Accepted Manuscript

How green building rating systems affect designing green

Yueer He, Thomas Kvan, Meng Liu, Baizhan Li

PII: S0360-1323(18)30073-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.007
Reference: BAE 5291

To appear in: Building and Environment

Received Date: 22 November 2017

Revised Date: 8 January 2018
Accepted Date: 6 February 2018

Please cite this article as: He Y, Kvan T, Liu M, Li B, How green building rating systems affect designing
green, Building and Environment (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.007.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1

2 How green building rating systems affect designing green

3
a,b,c,d b a,c,d a,c,d
4 Yueer HE , Thomas KVAN , Meng LIU , Baizhan LI
5
a
6 Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, P. R. China;
b
7 The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;

PT
c
8 Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-environment under MOE,
9 Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044,P. R. China;
d
10 National Centre for International Research of Low-carbon and Green Buildings,

RI
11 Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, P. R. China.
12

SC
13 Corresponding author: Meng LIU
14 Tel: +86 13594006068
15 Fax: +86 23 65127815
16 Email: liumeng2033@126.com

U
17 Postal address: 174, Shazheng Street, Chongqing 400044, P. R. China.
AN
18
19
20 Abstract: This research investigates sustainable building design from a new perspective –
M

21 green design in relation to green building rating systems. We examine the potential influence of
22 Green Star (GS) in Australia on the design of a project and compare this with the Leadership in
23 Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in America and Assessment Standard for Green
D

24 Buildings (ASGB) in China. The comparison is conducted using a typical case study of a GS Six
25 Stars certified example, the Melbourne School of Design building. A critical review concludes that
TE

26 LEED and ASGB are design-guide schemes while GS is a performance-based rating system and
27 this affects the project outcome. We note that LEED is oriented to energy efficiency while GS and
28 ASGB holistically consider energy and indoor environment quality. GS, additionally, emphasizes
EP

29 project process management. Potential LEED and ASGB certification levels for the case are
30 calculated; possible changes to the design are indicated to achieve the highest LEED and ASGB
31 levels. The predicted results demonstrate the influence of different environmental concerns and
C

32 assessment approaches of the three on the green design and the performance of buildings
33 themselves. Based on this finding, the paper argues that a performance-based rating system (e.g.
AC

34 GS) is more beneficial to the practice of designing green, compared with other measure-based
35 systems.
36 Key words: environmental concerns; weights allocations; performance or measure based
37 criteria; green building rating transformation
38

39 1. Introduction

40 The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2007) reports that building stock
41 accounts for 40% of total energy consumption. Apart from energy consumption, it involves the
42 consumption of natural resources, GHG emission, production of noise and other pollutants (e.g.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
43 light pollution, waste disposal) as well. These pressures influence climate change and global
44 warming with demand driving further environmental impacts associated with all relevant industry
45 supply chains (Miller et al. 2015). In this context, there is a growing level of public awareness of
46 green building. The philosophy of green building is derived from “Arcology”, a combination of
47 architecture and ecology put forward by Paolo Soleri in the1960s (Zhao et al. 2015). It is
48 conceptualized as a building providing users with healthy, comfortable and safe living, working
49 and activity space. Also, it is supposed to achieve goals of implementing efficient use of energy
50 and resources while minimally affecting the environment through the life cycle of the building (Li

PT
51 et al. 2014; Soleri, 1969).
52 When assessing how green or sustainable a building is, a yardstick for measuring
53 environmental performance is needed (Crawley and Aho, 1999). By now, there are a number of

RI
54 green building rating systems (GBRSs) implemented worldwide (Retzlaff, 2008), among these are:
55 LEED (United States, since 1998), BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM, United
56 Kingdom, since 1990), Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency

SC
57 (CASBEE, Japan, since 2001), GS (Australia, since 2003), Green Mark Scheme (Singapore, since
58 2005), ASGB (China, since 2006), DGNB (Germany, since 2007), Pearl Rating System for
59 Estidama (Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council, since 2008), etc.

U
60 By choosing one tool, the user is forced to a certain model; e.g. definitions, weighting or
AN
61 scoring systems, and databases (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008). Hence, many studies elaborate on
62 whether all the GBRSs achieve the same environmental performance; whether a certified project
63 guided by one green building rating tool can attain the same green level under another green
64 building rating system. The findings illustrate differences on assessment schemes, criteria and
M

65 weights, resulting in the different achievement of the final scores. This work aims to seeking the
66 most suitable way of green building assessment by examining impacts of the nature of the criteria
D

67 (performance-based or measure-based) on the green design. In this regard, three GBRSs, namely
68 LEED for the U.S., GS for Australia and ASGB for China, are studies, and the contrast is made by
TE

69 case study approach. The three have been selected due to their research underpinnings, worldwide
70 recognition and the global construction market.

71 2. Literature review
EP

72 Since the 1990s, there are many researchers studying the rating schemes themselves as
73 groups to identify the differences and similarities among them (e.g. Pfledderer 2015; Cole, 2013;
C

74 Cooper, 1999; Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008; Miller et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2016). The comparisons
75 are conducted on the structure of assessment schemes, criteria and weights and evaluation
AC

76 methods.

77 2.1 Assessment methods comparisons

78 There are two types of approaches have been followed for implementing the rating systems:
79 one is criteria-based tools and the other one that use a life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology
80 (Ali and Al Nsairat, 2009). The problem in using LCA method for buildings stems from the fact
81 that the production process is complicated and the life span is long in a building, where future
82 phases are based on assumptions. Moreover, the nature of the building sector makes
83 standardization difficult which causes a lack of data inventory. Beside these drawbacks, the
84 complex, costly, and time-consuming process of LCA, hinders the application of the method for
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
85 buildings as whole and makes it more preferable as a “decision making support tool within the
86 design stage” (Khasreen et al., 2009; Zabalza Bribian et al., 2009).
87 The existing environmental assessment systems listed above adopt index judgment method
88 (Suzer, 2015). They are based on a system of allocating points to determined credits, regarding
89 their effect on the severity of environmental loads (Ali and Nsairat, 2009).

90 2.2 Assessment schemes’ structure comparisons

91 There are many researchers studying how the green concept is characterised by each GBRS.

PT
92 Mattoni et al. (2017) study main features of five systems (CASBEE, Green Star, BREEAM,
93 LEED and ITACA). It concludes that CASBEE considers the highest number of sustainability
94 issues, while ITACA only includes a few sustainability aspects. Doan et al. (2017) compare

RI
95 BREEAM, LEED, and Green Star New Zealand’ criterion. The results indicate that the number of
96 categories and credits are different with different systems, while core issues on Indoor

SC
97 Environment Quality, Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Land Use, Ecology, and Emissions, are
98 always considered in each rating system, in which Indoor Environment Quality and Energy are the
99 most important criteria. Gou and Lau (2014) explain the differences among LEED, HK-BEAM,
100 and China Green Building Label by the contextualism theory which could be traced back to the

U
101 fundamental divergence on lifestyles, preferences, urban morphology besides climatic variations.
AN
102 Nguyen and Altan (2011) conduct a comparative review of BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, GREEN
103 STAR and HK-BEAM to analyse these tools according to 9 criteria (popularity, availability,
104 methodology, applicability, data collecting process, accuracy, user-friendliness, development and
M

105 results presentation).

