recognized as an
important aspect of building performance
(Heerwagen 2000).
While tools used to track building performance
rely on the physical and often tangible measures,
the physical is also affected by the social. The
social component of green buildings refers to the
well-being and comfort of the building occupants
and their relationships with the building design
and management stakeholders. To measure these
interrelations, it is important to understand the
behavior of these significant internal and external
stakeholder groups. However, the incorporation
of occupant feedback is not streamlined as a man-
datory activity in general project management
practices yet (Deuble and de Dear 2012;
Mallawaarachchi et al. 2013; Nooraei et al.
2013; Lee and Wohn 2016; Wu et al. 2016;
Khoshbakht et al. 2018).
In addition to the environmental and economic
aspects of green buildings, it is only when the
occupants are comfortable and healthy, and other
5
stakeholders engaged, that a green building
achieves its full potential. However, the design
intent and execution alone does not necessarily
mean that the building will perform well
(Olanipekum 2017). Policy level interventions
and setting up relevant compliance standards and
guidelines assist the building industry to deliver
expected green building outcomes (Darko et al.
2018; IPCC 2018). Although, green buildings
have been part of the built environment landscape
for some decades now, particularly focusing on
improved energy efficiency and the use of cleaner
technologies there is still a lot of work to be done
(Wang et al. 2013; Gibbs and O’Neil 2015;
Pramanik et al. 2019). Several green building
assessments such as standards, codes, and rating
schemes have been developed throughout the
world, to assist the design and construction pro-
fessionals deliver expected green building out-
comes. The rating schemes assist in certifying a
building as sustainable or green, demonstrating
best practices by the building industry, hence,
form a crucial aspect of the assessment tools.
Due to their relevance and underpinnings, the
next section, therefore, provides an account on the
elements and evolution of these green building
rating systems, which promote and guide the
development of green buildings.
Green Building Rating Tools
The green building rating schemes developed
around the early 1990s (Reed 2008) serve as
guidelines for building design and management
practices to integrate the sustainability aspects as
required (Fauzi and Malek 2013). These tools are
continuously in a state of revision with changing
needs, adhering to local and global issues. The
constant change reflects changes in climatic con-
ditions, technology, and market sentiments, and
therefore these tools are also evolving over time
(Kajikawa et al. 2011; Olanipekum 2017).
There are various green rating schemes avail-
able globally; however, most countries have
developed their own, or modified existing tools,
best suited to their local regions (Ali and Nsairat
2009). All of the tools cover a wide array of
6 Green Building
criteria that they assess a building design, con-
struction or performance against, and provide
wide-ranging analysis of the impact of a building
on the environment (Reed et al. 2009). The tools
are also developed and modified for different land
uses such as residential, commercial, educational,
health-care, industrial, and other institutional
buildings. Although most of these rating tools
are voluntary, or in some instances mandatory,
their use has only increased within the built envi-
ronment sector due to reasons such as client pres-
sures, market demands, and community interest,
aiming for best practice targets. As building pro-
jects may vastly differ, it is essential to have some
guidelines or frameworks to ensure that the envi-
ronmental, economic, and social outcomes are
met. The green building rating tools hence play a
role in guiding the design professionals towards
green designs and whole of life approach, while
eliminating poor performing buildings from the
market.
The Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Methodology
(BREEAM) was launched in 1990 by the Build-
ing Research Establishment in the UK and was the
first green building rating tool developed in the
world. This led to the development of rating tools
specifically for green buildings in decades to
come in various countries with variations in the
different categories of assessments and weighting
(Gowri 2004). Soon after the development of the
BREEM tool, Leadership in Energy and Environ-
mental Design (LEED) was developed in the USA
in 1993 (Reed et al. 2009). Since then, several
tools have been developed globally varying in
scope, structure, and compliance standards
(Fauzi and Malek 2013). Apart from the most
commonly used rating tools such as LEED and
BREEAM, Comprehensive Assessment System
for Building Environment Efficiency (CASBEE)
developed in Japan in 2001, is the first Asian tool
gaining reliability and a reputable status (Fauzi
and Malek 2013). Other assessment tools fall
into the category of “Green Building Tools,”
also known as the “Sustainable Building Assess-
ment Tools (SBAT).” These tools include Green
Star developed in Australia and the Hong Kong
Building Environmental Assessment Method
(HK BEAM) among the most widely important
and globally widespread tools (Alyami and
Rezgui 2012; Chehrzad et al. 2016).
