Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2311–2316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Strategies for green building rating in India: A comparison of LEED and

GRIHA criteria
Abhishek Arya a,⇑, R.L. Sharma b,⇑
a
Civil Engineering Department, LPU, Phagwara 144401, India
b
Civil Engineering Department, LPU, Phagwara 144401, India

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

Article history: The establishment of a green grading system to evaluate buildings is becoming increasingly critical due to
Available online 1 February 2022 an increased focus on sustainable growth in the construction sector. The rating method established cri-
teria for green measures in the construction and use of structures in order to create them more environ-
Keywords: mentally friendly and sustainable. In India, ‘‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and
Energy performance assessment Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA)” are the most typical building environmental
GRIHA assessment schemes now in use. For the purpose of this article, LEED and GRIHA rating systems are com-
Green building
pared and their scopes, performances requirements, and scales of energy efficiency are discussed. This
LEED
research aims to clarify the LEED and GRIHA assessment criteria that need to be taken into account when
comparing the two systems. This Comparative research may be used to compile a generic checklist for
any small-scale green construction project’s inspection and certification.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Innovation and Application in Science and Technology.

1. Introduction structures. Small-scale initiatives should be given a new evaluation

In order to be environmentally friendly, a green building must
adhere to a set of principles during all design, construction, and
operation stages in order to reap the greatest benefits from the nat-
ural environment while causing the least amount of harm. Numer-
ous factors must be taken into consideration while developing a
green building. It’s critical to know how environmentally friendly
a project is before deciding whether or not to implement it. Using
the new approach, the building would be scored based on a variety
of criteria, allowing us to get a good picture of how green it is. All
new structures should strive to include green building practises in
whatever manner feasible. There should be no resistance from
those involved in the construction of a project to use green build-
ing approaches such as using renewable energy sources and recy-
cling trash and water [1].
Buildings that have previously been built should also be rated
according to the existing Green Building Rating standards. As a
result, a new grading system should be devised for older
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: abhi007arya@gmail.com (A. Arya), Sharma.23743@lpu.ac.in
(R.L. Sharma).
system that takes into account the views and requirements of the
local population [2]. As a result, both the general public and the
developer community may become more enthusiastic about using
green building approaches in their construction projects.
The Indian Green Business Council administers the internation-
ally recognised LEED programme, which is known as ‘‘Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)”-India. TERI and the
‘‘Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)” collaborated to
create ‘‘GRIHA (the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assess-
ment)” [3]. Buildings that satisfy specified environmental and sus-
tainable development standards are recognized under this
indigenous standard for green building, which is equivalent to
LEED. The twenty-first century has been dubbed the ‘‘urban cen-
tury” by urban researchers. More than half of Earth’s seven billion
inhabitants will be living in cities by the year 2020, according to
one estimate. Cities will be home to more than 6.3 billion people
by the year 2050, according to further projections [4]. The sheer
number of people moving to or being born in cities is enough to
make us reassess how we might better support the rise of our
urban centres. It is estimated that there are 6.3 billion people living
in cities throughout the world, many of whom have unique needs
in terms of public infrastructure.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.100
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Innovation and Application in Science and Technology.
A. Arya and R.L. Sharma
In India, the issue of urbanisation is particularly serious. In
India, there were 53 cities having populations of more than a mil-
lion people. 18 million people call Mumbai home; Delhi has a pop-
ulation of 16 million, and Kolkata has a population of more than 14
million (IIHS 2012) [5]. More over half of the world’s population
lives in urban areas [6], making India one of the world’s most pop-
ulous countries, with a 372 million-strong urban population.
The LEED-India and GRIHA programmes were established in
India in order to generate a more sustainable pattern of urban
development [6]. Efficiencies in urban design, planning, and engi-
neering are the goals of these programmes. In addition, these ini-
tiatives aim to enhance one’s quality of life for India’s citizens by
utilising the country’s limited resources more effectively. IGBC
and ADaRSH collected data on LEED-India and GRIHA projects,
respectively, to investigate this study subject.
Green Building Footprints in India have reached 7.17 billion
square feet, according to data from the Indian Green Building
Council (IGBC) [22]. More than 6,000 green projects and more than
5.77 million acres of substantial development projects have
already been completed throughout the country, helping the gov-