106 These findings from the reviewed literature indicate that the performance of green buildings
107 has to be rated by integrating different sustainability factors. Those factors are general enough to
D

108 cover all the topics but also suitable to be adapted to local situations. Also, calculation methods,
109 credits, weights and issues vary in each GBRS. It is noticeable that GBRSs assign weights to
TE

110 environmental issues on the basis of local climatic, geographic and resource conditions. In most of
111 GBRSs, “Energy” area is the heaviest.

112 2.3 Criteria comparisons and suggestions

EP

113 Many researches compare the credits of specific sustainable issues considered in GBRSs. He
114 and Ding (2016) carry out the energy-related comparative analysis of LEED, BREEAM, Green
C

115 Star, Green Mark and China green building rating system. The results show that energy related
116 requirements can be classified into three categories: energy demand reduction, renewable energy
AC

117 use and environmental benefits. LEED, BREEAM and Green Star are focused on the energy
118 saving effect assessment, while Green Mark and China green building rating system emphasize
119 the application of energy saving measures. Wei et al. (2015) review 55 green building rating
120 systems in terms of Indoor Air Quality issue. Indoor Air Quality is considered in all the green
121 building certifications as a fundamental factor for assessing the health risk for indoor occupants
122 and the assigned weight is almost the same in all the analysed certification tools. Seinre et al.
123 (2014) use five best practice buildings to compare indicators and their levels from Estonian
124 regulations against LEED and BREEAM requirements. The results show that the current
125 regulations of indoor climate and energy indicators in Estonia form a solid base for high scores in
126 these schemes. Roderick et al. (2009) compare three rating systems (LEED, BREEAM and Green
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
127 star) with regards to the energy performance assessment, by applying the different evaluation tools
128 to a typical office building. Chen et al. (2015) review the various passive design strategies adopted
129 by BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, BEAM plus and GBL-ASGB. It presents that more consolidated
130 weighting systems to enable comparison of different passive strategies should be incorporated in
131 GBRSs. Ferreira et al. (2014) study how the weighting process can contribute to the quest for
132 passive net zero-energy buildings by analysing two Portuguese tools and the two most used
133 internationally (LEED and BREEAM). It presents that the majority of these tools do not single out
134 passive design and do not give it higher weights. Their dependence on very efficient active

PT
135 systems is much more decisive and important for the final sustainability class. Aye and Hes (2012)
136 quantifies the impacts of the building reuse concept on the environment and the Green Building
137 rating system scores and compares this with the energy category. It is found that the current

RI
138 BREEAM 2008 and LEED 2009 tools do not provide fair recognition of the potential lifecycle
139 embodied greenhouse gas emission reduction of building reuse compared to operational
140 greenhouse gas emission reduction.

SC
141 Al-Ghamdi and Bilec (2015) suggest that considerations of local sources of energy should be
142 used in the development of international green building rating systems like LEED. Luo et al.
143 (2015) propose a new method based on Emergy Analysis to assess the environmental impact of

U
144 different energy options. Ding (2008) points out the requirement for greater communication,
AN
145 interaction and recognition between members of the design team and various sectors in the
146 industry to promote the popularity of building assessment methods; and suggests a sustainability
147 index to address multiple criteria in relation to project decision-making. Illankoon et al. (2017)
148 identify credit criteria such as ‘Triple bottom line reporting’, ‘Education and awareness’,
M

149 ‘Economic aspects relating to various costs’, ‘Sustainable designing and planning’ and
150 ‘Stakeholder relations’ and suggested that those criteria could be included in developing the rating
D

151 tools.
152 From the comparisons, different assessment schemes will significantly affect the final scores
TE

153 due to the issues categories, weights and credits. The reviewed literature analyse these differences
154 by comparing scores of a same criterion and requirements of a specific environmental issue in
155 different GBRSs. As we know, the assessment of green buildings includes both quantitative and
EP

156 qualitative criteria. Quantitative criteria which can be identified as performance-based criteria can
157 be readily evaluated based on the total consumption level and points awarded accordingly.
158 However, quantitative criteria may be complicated in implementation. Environmental issues
C

159 which cannot be measured and evaluated are mainly qualitative criteria within the existing
160 environmental assessment framework. Environmental issues which are evaluated on a ‘feature
AC

161 specific’ basis where points are awarded for the presence or absence of desirable features. It is
162 hard to predict the actual performance with those specific measures. From the literature review,
163 there is little research on explaining how the different systems affect green design including
164 discussion of specific design decisions from the view of the attributes of assessment methods. The
165 criteria-based credits and the allocated weights of a certain green building rating system affect the
166 design of a project such as the selections of techniques and strategies, materials. It is necessary to
167 understand how the differences can modify the results and therefore the design choices to be
168 undertaken. Additionally, the comparisons of GBRSs are mostly between two to five schemes
169 including LEED and/or BREEAM. The selected tools in existing comparisons are mainly on
170 European and North American building environmental assessment tools; for the Asian view,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
171 CASBEE is typically the system considered.
172 Bearing this in mind, we identified potential LEED and ASGB certification levels for the
173 certificated GS Six-Star educational building, the Melbourne School of Design (MSD) building.
174 The technical design phase project documentation of the MSD building was used to compare the
175 current practice with LEED and ASGB requirements. A comparative evaluation of environmental
176 concerns and attributes of indicators were presented with regard to the potential certification levels.
177 Given that, this work gives useful information to design team, occupants and decision-makers
178 what the design of the building instructed by each of the three systems would be, and the

PT
179 advantages of performance-based rating on designing green. The findings contribute to
180 understanding how and to what extent GBRSs may affect designing green. It would also make
181 contributions to international debate on GBRSs, including standardisation.

RI
182 3. Comparison between GBRSs

SC
183 Launched by the Green Building Council of Australia in 2003, GS is Australia’s only national,
184 voluntary, rating system for buildings and communities. The GS rating systems consist of four
185 elements, GS-Communities, GS-Design & as built, GS-Interiors and GS-Performance. LEED is
186 currently considered a typical and influential GBRS worldwide (Wu et al. 2016); the matter of

U
187 environmental concern prioritization with respect to local geographical, cultural, economic and
AN
188 social parameters is integrated into it (Suzer, 2015). LEED V4, as the latest version, develops to
189 accommodate the particularities of collections of buildings (communities/neighbourhoods),
190 building types or subsystems. ASGB is the foundation of the environmental rating systems in
M

191 China which has the largest construction market in the world. ASGB is a “one-size-fits-all civil
192 buildings” assessment tool, consisting of ASGB–design certification and ASGB–occupancy
193 certification.
D

194 As criteria-based tools, these systems classify the environmental issues of buildings into
195 several categories, and assign the weight for each category. The final score is rated by a weighted
TE

196 scoring system and the level of certification that can be achieved by exceeding the specific point
197 thresholds. There are four possible levels of certification for LEED: Certified (40-49 points),
198 Silver (50-59 points), Gold (60-79 points), and Platinum (80 points and above); six rating scales
EP

199 for GS (from One star to Six stars). GS recognises and rewards projects and buildings that achieve
200 a GS rating of Four (45-59 points), Five (60-74 points) and Six Stars (75 points and above). There
201 are three levels in ASGB: One Star (50-59 points), Two Stars (60-79 points), and Three Stars (80
C

202 points and above).