Several studies have described and compared
different green building rating tools (Baird 2009;
Mao et al. 2009; Reed et al. 2009; Fauzi and
Malek 2013; Chehrzad et al. 2016). A list, modi-
fied from various research publications, of the
most widely adopted rating tools (stated above),
and the aspects they address, is provided in Table
1:
Table 1 provides a list of the most widely
adopted and significant green building rating
tools in chorological order of their development.
The categories they provide assessment standards
for, and the characteristics of the respective
assessments are also provided in the table. All
these rating apply for both residential and com-
mercial buildings.
Although, the establishment of these green
building rating tools is a huge contribution to the
green building literature, there are a few barriers in
relation to their adoption and assessment charac-
teristics. Complying with the rating tools involves
a considerable amount of investment restricting its
application. To overcome this barrier, green build-
ing schemes are provided by the governments in
the form of rebate, subsidies, etc., in many coun-
tries. Concurrently, most of the tools developed
focus on mitigation and not on mitigation and
adaptation. Mitigation is about reducing green-
house impacts whereas adaptation is about
responding to related issues such as climate
change. Another major challenge observed in
context to performance metrics is the voluntary
nature of these tools. As the tools are not manda-
tory and other options based on design and build-
ing nature are available, not everyone chooses to
adhere to performance assessments. The rating
tools are constantly being updated as the market
responds to updated tools which also impact on
policies and programs. This, in turn, impacts on
performance assessments and post occupancy
considerations.
Regulations in most countries is to provide
minimum expected standards of buildings from
the perspective of safety and amenity. Most devel-
oped economies have at least energy efficiency or
Green Building 7

Green Building, Table 1 Comparison of the most widely adopted green building rating tools
Year
Green building of Assessment items
rating tool Organization Country launch for the rating tool Key characteristics Source
Building Building UK 1990 Management; Two processes of BRE
Research Research health & wellbeing; assessment. Design (2013)
Establishment Establishment energy; transport; stage and post
Environmental water; materials; construction
Assessment waste; land use &
Methodology ecology; and
(BREEAM) pollution
Leadership in US Green USA 1993 Sustainable sites; Designed for rating USGBC
Energy and Building water efficiency; the design and (2013)
Environmental Council energy & construction
Design (LEED) atmosphere; parameters,
materials & extended to
resources; indoor measuring
environmental operational
quality credit; performance and
innovation in innovative
design; and building practices
regional priority in 2008
Comprehensive Japan Green Japan 2001 Built environment Involves four CASBEE
Assessment Building quality; indoor assessment types: (2013)
System for Council environment; pre-design tool;
Building (JaGBC) and quality of service; self-evaluation tool
Environment Japan outdoor for ‘Design for
Efficiency Sustainable environment on Environment
(CASBEE) Building site; built (DfE)’ to measure
Consortium environment load; energy efficiency;
(JSBC) energy; resources eco-labelling tool;
& materials, and sustainability
off-site operation and
environment renovation tool
used post-design
Green Star Green Australia 2003 Management; Design and As GBCA
Building energy efficiency; Built; interiors; (2017)
Council of indoor communities;
Australia environmental performance
(GBCA) quality; land use (updated 2017)
and ecology; water
management,
materials and
resources;
transport;
emissions; and
innovation
Hong Kong BEAM Hong 2010 Energy efficiency; Buildings’ overall BSL
Building Society Kong water efficiency; performance (2012)
Environmental Limited environmental throughout life
Assessment protection; and cycle
Method (HK indoor
BEAM) environmental
quality
8 Green Building
green overlays in their building codes. While the
role of the code is to bring a level playing field,
there need to be targets set for driving best prac-
tice and this is where assessment tools play a role.
However, it must be noted that the tools alone
cannot regulate the change among the building
industry professionals (Matisoff et al. 2016;
Menzel and Arnel 2016; IPCC 2018). Related
national policies should also be aligned with
assessments of building performance to achieve
overall green building outcomes, creating a pro-
ductive and comfortable environment for all.