ernment to achieve its goal of 75 percent green construction foot-
print two years ahead of schedule. Following extensive research,
the International Green Building Council (IGBC) and its partners
have established a goal of 10 billion square feet of green buildings
by 2022. In the Indian green building business, LEED India and
GRIHA are the most widely used and well approved grading sys-
tems. When it comes to grading the building industry’s perfor-
mance and establishing certification levels, LEED and GRIHA have
much of the same goals, approaches, and structures [7]. Though
sustainability rating procedures differ significantly amongst
instrument grading systems, they are all used in the infrastructure
industry to assess the performance, scope, and environmental ele-
ments of buildings.
2. Literature review
Urban sustainability has spurred an abundance of study on
‘‘green” construction practises. There are a number of broad cate-
gories that may be broken down into a few subcategories, such
as specialised grading systems, cost-benefit analyses of ‘‘green”
buildings, and Case studies of attempts to promote urban sustain-
ability in cities in individual locations. Using Reed et al. (2009) as a
starting point, it’s easy to see how the different green grading sys-
tems differ and resemble one another internationally. A similar
study was done in 2006 by Bunz, Henze, and Tiller, who looked
at green construction standards in North America as well as Europe
(the UK) as well as the rest of Asia (Japan, Hong Kong and Korea).
For Cidell’s geographical study of LEED-certified buildings and
LEED-certified professionals, she takes a comprehensive look at
American criteria. In 2006, Smith et al. compared the LEED system
to the Green Globes system in the United States. To wrap up, a geo-
graphical study of LEED-ND projects in the United States was just
done by Smith (2014) [7].
Green construction standards have been examined by a number
of academics (Quigley 2009). Green construction standards have
been shown to save energy costs in these investigations. Employee
absenteeism and productivity were also reduced as a result [8]. In
addition to increased sales and rental prices and reduced vacancy
rates, buildings built to green standards saw an increase in
demand. Profits and energy savings are two important factors
achieved by green construction practises are worth the investment,
according to Florance (2008) and McAllister (2011). Using Lee and
Burnett’s (2008) research into Hong Kong’s green building effi-
ciency, researchers may compare green building plans from across
the world.
2312
Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2311–2316
3. Green building rating systems: an illustrated overview
3.1. LEED (Leadership in energy and environmental Design) rating
system
LEED serves as the US Green Building Council’s endeavour to
establish national standards for ‘‘green buildings.” In 2007, ‘‘the
United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC)” [9] LEED-India
scheme was customised to meet the needs of the Indian govern-
ment. ‘‘Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)” runs this private pro-
gramme in India. LEED 2011 for India Core Committee was
established by the ‘‘International Green Building Council (IGBC)”
with the goal of adapting LEED to the Indian environment. In order
to meet LEED’s aims and objectives, LEED gives building construc-
tion rules and criteria [10]. In a way, LEED is like a list of credits
that may be acquired in seven primary areas. Listed below are
the many subcategories:
 Sustainably Managed Sites.
 Energy and Environment.
 Materials & Resources.
 Indoor Environmental Quality.
 Innovation & Design Process.
 Priority for the Region.
 Water Conservation
Its goal is to enhance the well-being of building occupants,
environmental stewardship and economic benefits by the use of
well-established and cutting-edge practises, standards, and tech-
nology as a design manual and a tool for certification. There are
seven key categories in LEED, and each category has a list of possi-
ble credits16. A building’s LEED certification level is determined by
how many of its sustainability goals it has met (Certified, Silver,
Gold, Platinum) Early market penetration and widespread use by
experts have made LEED a popular green building grading system
across the world. The building’s Platinum grade caused a lot of
excitement across the country. In order to gain points for meeting
certain intrinsic environmental consequences of the design and
construction processes, projects must meet performance stan-
dards. When it comes to becoming certified as environmentally
friendly, a building’s overall score determines its green building
certification level [11]. The system is designed to be both compre-
hensive and easy to use. In the public and private sectors, the grad-
ing system’s particular credits give guidance for building design
and construction of all sizes. Fig. 1 shows LEED India Evaluation
criteria. LEED for India’s commercial and institutional buildings is
aimed at promoting high-performance, healthy, durable, inexpen-
sive, and ecologically sound structures.
3.2. GRIHA (Green rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment) rating
system
GRIHA is India’s national system for grading green buildings. It
was developed by TERI and the Government of India’s Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy and is compliant with national energy
and environmental regulations [12]. GRIHA principles are being
used in the construction of over 300 projects in India of various
sizes and functions.
As a result, many of the worldwide rating systems exist only
because they have been specifically designed for the country in
which they were created. An environmental instrument for assess-
