IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i7p1226-d104575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Bernardi

    (Department for Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
    Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, 00133 Rome, Italy)

  • Salvatore Carlucci

    (Department for Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, 7491 Trondheim, Norway)

  • Cristina Cornaro

    (Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, 00133 Rome, Italy)

  • Rolf André Bohne

    (Department for Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, 7491 Trondheim, Norway)

Abstract

Rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings are technical instruments that aim to evaluate the environmental impact of buildings and construction projects. In some cases, these rating systems can also cover urban-scale projects, community projects, and infrastructures. These schemes are designed to assist project management in making the projects more sustainable by providing frameworks with precise criteria for assessing the various aspects of a building’s environmental impact. Given the growing interest in sustainable development worldwide, many rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings have been established in recent years, each one with its peculiarities and fields of applicability. The present work is motivated by an interest in emphasizing such differences to better understand these rating systems and extract the main implications to building design. It also attempts to summarize in a user-friendly form the vast and fragmented assortment of information that is available today. The analysis focuses on the six main rating systems: the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM), the Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB), the Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE TM ), the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and the Sustainable Building Tool (SBTool).

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Bernardi & Salvatore Carlucci & Cristina Cornaro & Rolf André Bohne, 2017. "An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-27, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1226-:d:104575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/7/1226/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/7/1226/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Ayres, Robert U., 1993. "Cowboys, cornucopians and long-run sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 189-207, December.
    3. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    4. Umberto Berardi, 2012. "Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 411-424, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Umberto Berardi, 2013. "Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1573-1591, December.
    2. Dawid Szostek, 2019. "The Impact of the Quality of Interpersonal Relationships between Employees on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Study of Employees in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-33, October.
    3. Sara Sousa, 2021. "Environmental Taxation in Portugal: A Contribution to Sustainability," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Sofia Vale (ed.), Eurasian Economic Perspectives, pages 369-382, Springer.
    4. Jari Lyytimäki & Ulla Rosenström, 2008. "Skeletons out of the closet: effectiveness of conceptual frameworks for communicating sustainable development indicators," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 301-313.
    5. Bahadur Ali Soomro & Ikhtiar Ali Ghumro & Naimatullah Shah, 2020. "Green entrepreneurship inclination among the younger generation: An avenue towards a green economy," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 585-594, July.
    6. Higgins, Colin & Walker, Robyn, 2012. "Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 194-208.
    7. Krystyna Kurowska & Renata Marks-Bielska & Stanisław Bielski & Audrius Aleknavičius & Cezary Kowalczyk, 2020. "Geographic Information Systems and the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Xu, Jiuping & Li, Zongmin, 2012. "A review on Ecological Engineering based Engineering Management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 368-378.
    9. John Holmberg & Johan Larsson, 2018. "A Sustainability Lighthouse—Supporting Transition Leadership and Conversations on Desirable Futures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    10. Ortrud Lessmann & Felix Rauschmayer, 2013. "Re-conceptualizing Sustainable Development on the Basis of the Capability Approach: A Model and Its Difficulties," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 95-114, February.
    11. Mehdi Jabbari & Majid Shafiepour Motlagh & Khosro Ashrafi & Ghahreman Abdoli, 2020. "Differentiating countries based on the sustainable development proximities using the SDG indicators," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6405-6423, October.
    12. Katharina Spraul & Julia Thaler, 2020. "Partnering for good? An analysis of how to achieve sustainability-related outcomes in public–private partnerships," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(2), pages 485-511, July.
    13. Szennay, Áron, 2020. "A vállalati társadalmi felelősségvállalás megközelítései és a fenntartható fejlődés [How popular approaches to corporate social responsibility relate to sustainable development]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 1057-1074.
    14. Korah, Prosper Issahaku & Nunbogu, Abraham Marshall & Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful & Akanbang, Bernard Afiik Akanpabadai, 2019. "Analysis of livelihood issues in resettlement mining communities in Ghana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Mikuła, Aneta, 2020. "Level Of Sustainable Development Of Counties In Poland," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(1).
    16. Vinnari, Markus & Tapio, Petri, 2012. "Sustainability of diets: From concepts to governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 46-54.
    17. Eckehard Rosenbaum & Biagio Ciuffo, 2017. "Sustainability via Intergenerational Transfers in a Stock-Flow-Consistent Model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 147-184, February.
    18. Chang, Rui-Dong & Zuo, Jian & Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Zillante, George & Gan, Xiao-Long & Soebarto, Veronica, 2017. "Evolving theories of sustainability and firms: History, future directions and implications for renewable energy research," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 48-56.
    19. Williams, Belinda & Wilmshurst, Trevor & Clift, Robert, 2011. "Sustainability reporting by local government in Australia: Current and future prospects," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 176-186.
    20. Alessandro Cariello & Rossella Ferorelli & Francesco Rotondo, 2021. "Tactical Urbanism in Italy: From Grassroots to Institutional Tool—Assessing Value of Public Space Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1226-:d:104575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.