203 Considering the research scope and the supported case of this work, GS- Education Design
AC

204 (Green Building Council of Australia, 2008), LEED V4 for building design and construction (U.S.
205 Green Building Council, 2015), and ASGB-design (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
206 Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2014) are selected for further discussion. Table 1
207 showed the environmental impact categories with weights of GBRSs.
208
209 Table 1 First-class Categorise and Weight Systems of GS, LEED and ASGB

Green Star LEED ASGB

Categorise Weights Categorise Weights Categorise Weights (%)
(%) (%)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Management 14 Location and 17 Land saving and 16
transportation outdoor
environment
Indoor 17 Sustainable 10 Energy saving and 28
environment sites energy utilization
quality
Energy 22 Water 11 Water saving and 18
efficiency water resource

PT
utilization
Transport 10 Energy and 33 Material saving and 19
atmosphere material resource

RI
utilization
Water 12 Material and 13 Indoor environment 19

SC
resources quality
Materials 14 Indoor 16
Land use & 6 environmental

U
ecology quality
Emissions 5
AN
210
211 The environmental impact categories in the three involve sustainable transportation, indoor
212 environment quality, energy and resources (land, water and materials) savings and environmental
M

213 impacts accordingly. But, the categories and weights differ between the three. GS contains eight
214 categories; the first-class categories are six and five in LEED and ASGB, respectively. It is noted
215 that GS additionally consider project management. The adoption of sustainable management
D

216 practices in connection with design, construction, commissioning, handover, and aftercare
217 activities ensures that robust sustainability objectives are set and followed through into the
TE

218 operation of the building. The management category in GS encourages and recognises the
219 engagement of professionals, user training and data monitoring, encouraging building design that
220 facilitates ongoing maintenance, and minimises the need for ongoing building maintenance
EP

221 throughout a building’s life cycle. By contrast, LEED has no project management process or
222 framework that guides the green building development process (Wu and Low, 2010). Instead of
223 allocating credits to the processes which stimulate sustainable or green practices, LEED allocates
C

224 credits to a few practices themselves and only addresses management problems in the stages of
225 construction and before occupancy, such as commissioning, construction and demolition waste
AC

226 and construction indoor air quality. ASGB labels consist of the design certification and the
227 occupancy certification. Construction management practices and operation management practices
228 are required for the ASGB-occupancy certification. Without process management, green designs
229 of an ASGB-design certified building cannot be guaranteed to be implemented.
230 Comparing the Energy category points’ weighting to the overall available points within the
231 same system, Energy category points contribute the most in LEED, 33%, and it is 22% and 28% in
232 GS and ASGB, respectively. GS gives Indoor Environment Quality the second highest weight,
233 17%; the third place is taken by Management and Materials categorise assigned with the same
234 weight of 14%. LEED gives the second highest weight to Location & Transportation category,
235 17%; followed by Indoor Environment Quality, 16%. The Material saving and material resource
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
236 utilization, and Indoor Environment Quality categories in ASGB have the same weight of 19%
237 each. It can be seen that Energy category in LEED accounts for a heavy fraction in the weight
238 system. The gap between Energy category and the second highest weight in LEED is significantly
239 bigger than other two rating systems. LEED can be considered as an energy-oriented rating system.
240 Also, the difference is clear on giving the second emphasis to external environment related
241 contents in LEED while it is indoor related category in other two.
242 To make the in-depth comparison possible in a systematic way, the uniform classification of
243 environmental issues caused by buildings is needed. Considering various issues addressed in green

PT
244 buildings (Heerwagen, 2000; Marszal et al. 2011; Qiu, 2009; Wong and Fan, 2013; Zhao et al.
245 2015), seven new first-class categories except for the innovation credits are re-generated, which
246 are Energy, Water Efficiency, Materials, IEQ, Transportation, Management, and Land use &

RI
247 Out-of-building Environment. The category of Land use & Out-of-building Environment assesses
248 the land issues and surrounding environment quality of the site (e.g. site ecology, rainwater
249 management, lighting pollution, noise pollution, and heat island effect). Fig. 1 showed the

SC
250 re-allocated weights for the new categories in GS, LEED and ASGB.
251

U
AN
M
D
TE

252
EP

253 Figure 1 Comparison for Weightings in GS, LEED and ASGB

254
255 With regard to the weights allocations, LEED is a single linear weight system. The
C

256 weightings are directly presented by the available points of each index in LEED. The final score is
AC

257 simply accumulated by achieved points of each credit. The setting of every credit and its available
258 points is based on the impact on 13 categories of environmental issues and their importance
259 degree set by American TRACT and NIST institution. The potential influence on environment and
260 possible benefits for human beings of every index is quantized by energy consumption modelling,
261 life cycle evaluation, etc. GS and ASGB adopt the multi-linear weight system. Points are awarded
262 in each credit by considering its impact on the specific category of environment problems. After
263 all credits in each category are assessed, an environmental weighting factor is then applied to each
264 of the proposed building’s category scores to get a single score. The categories weights are derived
265 by considering a variety of scientific and stakeholder opinion. Differing from the ASGB rating, the
266 relative weight of environmental issues provides regional sensitivity to the various GS rating tools.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
267 4. The case study

268 To investigate the relation between the green design of a project and the GBRSs, this work
269 analyses the design features and predicted performance of an educational green building, the MSD
270 building (Fig.2) at the University of Melbourne, Australia. The MSD building occupies the same
271 site that the faculty previously occupied. The site once contained two buildings, the western
272 building and the eastern building. The new MSD building with enhanced internal thermal comfort
273 includes initiatives such as high performance double-glazing, external shading systems, rainwater

PT
274 storage system, sustainable materials, sustainable transport solutions, sub-metering and building
275 energy management displays. The building has been awarded the highest rating (Six Stars) of GS
276 rating, Australia. Demolition of the old buildings and construction of the new MSD provides

RI
277 opportunities for ‘living learning’ through studio classes, exhibitions, tours, photo documentation
278 and teaching activity on and around the site. All of these features make the MSD building as a
279 typical high-performance green building for case study. Its basic information was presented in

SC
280 Table 2.
281

U
AN
M

282
283 Figure 2 The view of the MSD building
D

284 (credits: John Gollings, Peter Bennetts)

TE

285
286 Table 2 General information and key technical data of MSD
EP

Location Melbourne, Australia Structure type Reinforced concrete

structures
Architects John Wardle Architects Number of floors 7 (including 2
C

/NADAAA basements)
Project Aurecon Height 26m (above ground)
AC

Manager
Built year 2014 Gross floor area 14528.4m2
Building type Educational building Useable floor area 10446.4m2
Thermal 98.4% CO2 emission 40.7%
comfort reduction
hours ratio
Rainwater 100% of toilets and Re-used or recycled 80% (by mass)
reuse urinals flushing water, demolition and
cooling tower water and construction waste
fire system water;
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
90% of irrigation water
use
Included Teaching and learning studios, lecture theatres, workshops, library, staff offices,
spaces central atrium
Award 6 Star GS Design – Education Design V1 rating by the Green Building Council
of Australia
287
288 The MSD building have been descried in more detail on the Website of

PT
289 http://explore.msd.unimelb.edu.au/. Here, we abstracted and summarised some major initiatives of
290 the MSD building as follows from the above website but also the technical documents.
291 Figure 3 Figure 1showed the exteriors of the MSD building. It selected high performance

RI
292 double glazing to limit thermal heat transfer, and external shading systems - Zinc shading fins to
293 allow optimal access to daylight whilst minimising glare and excessive solar gains.