Literature Gaps and Future
Recommendations
The key purpose of green buildings is to achieve
the economic, environmental, and social benefits
holistically throughout their life cycles. Not just in
the planning phase, green buildings need to con-
sider appropriate procurement and construction
processes that also consider the principles of sus-
tainability from both structural and technical per-
spectives (Bisegna et al. 2016). All tools, models,
and approaches used are generally aimed to align
the design with the building performance, or in
other words, for a building to perform sustainably
and as per desired green targets. Management of
green buildings postoperation is a complex prob-
lem which requires appropriate monitoring and
verification tools to be developed and adopted,
and also relies on the support of the users of the
building to ensure that behaviors support the
design intent. Therefore, selection of suitable
methodologies or processes need to be seamlessly
integrated into building performance to address
sustainability concepts and eliminate poor perfor-
mance (Giama and Papadopoulos 2015).
However, creating green buildings are still
primarily associated with the client or developers
intentions restricted to achieving direct
economic and environmental benefits via energy
conservation and reducing the overall carbon
emissions. Although several studies (Mahdavi et
al. 2008; Brown and Cole 2009; Deuble and de
Dear 2012; Mallawaarachchi et al. 2013; Nooraei
et al. 2013; Asmar et al. 2014; Lee and Wohn
2016; Thatcher and Milner 2016; Khoshbakht et
al. 2018; Zalejska-Jonsson 2019) have debated
regarding the significance of the social component
of green buildings, yet, the social consideration
have only been limited to theoretical explanations
primarily (Akadiri et al. 2012; WGBC 2018).
Even with respect to green building assessment
tools, the social aspects of green buildings, con-
trary to the environmental and economic aspects,
have not really been practically explored
(Kajikawa et al. 2011; Fauzi and Malek 2013;
Shahrokhi et al. 2016). It is only since the late
nineties, and particularly after the MDGs that
social considerations for sustainability have been
largely included in the research and practice com-
munity. Labeodan et al. (2015) also states that
there is a lack of a connection between the build-
ing user’s outlook, how buildings are operated
and managed, and appropriate techniques for
evaluating building performance.
A limitation of considering the social compo-
nent is that it is hard to measure with precision, the
gains of achieving occupant satisfaction in terms
of comfort and health. Hence, from a business or
behavioral perspective, the social component lags
behind in priority for most design professionals
and building owners (Jenson 2018). Hoffman and
Henn (2008) also stated that the social and psy-
chological barriers are the more prominent issues
faced by the green building industry over the
initially prevailing technical or economic issues.
These issues are faced at all stages of building
development (from design to operation) and
faced both at individual as well organizational
levels (Hoffman and Henn 2008). Furthermore,
due to the fragmented nature of the building
industry, it is not common for educational pro-
grams teaching built environment professionals or
even industry professionals to consider the full
feedback loop once a building has been designed
and constructed because the professionals that
design a building do not always get involved in
the building process nor do they get involved in
the operation of the building.
Overcoming these social and behavioral bar-
riers, strategies are needed to overcome obstacles
as an opportunity to create change (Wu and Low
2010). Once the peripheral components of the
Green Building
social aspects are considered in building assess-
ment, the overall understanding and adoption of
green building practices are more likely to be
achieved. Various studies over the last decade
successfully demonstrate that the satisfaction
levels for green buildings are significantly higher
than observed in conventional buildings (Malin
2005; Roberts 2006; Brown and Cole 2009; Liang
et al. 2014; Pearson 2014; Wu et al. 2016). Further
investigation and practical exploration of similar
studies is recommended to assist in achieving the
TBL outcomes in green buildings.
Conclusion
Green buildings, if designed, procured and built
properly can produce several benefits. These ben-
efits may be categorized under environmental,
economic, and social benefits for ease of under-
standing impacts. Appropriate development and
management of green buildings can assist nations
to leapfrog over the inefficiency of conventional
buildings fostering a cleaner, better, and sustain-
able future. However, the current knowledge, sus-
tainability initiatives, strategies, and processes
specific to green buildings are still focused pri-
marily to achieve the wider global environmental
aspirations and economic returns relating to
sustainable construction, over addressing the sig-
nificance of all three green building components
and derivatives holistically in the form of TBL.
Green building tools need to be constantly
updated to reflect changes in the market, develop-
ment in technologies, and other international
developments.