ing and grading building environmental performance was devel-
oped by TERI, which is devoted to all aspects of sustainable
development, to help promote green buildings in India’s diverse
climate and construction practises [13]. With its qualitative and
A. Arya and R.L. Sharma
Fig 1. LEED India Evaluation criteria [22].
quantitative assessment criteria, this tool may ‘‘grade” a building’s
’greenness’ in terms of its environmental impact.
In order to define what constitutes a ‘‘green building,” the grade
will examine a building’s environmental performance across its
full life cycle. Using well-established energy and environmental
principles, the grading system aims to achieve a balance between
well-established practises and newly developing solutions from
throughout the world [14]. According to current scientific break-
throughs, it is possible to modify the guidelines/criteria assess-
ment every three years. In addition to decreasing greenhouse gas
emissions, boosting energy security, and reducing the long-term
impact on natural resources, this system and the activities and pro-
cedures that precede it will benefit society as a whole [15]. Build-
ings of diverse types, including commercial, institutional, and
residential, are eligible for the designation. A five-star grading sys-
tem for green buildings, GRIHA, was introduced in November 2007
by the Indian government’s Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy. It places a focus on passive solar solutions for optimising
both visual and thermal comfort through the use of solar thermal
collectors [16]. GRIHA advocates the optimization of building
design in order to minimise traditional energy use and further
increase the energy efficiency of the building while maintaining
stipulated comfort levels. Fig. 2 provide GRIHA Evaluation criteria.
Predicted performance across the building’s whole life cycle is
taken into consideration.
For structures that are not air conditioned or are only partially
air conditioned GRIHA was developed as an indigenous grading
system for buildings. Buildings in India are being evaluated using
GRIHA in order to take into account national environmental issues
as well as regional climate circumstances and local solutions [18].
GRIHA encourages for the use of refrigeration-based and energy-
intensive air conditioning systems only when an indoor setting is
experiencing extreme heat discomfort. GRIHA is a tool that assists
in the implementation of relevant Indian building norms and
standards.
2313
Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2311–2316
4. Based on comparison (Comparative analysis)
When it comes to the specific rating systems, LEED and the
GRIHA programme have certain parallels but also some distinc-
tions. Building developers can choose whatever credits or mea-
sures they wish to pursue, although both schemes employ a
credit-based system with some flexibility, and both have man-
dated standards that must be satisfied to be certified. Both LEED
and GRIHA employ comparable grading criteria for new building
design, concentrating on land, energy, water, and the quality of
the internal environment [19]. Fig. 1 provides an analysis of how
each rating criterion is weighted in relation to one another. For
example, a comparison of Green building rating systems’ similari-
ties and differences can be seen in Table 2, which shows whether
or not the various assessment criteria were taken into considera-
tion when rating systems in question were examined:
4.1. Process
In order to rate the GRIHA rating method is employed, which is
an offline questionnaire-based technique. To create a report that
includes ratings and ideas for improvement, a questionnaire must
be filled out. There are no binders or templates needed because the
process is completed by an impartial third-party verifier also
known as a Green Globes assessor [20]. LEED, on the other hand,
requires a great deal of documentation, is very consuming and
yet heavily reliant on paper.
4.2. Popularity
In compared to GRIHA, LEED is a highly well-known certifica-
tion system. LEED has been implemented in more than 22 coun-
tries, and the USGBC has said that its objective is to become the
global standard for green building grading systems. According to
A. Arya and R.L. Sharma
Fig 2. GRIHA Evaluation criteria [17].
the USGBC, more than 12,000 commercial projects have received
LEED certification since its inception a decade years ago [20]. Since
its inception in 2006, GRIHA has certified over 2,000 buildings in
India. GRIHA has seen significant expansion in India over the past
two to four years, with interest from building owners, designers,
and government organisations.
4.3. Transparency
GRIHA makes advantage of preconditions, such as a minimum
level of proficiency. While this may seem like a negative to some,
it might actually benefit the overall performance of a building even
if it is disqualified by LEED for failing to achieve a minimal stan-
dard. In contrast to LEED, GRIHA gives points to those who execute
techniques as well as those who achieve desired goals. With regard
2314
Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2311–2316
to LEED adoption by government agencies, the USGBC has recently
come under fire for making the LEED process more ‘‘internal” than
many stakeholders would want.
4.4. Cost
Associate membership in GRIHA is free, and there are no appeal
or registration fees. Documentation expenses for LEED consultants
can also be reduced as a result. As a result, certification under
GRIHA is more affordable than certification under LEED.
4.5. Criteria
GRIHA’s grading methodology better incorporates life-cycle
thinking through the procurement of materials and the building’s
A. Arya and R.L. Sharma Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2311–2316