SC
294

U
AN
295
296 Figure 3 Facades of the MSD building (East, South, West and North)

297 (Source: http://explore.msd.unimelb.edu.au/)

M

298
299 Zinc is low in embodied energy – the energy required to produce materials – when compared
D

300 to other metals and is easily recycled when untreated. The screens act as a solar veil, shown as
301 Fig.4.There are over 800 panels, some with as many as 90,000 perforations, moderating light and
TE

302 views to the interior. In an urban design experience, the cantilever significantly reduces the bulk of
303 the building at ground level, while providing considerable floor space internally in the upper
304 floors.
EP

305
C
AC

306
307 Figure 4 The zinc louvres and cantilevered wing

308 (Source: http://explore.msd.unimelb.edu.au/)

309
310 The western sides feature the 1856 Joseph Reed Bank of New South Wales façade, relocated
311 to this site in 1936. This elevation is retained as part of the new development, continuing to stand
312 as a reminder of Melbourne’s rich banking heritage and actively engaging heritage in a new
313 structure. The north courtyard was previously a car park and has been changed significantly as
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
314 part of the new building’s construction. Plants are challenged by both the built and natural
315 landscape and as a landscape manager one needs to consider this when undertaking any planting.
316 The trees chosen for this space are evergreen and will eventually grow to become quite large. The
317 garden beds and trees are also utilized to harvest rainwater.
318 The interior environment is carefully designed as well. The building is serviced by a natural
319 ventilation system which makes substantial use of cross-ventilation across the different types of
320 spaces within. The large window to the east can be opened to improve the thermal performance of
321 the atrium and minimise artificial cooling. Engineers designed the counterbalancing system which

PT
322 allows this five-tonne window to be opened easily. Air is circulated by underfloor air distribution
323 (situated below the Atrium floor) and released via the roof. Also, the Atrium is designed as a key
324 focus of community of learning, combining many functions in a single large space. The architects’

RI
325 design encompasses spatial dynamics, selection of materials, advanced manufacturing techniques,
326 remarkable acoustics and handling of natural light to create a space that invites quiet

SC
327 contemplation, work, discussion and events. The unique coffered roof, covering the central atrium,
328 admits ample south light and controls glare.
329

U
The installation of Laminated Veneer AN
M
D
TE

330
331 Figure 5 The ceiling and atrium of the MSD building
EP

332 (Source: http://explore.msd.unimelb.edu.au/)

333
334 Beyond that, the building has been designed with many energy efficiency features including
C

335 high performance glazing, highly efficient HVAC system design utilizing high efficient
AC

336 chillers/boilers, incorporation of VSDs to fans & pumps and energy recovery units to AHUs &
337 FCUs. Mixed mode ventilation is also being incorporated to FCUs serving studio units in the
338 building which utilize free cooling at the suitable ambient conditions to further improve energy
339 efficiency of the building. Fig.6 demonstrated the environmental systems working in harmony.
340 The renewable energy use is considered in the domestic hot water supply system, the gas boosted
341 solar hot water system. There are 14 solar collectors with storage tanks that have been applied into
342 the building, shown as the Fig.7. Solar Contribution fraction is 22% in comparison with the
343 natural gas consumption of the reference model that hot water is provided by gas-fired boilers at a
344 same efficiency but without solar hot water.
345
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
346

SC
347 Figure 6 The environmental systems of the MSD building

348 (Source: Melbourne School of Design brochure)

U
349 AN
The MSD
M
D
TE

350
351 Figure 7 The solar collectors applied into the MSD building
EP

352
353 In conclusion, a 40.7% reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions has been predicted; the
354 comfort results based on the PMV rating (between -1 and +1) for 98.4% of standard hours of
C

355 occupancy for the year for conditioned areas and mixed mode areas operating in mechanical
356 ventilation mode.
AC

357 Materials are used in innovative ways, such as 21-metre long, north-south roof Laminated
358 Veneer Lumber beams (Fig. 5). The beams reduce the embodied energy of the building, act as a
359 shading device and are braced by coffers oriented east-west. These add rigidity to the complex
360 beam structure while moderating glare. All material selection was subject to a Material Life Cycle
361 Assessment. In the assessment report, nine kinds of environmental impact indicators are analysed,
362 which are Global Warming Potential, Abiotic Resource Depletion, Eutrophication, Human
363 Toxicity, Acidification Potential, Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential, Land Use, Fresh
364 Water and Ozone Layer Depletion. The cumulative improvements over the reference model total
365 131%.
366 Up to 750,000 litres of water can be collected from the roof and building exterior with an
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
367 existing 300mm diameter stormwater pipe diverted to the water harvesting tank installed in the
368 basement. The location and the areas where the rainfall are captured are shown in Figure 8.
369 Rainwater storage for use in toilets, urinals, landscape irrigation, cooling water heat rejection and
370 fire test water systems to reduce potable water demand. It is estimated that collection, storage and
371 re-use of roof derived rainwater can reduce potable water by 93% per year.
372

PT
RI
U SC
AN
373
374 Figure 8 Rainfall capture area and location of rainwater tank
M

375
376 As noted above, the new MSD building is designed as a learning building – ‘Built Pedagogy’.
377 LCD screens (Fig.9) on the wall facing to the west entrance show various demands for energy and
D

378 water, and air quality. These screens refer to the MSD building as a new 'living laboratory'. MSD
TE

379 has a monitoring and management system that optimises all systems throughout the building. Over
380 3000 sensors are collecting data that can be used for research and teaching. The building is a field
381 test that will last in excess of 50 years.
C EP
AC

382
383 Figure 9 The LCD screens

384
385 According to the requirements of the GS Design – Education Design V1, the MSD building
386 has been awarded 83 scores, including 10 points in Innovation section. Credit summary for MSD
387 was attached as Appendix A. The initiatives of the new building included has been summarised in
388 Error! Reference source not found..
389 Table 3 Initiatives of the MSD building

Categories of GS Initiatives
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
46′′ LCD display touch screen for learning resource
Management
Building Management System
Increased outside air intake compared to Australian Standards;
Low VOC & formaldehyde emitting building materials;
IEQ Design to minimise glare;
Design for daylight; and
Design for external views for the vast majority of the occupants
Mixed mode heating and cooling;

PT
Natural ventilation;
Solar domestic hot water system;
Energy
A ground source pre-cooling system;

RI
Dynamic lighting systems controlled by sensors;
A comprehensive monitoring and management system

SC
Detailed travel plan;
Transport
No parking
Water Rainwater reuse

U
low-impact building materials and components;
Materials 80% (by mass) of all demolition and construction waste must be re-used
AN
or recycled
Land use and ecology 83.22% of the site has been previously built on
The use of Cross-laminated timber;
M

Innovations Material life cycle assessment;

Market intelligence and market excellence evaluation
390
D

391 5. Results and Discussion

TE

392 With the green features of the MSD building, its final score under LEED would be 75 points,
393 reaching the level of LEED-Gold (60-79 points); The MSD building attains 78.5 points under
394 ASGB, achieving an ASGB Two Stars Design (≥60 points). According to the uniform
EP