This entry discusses that green buildings can-
not be successfully implemented if all dimensions
of sustainability are not considered holistically. A
fragmented approach focusing on only one stage
of a building life cycle or only one aspect of the
TBL cannot support desired green building out-
comes. The use of appropriate technological inter-
ventions and management practices impact
performance of green buildings. Operational
issues can be addressed by undertaking monitor-
ing, engaging with the stakeholders, and under-
standing stakeholder priorities by making the
9
building systems accessible and comprehensible
to building users. Stakeholder involvement at
each level, from design through to operation is
essential for a building to meet their predicted and
actual green performance targets.
Cross-References
▶ Circular Economy
▶ Clean Technology
▶ Corporate Social Performance
▶ Corporate Social Responsibility
▶ Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
▶ Energy Poverty and International Development
▶ Environmental Solutions and Performance
▶ Green Economy
▶ Green Growth
▶ Green Infrastructure: The New Paradigm for
Resilient Cities
▶ Green New Deal
▶ Life Cycle cost
▶ Mainstreaming the Environment into
Development
▶ Natural Capital’s Role in Sustainable
Development
▶ Open Data: Towards Achieving and Measuring
Sustainable Development Goals
▶ Project Developers, Contractors, Financiers
and Local Authorities
▶ Renewable Energy
▶ Resilient Cities in a Sustainable World
▶ Resource and Energy Efficiency Contributions
Towards Achieving Sustainable Development
Goals
▶ Responsible Research and Innovation
▶ Retrofit Industries
▶ Role of Design Thinking and Biomimicry in
Leveraging Sustainable Innovation
▶ Scalability and Commercialization in Support
of Sustainable Development Goals
▶ Sustainable Architecture and Construction
▶ Sustainable Infrastructure, Industrial Ecology
and Eco-innovation: Positive Impact on Society
▶ Sustainable Supply Chain Analytics
▶ Sustainable Water Management System
▶ Towards a Circular Economy in Sewage Treat-
ment Plants for Sustainable Cities
10 Green Building

▶ Transfer of Knowledge in the Age of Sustain- Brown Z, Cole RJ (2009) Influence of occupants’ knowl-
able Development edge on comfort expectations and behaviour. Build Res
Inf 37(3):227–245
▶ Urban Development Brownbill A (2019) Buildings produce 25% of Australia’s
▶ Using Rainwater Harvesting to Attain Sustain- emissions. What will it take to make them ‘green’ – and
able Development Goals who’ll pay? The Conversation. The Conversation
▶ Value Chain of Infrastructures (Construction Media Group Ltd., Australia
BSL (2012, 4 September 2019) BEAM plus assessment
Supply Chain) tool. BEAM assessment tool. BEAM society limited.
▶ Water Management System Hong Kong. Retrieved 15 Jan 2015, from https://www.
beamsociety.org.hk/en_beam_assessment_project_1.
php
CASBEE (2013) CASBEE. Comprehensive assessment
References system for built environment efficiency. Retrieved 15
Jan 2015, from http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/
english/index.htm
ACC (2020) Environmental issues in construction. Green
Ceschin F, Gaziulusoy I (2016) Evolution of design for
Building Solutions. American Chemistry Council
sustainability: from product design to design for system
Retrieved 30 Jan 2020, from https://www.greenbuil
innovations and transitions. Des Stud 47:118–163
dingsolutions.org/life-cycle-assessment/environmen
Cha G-W, Kim Y-C, Moona HJ, Hong W-H (2017) New
tal-issues-construction/
approach for forecasting demolition waste generation
Adeyanju AA (2013) Economic analysis of combined con-
using chi-squared automatic interaction detection
crete bed energy storage and solar collector system.
(CHAID) method. J Clean Prod 168:375–385
Global J Res Eng 13(10)
Chappell TW, Corps C (2009) High performance green
Ahn YH, Pearce A, Ku K (2012) Paradigm shift of green
building: what’s it worth? Investigating the market
buildings in the construction industry. Int J Sustain
value of high performance green buildings
Build Technol Urban Dev 2:52–62
Chehrzad M, Pooshideh SM, Hosseini A, Majrouhi
Akadiri PO, Chinyio EA, Olomolaiye PO (2012) Design of
Sardroud J (2016) A review on green building assess-
a Sustainable Building: a conceptual framework for
ment tools: rating, calculation and decision-making.
implementing sustainability in the building sector.