Table 2
Comparative analysis of LEED and GRIHA rating system.

No. CATEGORY LEED GRIHA

1 TRANSPORTATION
1.1) Alternative modes of travel / public transportation accessibility / mass transit commuting / green transportation / local transportation / U U
vehicular access
1.2) Alternative modes of transport/cycling infrastructure U ✗
1.3) Alternative modes of travel / Travel itinerary / Fuel-efficient modes of transport U ✗
1.4) Pedestrian route/Individual transportation U U
1.5) Proximity to amenities/Community amenities/Features of amenities U ✗
2 ENERGY/ENERGY EFFICIENCY/ENERGY USE
2.1) Utilization of renewable energy sources U U
2.2) Performance with the least amount of energy/ Optimize ozone depletion U ✗
2.3) Fundamental commissioning of buildings/ Verification & measurement / Monitoring of energy consumption / metering & surveillance U U
2.4) Depletion of ozone U U
2.5) Commissioning of additional works U ✗
2.6) Energy efficiency/green energy U U
3 MANAGEMENT/SUSTAINABLE SITE
3.1) Selection of a site, reuse of land, recovered land, and sustainable design U U
3.2) Preserve and safeguard the landscape during the construction process cons Preserve and preserve the natural environment throughout building U U
/ Retain soil surface /Vegetation that exists
3.3) Conservation of soil/ Laying and stabilising top soil / Decorative hardscapes & border protection ✗ U
3.4) Redevelopment of brownfields U ✗
3.5) Design to incorporate existing site characteristics U U
3.6) Operation and maintenance of buildings and sites ✗ U
3.7) Management of projects ✗ U
4 HEALTH & WELL BEING
4.1) Sanitary conditions / construction site safety measures workers at a minimum U
4.2) Reduce construction-related air pollution U U
5 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
5.1) Optimize the design of a building to minimise conventional energy consumption/Natural ventilation/Localized ventilation U U
5.2) Reduced impact of the heat island/ Tolerance to heat /Thermal insulation/Building performance in terms of energy efficiency U ✗
5.3) Materials with low emissions/ Control of chemical and pollution sources /Monitoring and control of CO2 / Hazardous materials/Control of U U
indoor air pollutants/ETS
5.4) Reduce ozone-depleting substances/Hydrocarbon- and chlorofluorocarbon U U
5.5) Acceptable noise levels indoors and outdoors / Acoustic performance / Background noise ✗ U
6 USE, RECYCLE, and RECHARGE WATER.
6.1) Consumption of water / Keeping a close watch on the water /Water meter/Water usage \ smonitoring ✗ U
6.2) Treatment of Waste Water U U
6.3) Recycling and reusing water ✗ U
6.4) Reduce trash generation/Segregate garbage/ Disposal and storage /Recovery from waste ✗ U
6.5) Inventions in waste water treatment/ control of rainwater runoff / The effluent from water recycling is dumped into a dirty sewage system. U U
7 INNOVATION
7.1) Design innovation U U
8 MATERIALS
8.1) Reuse of structures/Reuse of façades/Reuse of structures U ✗
8.2) Conservation and effective resource usage U U
8.3) A building can be constructed with fly ash. ✗ U
8.4) Reduce construction volume, weight, and time by implementing an efficient technique. ✗ U
8.5) Interiors should be constructed with low-energy materials. U U
8.6) Sustainable procurement/waste recycling/sustainability of products U U
8.7) Materials from the local or regional area U ✗
CONSIDERED U
NOT CONSIDERED ✗