395 classification presented in this work, the scoring rate of each environmental category under three
396 rating systems was shown in Fig.10.
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
397
398 Figure 10 The comparison of MSD’s scoring rate of each category under different
399 rating system

U
400
401 It can be seen from Fig.10 that the major difference between the three rating systems can be
AN
402 observed in the four categories of Energy, Water Efficiency, Management, Land use &
403 out-of-building environment categories and Innovation.
404 The MSD building with excellent process and practice management hasn’t attained
M

405 equivalent points due to the lack of process and practices management assessment in LEED and
406 ASGB-design. With regards to the criterion of Site Ecology involved in Land use &
407 out-of-building environment categories, LEED requires ecological restoration; beyond that, GS
D

408 and ASGB tools encourage the improvement of the eco-value of the site. The MSD building
TE

409 protects the existing greenfield area or natural site, and changes the ecological value of site by
410 expanding green area to a certain degree. It attains full marks in LEED, 83% of the total score in
411 ASGB and 20% of the total score in GS.
412 For the energy issue, the main task of GBRSs is to assess the effectiveness of energy use. The
EP

413 energy performance assessment approaches in building sector can be classified into two major
414 categories, namely quantitative and qualitative (measure-based or feature-specific) approaches.
415 Using quantitative approach, assessment results are obtained by comparing the performance
C

416 indicators (e.g. energy use intensities or CO2 emission) against established benchmarks. While
AC

417 using qualitative approaches, credits are awarded when specific measures are taken or criteria of
418 specified features are met. From Fig.11, it could be concluded that GS and LEED predominantly
419 uses quantitative indicators to evaluate the expected energy performance of the building, while
420 ASGB mainly uses measure-based criterion.
421
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
422
AN
423
424 Figure 11 Energy performance assessment in different rating systems

425
M

426 The energy quantitative rating indicators adopted in GS, LEED and ASGB were summarised
427 and compared with each other in Table 4. Apart from the quantitative assessment scale in regard to
D

428 the operation energy consumption, the difference is also clear on the assessment of renewable
429 energy utilization. The goal of GS is to save demanded energy and reduce CO2 emission without
TE

430 nominating specific measures or energy systems. Therefore, no score is appointed to the use of
431 renewable energy, combined heat and power generation, and cogeneration cooling heating and
432 power, etc. However, LEED and ASGB regard the use of renewable energy as a necessary
EP

433 approach to achieve better energy performance of buildings and score it. LEED recognises on-site
434 renewable energy use and off-site use. Off-site use requires the contract must specify the provision
435 of at least 50% or 100% of the project’s energy from green power, carbon offsets, or renewable
C

436 energy certificates. It indicates that new energy associated with high technologies are encouraged
437 to manage and solve environmental problems. Even though LEED use quantitative criteria, it is
AC

438 regarded as a design-guide tool. ASGB rates the use of renewable energy by proposing the
439 conception of “substitution rate by renewable energy”. With this conception, the ratio of energy
440 produced by renewable energy in the whole year of energy demands for the building is rated
441 separately due to the different types of end use (e.g. base electric, cooling and heating, water
442 heating). It gives quantitative indexes which is more convenient for actual projects, but also fully
443 considers the difference of various end uses in measurement, grade, and price.
444 Designed with suitable technologies and passive strategies, the MSD building reduces 38%
445 of estimated annual energy use, achieving 40.8% reduction of GHG emissions. It has been
446 awarded 40% of the total points in GS. It attains a higher score in LEED and ASGB with regard to
447 the Energy categories. The lost points in ASGB and LEED is due to the less use of awarded
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
448 energy efficient measures and renewable energy which may be associated with high-techs. For
449 instance, the solar hot water contribution for the heating system is estimated to be 22%, which is
450 less than the awarded benchmark in LEED. The energy efficiency of the MSD building attains 84%
451 of the total points in LEED-Energy Performance credit, while the scoring rate in LEED-Energy
452 section is 60% due to the less use of renewable energy and awarded measures.
453 Regarding to the substitution of the harvested rainwater for the potable water, it attains full
454 marks in the provision of indoor water reduction in LEED and the provision of the use of the
455 non-traditional water sources in ASGB. However, the score ratios of Water Efficiency in LEED

PT
456 and ASGB are 73% and 67%, respectively. The different rated results are due to the different
457 assessment approach. The GS rating tool rates the reduction of the potable water use, belonging to
458 the performance rated indicators. Predicted potable water consumption is calculated by Potable

RI
459 Water Calculator and compared to the benchmarks to determine the points achieved. LEED rates
460 the reduction of aggregate indoor and outdoor water consumption integrating the compensation for
461 potable water by the performance indicators as well as the water efficient measures nominated in

SC
462 the cooling tower system and irrigation. There are no quantitative indicators or ranking levels for
463 potable water use in ASGB-design rating. It rates the water efficiency by providing specific
464 measures. Without using the nominated measures, the scoring rates in Water issues in LEED and

U
465 ASGB are not as high as expected. But, the case of the MSD building demonstrates that one
AN
466 project may achieve high environmental performance by designing in response to local conditions,
467 without using the nominated measures.
468 As aforementioned, rainwater harvesting plan of the MSD building not only saves the potable
469 water but effectively solves the environmental issues caused by the stormwater. But the attained
M

470 scores in stormwater-related credits differ in three rating tools. Regarding to the stormwater issue,
471 LEED rates the percentile of Rainfall Events by suggesting the design of low-impact development
D

472 and the use of green infrastructure (e.g. rainwater garden, green roofs, permeable pavement);
473 ASGB sorts out the available green infrastructure measures as credits. GS directly rates the
TE

474 performance of the stormwater management instead of nominating any measures. The
475 performance indicators are the post-development peak 1.5-year Average Recurrence Interval event
476 discharge from the site and its pollution reduction targets. The differences of credits attributes
EP

477 lower the scoring ratios of the MSD building in stormwater-related credits in LEED and ASGB.
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

478 Table 4 Energy quantitative rating indicators in GS, LEED and ASGB

Quantitative

PT
GBRSs Ranking levels Energy Quantification Methods Energy Performance Assessment Methods Alternatives
indicators
Directly scoring the predicted GHG emissions reduction

RI
20 grades GS Energy Calculator,
GHG emissions (benchmark: 10% improvement on the reference building ——
Min: 5%; Max:100% Approved simulation programs
emissions)

SC
GS
Peak energy 2 grades A flatter
To be calculated as the sum of all distribution bars relevant
demand Min: 15%; Max: Approved calculation method demand curve
to the base building in electrical schematics

U
reduction 30%+ is achieved

AN
Compare the ‘proposed building’ with a self-referenced
Optimize energy 18 grades Calculated by dynamic
‘baseline’ building and scoring the performance according ——
performance Min:6%; Max:50%+ simulation
to the reduction percentage of energy

M
Renewable
Calculate the percentage of
energy 3 grades

D
LEED renewable energy to the total Directly scoring the percentage of renewable energy ——
utilization （on Min: 1%; Max:10%+
building annual energy cost

TE
site）
Green power 2 grades
Calculate the percentage of Directly scoring the percentage of total energy addressed by
and carbon Min: 50%; ——
EP
green power and carbon offsets green power, or renewable energy certificates and/or offsets
offsets (off site) Max:100%
The
Compare the ‘proposed building’ with a self-referenced
C