11th international conference on urban regeneration
Buildings 2(126–152):126
and sustainability (SC 2016). WIT Press, Alicante
Ali HH, Nsairat SFA (2009) Developing a green building
Darko A, Chan A, Owusu E, Antwi-Afari M (2018) Ben-
assessment tool for developing countries – case of
efits of green building: a literature review. RICS
Jordan. Build Environ 44(5):1053–1064
COBRA 2018: the construction, building and real
Al-Qawasmi J, Asif M, Abd El Fattah A, Babsail MO
estate research conference of the royal institution of
(2019) Water efficiency and management in sustainable
chartered surveyors. Royal Institution of Chartered
building rating systems: examining variation in criteria
Surveyors, London
usage. Sustainability 11:16
DEE (2019) Paris agreement. Climate change: government
Alyami SH, Rezgui Y (2012) Sustainable building assess-
and international activities. Department of the Environ-
ment tool development approach. Sustain Cities Soc 5
ment and energy. Commonwealth of Australia.
(1):52–62
Retrieved 23 Dec 2019, from https://www.environ
Asmar ME, Chokor A, Srour I (2014) Are building occu-
ment.gov.au/climate-change/government/interna
pants satisfied with indoor environmental quality of
tional/paris-agreement
higher education facilities? Energy Procedia 50:751–
Deuble MP, de Dear RJ (2012) Green occupants for green
760
buildings: the missing link? Build Environ 56:21–27
Azari R, Kim Y-W (2013) Evaluating integrated design
Dong J, Zhou T, Xin L, Tan Y, Wang Z (2018) The
process of high-performance green buildings. In: 49th
sustainable expression of ecological concept in the
ASC annual international conference proceedings.
urban landscape environment design. IOP conference
Associated Schools of Construction, San Luis Obispo
series: earth and environmental science. IOP Publish-
Baird G (2009) Incorporating user performance criteria
ing, p 113
into building sustainability rating tools (BSRTs) for
EESI (2012) Built infrastructure. In: Buildings & built
buildings in operation. Sustainability 1(4):1069–1086
infrastructure, Environmental and Energy Study
Bisegna F, Mattoni B, Gori P, Asdrubali F, Guattari C,
Institute
Evangelisti L, Sambuco S, Bianchi F (2016) Influence
Elkington J (2018) 25 years ago I coined the phrase “Triple
of insulating materials on green building rating system
bottom line.” Here’s why It’s time to rethink it.
results. Energies 9(9):712
Sustainability
BRE (2013) BREEAM. Building research establishment.
EPA (2009) Buildings and their impact on the environ-
Retrieved 15 Jan 2015, from http://www.breeam.org/
ment: a statistical summary. Environment Protection
about.jsp?id¼66
Agency, USA
Green Building
Fauzi MA, Malek NA (2013) Green building assessment
tools: evaluating different tools for green roof system.
Int J Educ Res 1(11)
Gangolells M, Casals M, Gassó S, Forcada N, Roca X,
Fuertes A (2009) A methodology for predicting the
severity of environmental impacts related to the con-
struction process of residential buildings. Build Envi-
ron 44(3):558–571
GBCA (2017) Green star as performance. Green Building
Council of Australia. Retrieved 17 May 2018, from
w w w. g b c a . o r g . a u / g r e e n - s t a r / g r e e n - s t a r - a s -
performance
GBCA (2020) What is green building? Green Building
Council of Australia. Retrieved 5 Jan 2020, from
https://new.gbca.org.au/about/what-green-building/
Giama E, Papadopoulos AM (2015) Construction mate-
rials and green building certification. Key Eng Mater
666:89–96
Gibbs D, O’Neil K (2015) Building a green economy?
Sustainability transitions in the UK building sector.
