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. 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.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    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. Ayres, Robert U., 1993. "Cowboys, cornucopians and long-run sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 189-207, December.
    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. 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.
    4. Higgins, Colin & Walker, Robyn, 2012. "Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 194-208.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Xiucheng Dong & Jie Guo & Mikael Höök & Guanglin Pi, 2015. "Sustainability Assessment of the Natural Gas Industry in China Using Principal Component Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Erling Holden & Kristin Linnerud, 2007. "The sustainable development area: satisfying basic needs and safeguarding ecological sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 174-187.
    12. Nessa Winston, 2022. "Sustainable community development: Integrating social and environmental sustainability for sustainable housing and communities," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 191-202, February.
    13. Fátima Lanhoso & Denis Alves Coelho, 2021. "Emergence fostered by systemic analysis—Seeding innovation for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 768-779, July.
    14. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    15. Sabrina Tabares & Andrés Morales & Sara Calvo & Valentín Molina Moreno, 2021. "Unpacking B Corps’ Impact on Sustainable Development: An Analysis from Structuration Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Luke Boyle & Kathy Michell & François Viruly, 2018. "A Critique of the Application of Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools in Urban Regeneration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Niki Derlukiewicz & Anna Mempel-Sniezyk, 2018. "European cities in the face of sustainable development," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 17(2), pages 125-135, June.
    18. Lueg, Rainer & Radlach, Ronny, 2016. "Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 158-171.
    19. Markus J. Milne & Helen Tregidga & Sara Walton, 2009. "Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(8), pages 1211-1257, October.
    20. Sebastjan Lazar & Dorota Klimecka-Tatar & Matevz Obrecht, 2021. "Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20, March.

    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.