Cooling and 2 grades Calculated by dynamic application of

‘baseline’ building and scoring the performance according
AC

heating loads Min:5%; Max:10%+ simulation energy-saving

ASGB to the reduction percentage cooling and heating loads
techniques
Renewable 7 grades Calculate the substitution rate Directly scoring the substitution rate of renewable energy
——
energy The awarded of renewable energy for each for each type of end use
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

utilization percentage varies type of end use

with the types of the

PT
end use
479

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
480

481 6. The influence of GBRSs on designing green

482 The MSD building, as a Six-Star certificated building in GS, reaches the upper level of the
483 second level in LEED and ASGB, rather than the top rating of “Platinum” in LEED or “Three
484 Stars” in ASGB. It indicates that the GBRSs have different requirements and assessment criterion
485 on environmental impacts of green building, resulting in a diverse design. As a result, the
486 proposed building may perform differently if instructed by different GBRSs at the process of

PT
487 design.
488 Fig. 12 showed the weights of each environmental category and the contribution fraction of
489 each category to the final score of the MSD building under each rating tool. We also proposed the

RI
490 possible changes to the design of the MSD building for the highest levels of LEED and ASGB
491 schemes (Table 5), regarding the same environmental issue addressed in Table 3.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE

492
493 (a) Green Star
C EP
AC

494
495 (b) LEED
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
496

SC
497 (c) ASGB
498 Figure 12 The potential rated results of the MSD building

U
499
500 Table 5 The changes may be made to attain a highest level in LEED and ASGB
AN
Environmental
Changes in LEED Changes in ASGB
issues
M

Process
Not required Not required
management
-The use of renewable energy
D

-The use of renewable energy

-Higher energy efficiency equipment
(on site/off site)
Energy-related -Specific features of building envelop design
TE

-Demand response
(e.g. the ratio of operable window area to the
-Enhanced commissioning
external wall; vertical greening)
-Cooling tower cycles
EP

-Water-saving measures for cooling tower

Water-related - Green stormwater
-Green stormwater infrastructure
infrastructure
-Pre-cast building components
C

Materials life -Local materials

——
AC

cycle assessment -Reused/recycled/waste-made materials and

as-cast finish concrete
501
502 As aforementioned, LEED is an energy-oriented rating system while GS and ASGB
503 relatively balance various aspects of building sustainability. Although the scoring rate in relation
504 to Energy category is higher in LEED in comparison with GS, there is 40% of available points
505 missing. As an energy-oriented rating system, the influence on the final score of the low scoring
506 rate in Energy category will be expanded. From Fig. 12(b), it seems like the utilization of
507 renewable energy must be enhanced in the design of the MSD building if it wishes to be the LEED
508 Platinum-certificated building. However, overemphasizing the use of renewable energy may result
509 in the unsustainability of green buildings, such as the initial investment, the high embodied energy
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
510 of new products (e.g. solar PV) and the poor thermal comfort. Many LEED buildings performed
511 poorly in meeting occupants’ requirements due to the emphasis on the energy efficiency in
512 buildings (Altomonte and Schiavon, 2013; Hua et al. 2013). Occupant satisfaction has been
513 evaluated on a subset of the Centre for the Built Environment Occupant Indoor Environmental
514 Quality Survey database featuring 144 buildings (65 LEED certified) and 21,477 individual
515 occupant responses (10,129 in LEED buildings). Consideration of mean satisfaction scores
516 suggests that (Altomonte and Schiavon, 2013), on average, occupants of LEED certified buildings
517 have the tendency to be slightly less satisfied with the amount of light, ease of interaction, visual

PT
518 privacy, visual comfort, and amount of space than occupants of non-LEED buildings. Figure 1
519 shows that ASGB allocates a heavy weight to the material issue.
520 It also can be found from Fig. 12(c) that the low scoring rate in Materials may limit the MSD

RI
521 building to be an ASGB Three-Star building. Looking at the design scheme of the MSD building
522 materials, it pays more attention to the selections of materials, and conducts the material life cycle
523 assessment. But, the focus of ASGB is on the reduction of materials use rather than the life cycle

SC
524 assessment of the materials. At present, although the assessment of green performance of building
525 materials is greatly developing in China, ASGB predominantly uses measure-based criterion to
526 reduce the use of building materials. To achieve a higher score, the design of the MSD building

U
527 would need to use a large quantity of reuse/recycled/local materials, instead of caring about the
AN
528 environmental impacts of selected materials. But, the low scoring rate doesn’t mean the worse
529 performance of the MSD building materials. The resultant lower score for the MSD would
530 obscure a better outcome in terms of materials.
531 In regard to the assessment approaches, it concludes that GS is a performance-based rating
M

532 system while LEED and ASGB act as design-guide tools. As a performance-based tool, GS
533 predominantly uses performance indicators to quantify the environmental impacts of buildings. It
D

534 requires the design team has a good understanding of the concept of green building. Meanwhile, it
535 facilitates design innovation. In contrast, design-guide tools may make green design easy by
TE

536 providing a series of measures or specific features. However, there are several drawbacks of
537 design-guide tools. Firstly, such rating systems may be used as a “technical checklist” by
538 practitioners, and limit building design. The design team has to choose the awarded techniques or
EP

539 design strategies to attain points. But, one project may achieve high environmental performance
540 by designing in response to local conditions, without using the nominated measures. Secondly,
541 depending on the awarded measures, it may deliver a green building by pursuing high-techs
C

542 integrated systems with a high cost. This challenge is highlighted by the perception that green
543 buildings cost more, noted as the top challenge to increasing green building activity (The World
AC

544 Green Building Council, 2016). Most found that cost premiums of LEED Platinum-rated buildings
545 are within 10% of conventional building costs (Rehm and Ade, 2013). The highest recorded
546 premiums were found in the earliest analytical study by the Packard Foundation with LEED
547 Platinum-rated buildings incurring a 21% premium (Packard Foundation, 2002). Moreover, it is
548 hard for design-guide tool to predict the environmental performance of the proposed building due
549 to the complicated interactions among different design strategies or measures. For instance, the
550 ratio of the operable area (prevailing wind facade) to the floor area is required as an approach to
551 achieve natural ventilation for residential buildings in ASGB (e.g. at least 8% in hot-summer and
552 cold-winter climate zones). On the other hand, the window-wall ratio significantly affects the
553 cooling/heating loads, lighting energy consumption as well as the daylighting. The interactional
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
554 impacts of multiple measures/strategies on the actual performance of a building are complicated.

555 7. Conclusions and Policy Implications

556 The results show a relationship between the green design, the predicted performance of
557 buildings themselves and the GBRSs. The green design of a project varies when instructed by
558 different GBRSs (e.g. GS, LEED and ASGB) due to their different attributes, leading to different
559 technical and economic properties. It can be explained in two aspects: the environmental concerns
560 and the assessment approaches.

PT
561 We note that LEED is an energy-oriented environmental assessment tool, and its second
562 highest weight is given to exterior environment of the building. It may result that high-level
563 certificated LEED buildings overemphasize the energy efficiency of buildings by sacrificing other

RI
564 environmental impacts such as indoor thermal comfort, also, it may lead to a high cost premium
565 due to the high efficiency/renewable energy services. GS and ASGB relatively balance

SC
566 environmental issues, with an emphasis on energy and indoor environment quality. In particular,
567 GS requires the process management assessment over the building lifespan. In contrast, LEED
568 only addresses the management problems in the stages of construction and before occupancy;
569 ASGB-design certification has no project management process or framework.