Geoforum 59:133–141
Gowri K (2004) Green building rating systems: an over-
view. Sustainability:56–68
Heerwagen J (2000) Green buildings, organizational suc-
cess, and occupant productivity. Build Res Inf 28(5/
6):353–367
Heymans A, Breadsell J, Morrison GM, Bryne JJ, Eon C
(2019) Ecological urban planning and design: a sys-
tematic literature review. Sustainability 11:20
Hoffman AJ, Henn R (2008) Overcoming the social and
psychological barriers to green building. Org Environ
21(4):390–419
Holmgren D (2017) Permaculture: principles and pathways
beyond sustainability – revised. Holmgren Design ser-
vice. ISBN: 0646418440
IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers, technical sum-
mary and frequently asked questions. Global warming
of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels
and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways,
in the context of strengthening the global response to
the threat of climate change, sustainable development,
and efforts to eradicate poverty. V. Masson-Delmotte, P.
Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla,
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S.
Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.
Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
Iwaro J, Mwasha A (2013) The impact of sustainable
building envelope design on building sustainability
using Integrated Performance Model. Int J Sustain
Built Environ 2(2):153–171
Jenson M (2018, 7 April 2018) 5 Reasons why building
design is more Important than ever. Retrieved 15 May
2018, from http://sefaira.com/resources/5-reasons-
why-building-design-is-more-important-than-ever/
Kajikawa Y, Inoue T, Goh TN (2011) Analysis of building
environment assessment frameworks and their
11
implications for sustainability indicators. Sustain Sci
6:233–246
Khoshbakht M, Gou Z, Xie X, He B, Darko A (2018)
Green building occupant satisfaction: evidence from
the Australian higher education sector. Sustainability
10(2890):21
Labeodan TM, Zeiler W, Boxem G, Zhao Y (2015) Occu-
pancy measurement in commercial office buildings for
demand-driven control applications: a survey and
detection system evaluation. Energ Buildings 93:303–
314
Lee S, Wohn K (2016) Occupants’ perceptions of amenity
and efficiency for verification of spatial design ade-
quacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(1):128
Liang H, Chen C, Hwang R, Shih W, Lo S, Liao H (2014)
Satisfaction of occupants toward indoor environment
quality of certified green office buildings in Taiwan.
Build Environ 72:232–242
Lippiatt BC (2000) Building for environmental and eco-
nomic sustainability technical manual and user guide,
United States, National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mahdavi A, Mohammadi A, Kabir E, Lambeva L (2008)
Occupants’ operation of lighting and shading systems
in office buildings. J Build Perform Simul 1(1):57–65
Malin N (2005) Occupant satisfaction with LEED build-
ings – a first glimpse. Retrieved 25 July 2017, from
https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-analysis/occu
pant-satisfaction-leed-buildings-first-glimpse
Mallawaarachchi BH, De Silva ML, Rameezdeen R (2013)
Importance of occupants’ expectations for acceptance
of green buildings: a literature review. The second
world construction symposium 2013: socio-Economic
Sustainability in Construction, Colombo
Mao I, Lu H, Li Q (2009) A comparison study of main-
stream sustainable/green building rating tools in the
world. Proceeding of international conference on man-
agement and service science. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Wuhan
Matisoff D, Noonan D, Flowers ME (2016) Green build-
ings: economics and policies. Rev Environ Econ Policy
10(2):329
Menzel L, Arnel T (2016) Australian energy efficiency
policy handbook. Energy Efficiency Council,
Melbourne
Nooraei M, Littlewood JR, Evans NI (2013) Feedback
from occupants in ‘as designed’ low-carbon apart-
ments, a case study in Swansea, UK. Energy Proceedia
42:446–455
Olanipekum AO (2017) Motivating project owners to
increase their commitment towards Imporving the
delivery performance of green building projects. Doc-
tor of Philosophy Queensland University of
Technology
Pearson C (2014) LEED buildings still average in occupant
satisfaction
Pramanik PKD, Mukherjee B, Pal S, Pal T, Singh SP
(2019) Green smart building: requisites, architecture,
12
challenges, and use cases. Green building management
and smart automation. IGI Global, pp 1–50
Productivity Commission (1999) The environmental per-
formance of commercial buildings, research report,
AusInfo. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra
Prum DA (2010) Green buildings, high performance build-
ings, and sustainable construction: does it really matter
what we call them. Vill Envtl L J 21(1)
Rademacher A (2018) Building green: environmental
architects and the struggles for sustainability in Mum-
bai. University of California Press, Oakland
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environ-
mental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv
141(10):2417–2431
Reed R, Bilos A, Wilkinson S, Schulte K-W (2009) Inter-
national comparison of sustainable rating tools. J Sus-
tain Real Estate 1(1)
Revkin A (2018) Climate change first became news 30
years ago. Why haven’t we fixed it? National geo-
graphic. National Geographic Society, USA
Ries R, Bilec MM, Gokhan NM, Needy K (2006) The
economic benefits of green buildings: a comprehensive
case study. Eng Econ 51(3):259–295
Roberts T (2006) CBE releases occupant satisfaction study
for green buildings. Retrieved 25 July 2017, from
https://www.buildinggreen.com/newsbrief/cbe-
releases-occupant-satisfaction-study-green-buildings
Shahrokhi H, El Saadi M, Huang RR, Iqbal K, Ahsen Khan
M (2016) A comparative analysis of differenet post-
occupancy building assessment standards. https://doi.