longevity and flexibility. The two systems stress distinct categories. 5. Conclusion
Among other examples, GRIHA places a greater emphasis on
energy consumption than any other category, whereas LEED places Numerous factors must while you’re at it designing a green
a more emphasis on materials. Since LEED vision (previously LEED building. It’s critical to know how environmentally friendly a pro-
India-NC) involves greater consideration for the life cycle than ear- ject is before deciding whether or not to implement it. This quick
lier editions, this disparity in focus may begin to alter [21]. comparison would assess the building’s status as a green building
Below Table 1 shows details of LEED and GRIHA rating system on a number of fronts. However, both of these systems aren’t the
and Table 3 shows checklist for Small Commercial Green Building. only ones that may be employed in specific parts of this country.
There is a potential that the same building might be rated differ-
ently by each method due to the differences in the parameters
Table 1 used. In addition, because of their complexity, they are unable to
Details of LEED and GRIHA Rating system.
provide a clear picture of a project’s success. Each system has its
Title LEED GRIHA own strengths and weaknesses, and they aren’t all the same when
Year of Inception 2019 2019 it comes to evaluating a student’s performance. As a result of this,
Total Building Registered 2030 500 Indian developers and builders are now unsure of which method to
Total Building Rated 1230 Not Provided choose for the certification of their projects and structures. In light
Certified Space 48million square meter 13 million square foot
of the aforementioned comparison of LEED and GRIHA grading sys-
Source: Refs. [23–26]. tems for small contractors, several points for green building that
2315
A. Arya and R.L. Sharma Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2311–2316