U
570 GS is a performance-based rating system, predominantly using quantitative information to
AN
571 assess the expected environmental benefits (e.g. the energy and resources savings, the
572 improvement of indoor air quality, etc.) of the proposed building. LEED and ASGB are more
573 likely to be design-guide schemes. The characteristic of design-guide tools is to provide the
M

574 project team with a series of available strategies and measures. It is conceivable that nominated or
575 suggested measures will be taken for attaining points, regardless of the suitability for the building
576 at a given condition. By checking whether specific measures are taken or criteria of specified
D

577 features are met, the actual performance of the building is hard to be predicted. In contrast, GS, as
578 a performance-based rating system, allows more freedom in the design of green building, and is
TE

579 effective to encourage “appropriate” design innovation towards sustainability.

580 Supported by the GS Six Stars-certified MSD building, the research findings also give useful
581 suggestions to the development of green building rating as well as the sustainable building design.
EP

582 Environmental impacts categories and weights allocation are fundamental to any building
583 environmental assessment method as they provide a means of defining, and therefore ranking, the
584 relative impact of environmental issues. Energy consumption associated with CO2 emissions is the
C

585 worldwide most severity issues, therefore, energy related category is always assigned with a
586 highest weighting. But, an energy-oriented building may perform worse in other aspects (e.g.
AC

587 indoor environment quality). The trade-off between energy performance and other environmental
588 issues should be carefully considered. Besides that, the process management should be required in
589 the updates of green building rating system, including the greater communication, interaction and
590 recognition between members of the design team and various sectors throughout a building’s life
591 cycle.
592 Furthermore, the performance-based rating system is distinguished from the design-guide
593 schemes. But, the green assessment of a project consists of the land ecological value, materials life
594 –cycle assessment, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emission over the building’s life cycle, etc.
595 Powerful databases, therefore, are required to quantify the performance improvement of green
596 buildings and score it. The performance-based approach of assessing environmental impacts in GS
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
597 is based on the complete and advanced database in Australia. LEED has also produced a
598 significant database, however, LEED is developed as a design-guide tool with a combination of
599 performance-based and measure-based indicators for marketing purpose. In contrast, ASGB in
600 China is still in its preliminary stage of development with considerable work to be done to
601 underpin its application. At this stage, measure-based green building assessment is considered as
602 an appropriate way for countries at the outset of the green building assessment (e.g. China) but the
603 shift from a measure-based rating to a performance-based rating is necessary for the next stage to
604 improve design outcomes.

PT
605

606 Acknowledgement

RI
607 Authors would like to express special thanks to Umow Lai, the ESD Consultants of the MSD
608 building, for providing us with GS submission document of the MSD building. Thanks are also

SC
609 due to Luke Wade and Anne Thompson for their great support during our information collection.
610

611 Funding

U
612 This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
AN
613 commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix A

Table A-1 Credit summary of GS-Education Design Rating for MSD

Credit Points Points

Category Title
No. Available Achieved
Management
GS Accredited Professional Man-1 2 2

PT
Commissioning - Clauses Man-2 2 2
Building Tuning Man-3 1 1
Independent Commissioning Agent Man-4 1 1

RI
Building Guides Man-5 2 2
Environmental Management Man-6 2 2

SC
Waste Management Man-7 2 2
Learning Resources Man-10 1 1
Maintainability Man-11 1 1

U
TOTAL 14 14
Indoor Environment Quality
AN
Ventilation Rates IEQ-1 3 2
Air Change Effectiveness IEQ-2 2 2
Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control and VOC Monitoring IEQ-3 1 1
M

Daylight IEQ-4 3 1
Thermal Comfort IEQ-5 3 1
Hazardous Materials IEQ-6 1 1
D

Internal Noise Levels IEQ-7 2 1

Volatile Organic Compounds IEQ-8 4 4
TE

Formaldehyde Minimisation IEQ-9 1 1

Mould Prevention IEQ-10 1 0
Daylight Glare Control IEQ-11 1 1
EP

High Frequency Ballasts IEQ-12 1 1

Electric Lighting Levels IEQ-13 1 0
External Views IEQ-14 1 1
C

TOTAL 25 17
AC

Energy
Conditional
Conditional Requirement Ene- Requirement Yes
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ene-1 20 8
Energy Sub-metering Ene-2 1 1
Peak Energy Demand Reduction Ene-3 2 0
Lighting Zoning Ene-4 1 1
Unoccupied Areas Ene-7 2 2
Stairs Ene-8 1 1
Efficient External Lighting Ene-9 1 1
Shared Energy Systems Ene-10 1 0
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TOTAL 29 14
Transport
Provision of Car Parking Tra-1 2 2
Fuel Efficient Transport Tra-2 0 na
Cyclist Facilities Tra-3 4 4
Commuting Mass Transport Tra-4 5 5
Transport Design and Planning Tra-6 1 1
TOTAL 12 12

PT
Water
Occupant Amenity Water Wat-1 5 5
Water Meters Wat-2 1 1

RI
Landscape Irrigation Wat-3 3 3
Heat Rejection Water Wat-4 4 4

SC
Fire System Water Wat-5 1 1
Potable Water Use in Laboratories Wat-6 0 na
TOTAL 14 14

U
Materials
Recycling Waste Storage Mat-1 2 2
AN
Building Reuse Mat-2 6 0
Recycled Content & Re-used Products and Materials Mat-3 1 0
Concrete Mat-4 3 1
M

Steel Mat-5 2 2
PVC Mat-6 2 2
Timber Mat-7 1 1
D

Design for Disassembly Mat-8 1 0

Dematerialisation Mat-9 1 0
TE

Flooring Mat-11 3 3
Joinery Mat-12 1 0
Loose Furniture Mat-13 3 3
EP

TOTAL 26 14
Land Use & Ecology
Conditional
C

Conditional Requirement Eco - Yes

Requirement
AC

Topsoil Eco-1 1 0
Reuse of Land Eco-2 1 1
Reclaimed Contaminated Land Eco-3 2 2
Ecological Value of Site Eco-4 4 1
TOTAL 8 4
Emissions
Refrigerant ODP Emi-1 1 1
Refrigerant GWP Emi-2 2 0
Refrigerant Leaks Emi-3 2 2
Insulant ODP Emi-4 1 1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Stormwater Emi-5 3 2
Discharge to Sewer Emi-6 2 1
Light Pollution Emi-7 1 1
Legionella Emi-8 1 0
TOTAL 13 8
Sub-total weighted points: 73
Innovation
Innovative Strategies & Technologies Inn-1 5 points in 8

PT
Exceeding GS Benchmarks Inn-2 total for 2
Exceeding GS Scope Inn-3 Inn-1,2&3 0

RI
TOTAL 5 10
Total weighted points: 83

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Al-Ghamdi, S.G., Bilec, M.M., 2015. Life-cycle thinking and the LEED rating system global
perspective on building energy use and environmental impacts. ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL. 49(7),
4048-4056.
Ali, H.H., Al Nsairat, S.F., 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing
countries - Case of Jordan. BUILD ENVIRON. 44, 1053–1064.
Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S., 2013. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified

PT
buildings, BUILD ENVIRON. 68, 66-76.
Aye, L., Hes. D., 2012. Green building rating system scores for building reuse. J GREEN
BUILDING. 7(2), 105-112.