org/10.14288/1.0319254
Singh A, Syal M, Grady SC, Korkmaz S (2010) Effects of
green buildings on employee health and productivity.
Am J Public Health 100:1665–1668
Thatcher A, Milner K (2016) Is a green building really
better for building occupants? A longitudinal evalua-
tion. Build Environ 108:194–206
Thomas I, Sandri O, Hegarty K (2010) Green jobs in
Australia: a status report. Sustainability 2:3792–3811
UN (2017) About the sustainable development goals.
United Nations. Retrieved 23 Dec 2019, from https://
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/
UN (2019) Tackling climate change. Climate action: sus-
tainable development goals. United Nations. Retrieved
3 Jan 2020, from https://www.un.org/sustainablede
velopment/climate-action/
UNEP & IEA (2017) Towards a zero-emission, effcient,
and resilient buildings and construction sector. Global
status report 2017, Global Alliance for Buildings and
Construction, United Nations Environment Programme
and International Energy Agency
View publication stats
Green Building
UNFCCC (2015) What is the Kyoto Protocol? Process and
meetings: the kyoto protocol. United Nations Frame-
work Convention on climate change. Retrieved 23 Dec
2019
UNFCCC (2020) What is the Paris Agreement? UNFCCC
Process-and-meetings: the Paris Agreement. United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Bonn. Retrieved 3 Jan 2020, from https://unfccc.int/
process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-
the-paris-agreement
USEPA (2016) Definition of green building. Green build-
ing resaerch: green building history in the U.S.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 30
Sept 2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/
web/html/about.html
USGBC (2013) Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED). U.S. Green Building Council.
Retrieved 15 Jan 2015, from http://new.usgbc.org/
Vierra S (2016) Green building standards and certification
systems. Retrieved 18 Apr 2018, from https://www.
wbdg.org/resources/green-building-standards-and-cer
tification-systems
Wang Y, Shi H, Sun M, Huisingh D, Hansson L, Wang R
(2013) Moving towards an ecologically sound society?
Starting from green universities and enviornmental
higher education. J Clean Prod 61(5):1
WEF (2016) Shaping the future of construction: a break-
through in Mindset and technology. Industry Agenda.
World Economic Forum, Switzerland
WGBC (2018) About green building. The benefits of green
buildings. World Green Building Council, London.
Retrieved 21 Sept 2019, from https://www.worldgbc.
org/benefits-green-buildings
Wu P, Low SP (2010) Project management and green
buildings: lessons from the rating systems. J Prof Issues
Eng Educ Pract 136(2):64–70
Wu SRGM, Chen J, Grady SC (2016) Green buildings
need green occupants: a research framework through
the lens of the theory of planned behaviour. Archit Sci
Rev 60:1–10
Wu Z, Yu ATW, Poon CS (2019) An off-site snapshot
methodology for estimating building construction
waste composition – a case study of Hong Kong. Envi-
ron Impact Assess Rev 77:128–135
Zalejska-Jonsson A (2019) Perceived acoustic quality and
effect on occupants’ satisfaction in green and conven-
tional residential buildings. Buildings 9(24):11
Zhao H (2018) Energy crisis: “natural disaster” and “man-
made calamity”. The economics and politics of China’s
energy security transition. Academic, pp 65–98
Zuo J, Zhao Z-Y (2014) Green building research–current
status and future agenda: a review. Renew Sust Energ
Rev 30:271–281