Table 3 [4] N.A. Sanadi, S.S. Makandar, Limitations of Green Building Rating Systems – A
Checklist for Small Commercial Green Building. case of LEED and GRIHA, vol. 06, 2019.
[5] H. Agarwal, H.K. Singh, S. Vashishtha, Comparison between three most
Sr Categories prevailing green building rating systems of India, vol. 05, 2017.
No. [6] M.N. Hedaoo, Sharad Khese, A Comparative Analysis Of Rating Systems in
Green Building, vol. 3, 2016.
1 Site Aspect
[7] F. Jalaei, A. Jrade, Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and LEED
1.1) Selection of Locations system at the conceptual design stage of sustainable buildings, Sustain. Cities
1.2) Control of Soil Erosion Soc. 18 (2015) 95e107.
1.3) Retention of on-site ecology [8] W. Lee, A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental
1.4) Construction Standards assessment schemes, Energy Build. 62 (2013) 403e413.
1.5) Fundamental Essentials [9] L.M. Mitchell, Green Star and NABERS: learning from the Australian expe
1.6) Infrastructure for the construction workforce rience with green building rating tools, Energy Effic. (2010) 93.
1.7) Post-occupancy green building guidelines [10] D.E. Shiers, ‘‘Green” developments: environmentally responsible buildings in
2 Building Energy Efficiency the UK commercial property sector, Prop. Manag. 18 (2000) 352e365.
2.1) Appropriate building orientation [11] R. Cassidy, Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, The Federal
2.2) Appliances that are energy efficient Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations, 18
2.3) Lighting system that is energy efficient (Use of LED, CFL) September 2003
[12] A.A. Gudhade et al., LEED certification: an approach towards sustainable
2.4) Renewable energy sources utilisation (Solar, Wind)
construction, Int. J. Appl. Innovat. Eng. Manage. (IJAIEM) (2015).
2.5) Effective wall and roof insulation (Protection)
[13] C. Say, A. Wood, Sustainable rating systems around the world, CTBUH J. (II)
2.6) Again, the use of UV reflecting glass to keep out the heat
(2008).
2.7) Suitable proportion of openings and shading [14] Green Rehabilitation Integrated Habitat Assessment-V 2015, abridged
2.8) Effective management, maintenance, and monitoring are critical document.
components of continual performance improvement. [15] Indian Green Building Councils Green New Building rating system version 03,
2.9) Utilization of reflecting material on the roof Abridged Reference guide, August 2015.
3 WATER EFFICIENCY [16] R.G. Saigaonkar et al., Unique Rating System for Green Building: By Comparing
3.1) Waste water recycling Various Existing Rating Systems, Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 4 (1) (2014) 197–206,
3.2) Systems for rainwater collection www.ijera.com ISSN: 2248-9622 (Version2).
3.3) Fixtures that conserve water [17] http://data.conferenceworld.in/IETE12/20.pdf
3.4) Treatment facility for sewage [18] B.o. Xia, J. Zuo, M. Skitmore, S. Pullen, Q. Chen, Green Star Points Obtained by
3.5) Water-conserving landscaping Australian Building Projects, J. Archit. Eng. 19 (4) (2013) 302–308.
[19] P. Wu, S.P. Low, Project Management and Green Buildings: Lessons from the
4 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Rating Systems, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 136 (2) (2010) 64–70.
4.1) Assuring maximum natural light and vistas
[20] J.T. Kevern, Green Building and Sustainable Infrastructure: Sustainability
4.2) Providing for natural ventilation
Education for Civil Engineers, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 137 (2) (2011)
4.3) Utilization of low-VOC adhesives, sealants, and paints, among others 107–112.
5 MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION [21] Vyas Gayatri Sachin, Jha K. N. Comparative study of rating systems for green
5.1) Recycling of building materials building in developing and developed countries, ICCIDC-III July 4-6,2012,
5.2) Utilization of renewable resources, such as fly ash blocks Bangkok, Thailand.
5.3) Utilization of locally sourced materials [22] R.G. Saigaonkar, S.S. Pimplicar, P.D. Aher, Unique rating system for green
5.4) Construction using certified wood building; By comparing various existing rating ayatems 4(1) (2014): 197–206
ISSN: 2248-9622 (Version 2)
[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design
are both easy and effective have been recommended. As a result, it [24] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1229176/india-green-footprint-of-griha-
combines the best features of both systems while also addressing projects/
[25] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1229115/india-number-of-green-
the drawbacks of each system in isolation. building-projects-leed-by-state-2019/
[26] https://www.usgbc.org/articles/india-ranks-no-3-us-green-building-council-
Declaration of Competing Interest list-top-10-countries-leed

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Dat Tien Doan, Ali Ghaffarianhoseini, Nicola Naismith, Tongrui Zhang,
Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, John Tookey, A critical comparison of green
building rating systems
[2] Iliyas ikbal sande, N.S. Phadtare, Comparative study of LEED and GRIHA rating
system, vol. 3, 2015
[3] Rohan V. Nalawade, S.G. Sonar, Comparative Review criteria utilization by
LEED and GRIHA: Green building Rating systems for New construction in India
Further reading
[27] J.-K.-W. Wong, K.-L. Kuan, Implementing ‘BEAM Plus’ for BIM-based sus-
tainability analysis, Automat. Constr. 44 (2014) 163–175.
[28] J.K.W. Wong, J. Zhou, Enhancing environmental sustainability over building
life cycles through green BIM: a review, Automat. Constr. 57 (2015) 156–165.
[29] J.A. Lorenzen, Going Green: the process of lifestyle change 1, in: Sociological
Forum, Wiley Online Library, 2012, pp. 94–116
[30] S. Azhar, W.A. Carlton, D. Olsen, I. Ahmad, Building Information Modeling for
sustainable design and LEEDÒ rating analysis, Automat. Constr. 20 (2011)
217e224.
[31] Ninza Z. Khanna, John Romankiewicz, Nan zhou, Wei Feng, From platinum to
three stars: Comparative analysis of U.S. and China green building rating
programs, ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. 2-402-414.

2316