RI
Chen X., Yang H., Lu L., 2015. A comprehensive review on passive design approaches in
green building rating tools. RENEW SUST ENERG REV. 50, 1425-1436.

SC
Cole, R.J., Valdebenito, M.J., 2013. The importation of building environmental certification
systems: international usages of BREEAM and LEED. BUILD RES INF. 41(6), 662–676.
Cooper, I., 1999. Which focus for building assessment methods — environmental
performance of sustainability? BUILD RES INF. 27, 321–331.

U
Crawley, D., Aho, I., 1999. Building environmental assessment methods: applications and
AN
development trends. BUILD RES INF. 27(4-5), 300–308.
Ding, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable construction — the role of environmental assessment tools.
J ENVIRON MANAGE. 86(3), 451–464.
M

Doan D.T., Ghaffarianhoseini A, Naismith N, Zhang T, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Tookey J., 2017.

A critical comparison of green building rating systems, BUILD ENVIRON. 123, 243-260.
Ferreira J., Pinheiro M.D., Brito J.D., 2014. Portuguese sustainable construction assessment
D

tools benchmarked with breeam and leed: An energy analysis. ENERG BUILDINGS. 69,
451-463.
TE

Gou, Z.H., Lau, S., 2014. Contextualizing green building rating systems: Case study of HK.
HABITAT INT. 44, 282-289.
Green Building Council of Australia, 2008. GS Education V1: Technical Manual. Australia.
EP

Haapio, A., Viitaniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools.
EIA REVIEW. 28, 469–482.
He, Y., Ding, Y., 2016. Comparative analysis of energy performance assessment for green
C

buildings: China green building rating system vs other major certification systems. HV & AC,
46(6): 79-86 [in Chinese].
AC

Heerwagen, J., 2000. Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity.
BUILD RES INF. 28(5–6), 353–367.
Hua, Y., Gocer, O., Gocer. K., 2013. Spatial mapping of occupant satisfaction and indoor
environment quality in a LEED platinum campus building. BUILD ENVIRON. 79, 124-137.
Illankoon, I.M.C.S, Tam, V.W.Y., Le, K.N., Shen L., 2017. Key credit criteria among
international green building rating tools. J CLEAN PROD. 164, 209-220.
Ismaee, W.S.E., 2016. Assessing and developing the application of LEED green building
rating system as a sustainable project management and market tool in the Italian context.
EPPM-JOURNAL. 6(2), 136-152.
Khasreen, M.M., Banfill, P.F.G., Menzies, G.F., 2009. Life-cycle assessment and the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
environmental impact of buildings: a review. SUSTAINABILITY. 1, 674-701.
Li, Y., Yang, L., He, B., Zhao, D., 2014. Green building in China: needs great promotion.
SUSTAIN CITIES SOC. 11, 1–6.
Luo, Z., Zhao, J., Yao, R., Shu, Z., 2015. Emergy-based sustainability assessment of different
energy options for green buildings. ENERG CONVERS MANAGE. 100, 97–102.
Marszal, A.J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J.S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I., Napolitano, A.,
2011. Zero energy building–a review of definitions and calculation methodologies. ENERG
BUILDINGS. 43(4), 971–979.

PT
Miller, D., Doh, J.H., Panuwatwanich, K., Van Oers, N., 2015. The contribution of structural
design to green building rating systems: An industry perspective and comparison of life cycle
energy considerations. SUSTAIN CITIES SOC. 16, 39-48.

RI
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2014.
Assessment Standard for Green Building GB/T 50378. China Architecture & Building Press,
Beijing, China.

SC
Nguyen B.K., Altan H., 2011. Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems.
PROCEDIA ENGINEERING. 21, 376-386.
Packard Foundation, 2002. Building for sustainability report. The David and Lucile Packard

U
Foundation, Los Altos, California.
AN
Pfledderer, S., 2015. Sustainability standards faceoff: we compare and contrast how the
LEED and Green Globes rating systems. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT. 54(3), 44-45.
Qiu, B.X., 2009. From green building to low carbon eco-city. URBAN STUDIES. 16(7), 1–
11. [in Chinese].
M

Rehm, M., Ade, R., 2013. Construction costs comparison between ‘green’ and conventional
office buildings. BUILD RES INF. 41(2), 198–208.
D

Retzlaff, R., 2008. Green building assessment systems: a framework and comparison for
planners. J AM PLANN ASSOC. 74(4), 505-519.
TE

Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C., Alonso, C., 2009. A comparative study of building
energy performance between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star schemes. Retrieved from:
http://www.iesve.com/corporate/mediacenter/whitepapers/general/a_comparative_study_of_buildi
EP

ng_energy_assessment_between_leed breeam_and_green_star_schemens.pdf.(accessed 15.07.11).

Seinre, E., Kurnitski, J., Voll, H., 2014. Building sustainability objective assessment in
Estonian context and a comparative evaluation with LEED and BREEAM. BUILD ENVIRON.
C

82,110-120.
Soleri, P., 1969. Arcology: the city in the image of man. Cambridge, MA, USA.
AC

Suzer, O., 2015. A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs

other major certification systems. J ENVIRON MANAGE. 154, 266-283.
The World Green Building Council, 2016. World Green Building Council. Word green
building trends 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.worldgbc.org/our-mission. (accessed 17.05.07).
U.S. Green Building Council, 2015. LEED V4 for Building Design and Construction.
Retrieved from: http://leed.usgbc.org/leed.html?gclid=CJKogbyd1cgCFQqavAodDlENAw.
(accessed 15.07.11).
WBCSD, 2007. Energy efficiency in buildings, business realities and opportunities. The
World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Wei W., Ramalho O., Mandin C., 2015. Indoor air quality requirements in green building
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
certifications. BUILD ENVIRON. 92, 10-19.
Wong, K.D., Fan, Q., 2013. Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable building
design. Facilities. 31(3-4), 138-157.
Wu, P., Mao, C., Wang, J., Song Y., Wang, X., 2016. A decade review of the credits obtained
by LEED v2.2 certified green building projects. BUILD ENVIRON. 102, 167-178.
Wu, P., Low, S.P., 2010. Project management and green buildings: lessons from the rating
systems. J PROF ISS ENG ED PR. 136(2), 64-70.
Wu, Z., Shen, L., Yu, A., Zhang, X., 2016. A comparative analysis of waste management

PT
requirements between five green building rating systems for new residential buildings. J CLEAN
PROD. 112, 895-902.
Zabalza Bribian, I., Aranda Uson, A., Scarpellini, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment in buildings:

RI
State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification.
BUILD. ENVIRON. 44, 2510-2520.
Zhao, D., He, B., Johnson, C., Mou. B., 2015. Social problems of green buildings: From the

SC
humanistic needs to social acceptance. RENEW SUST ENERG REV. 51, 1594-1609.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights:
Green design is closely in relation to green building rating systems.

A critical review on Green Star, LEED and China Green Building rating tool is given.

Rating systems differ in the environmental concerns and the assessment approaches.

PT
Impacts of criteria attributes on design are studied by case study approach.

The shift from a measure-based rating to a performance-based rating is necessary.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC