50
LEED: Is Building Green Worth the Investment? Amy Zhang, Betty Liu, Judy Zhou, Mehmet Arslan, Ahmet Yalcin Energy and Energy Policy
LEED: Is Building Green Worth the Investment?
Amy Zhang, Betty Liu, Judy Zhou, Mehmet Arslan, Ahmet Yalcin
Energy and Energy PolicyProfessor Berry, Professor Tolley
4 December 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
According to the US Energy Information Administration, buildings account for over 40%
of the United States’ energy consumption. It is no surprise, then, that there has been a push to
make buildings more energy efficient with the substantial economic and environmental
incentives. A number of building assessments have emerged as a way to measure energy
efficiency; they rate the buildings’ design and delivery by using tallying credits in their
subcategories. Among these systems, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) developed by the US Green Building Council is the most prominent worldwide, but
there are several others to consider such as BREEAM, CASBEE, and Green Star. Our paper will
be focused on LEED, the standard that significantly changed the building construction industry,
and how it compares to the other three standards mentioned. Through these comparisons, we will
explore the strengths and weaknesses of LEED and how it can improve.
2. WHAT IS LEED
The United States Green Building Council describes LEED as “a green building
certification program that recognizes best-in-class building strategies and practices.” In order to
receive LEED certification, the project team needs to choose a rating system that best fits their
project type. There are nine rating systems under these five overarching categories within LEED:
Building Design and Construction, Interior Design and Construction, Building Operations and
Maintenance, Neighborhood Development, and Homes. Each system features its own
combination credit categories, where the project can earn points that determine its LEED
certification. There are four certifications, Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum on a threshold
that typically looks like the graphic shown below.
2
Each credit allocated is based on the relative importance of the impacts that it addresses,
giving a weighted value of the impact of each credit received; due to the changing nature of
technology and requirements, the process by which credits are weighed vary from each version
of LEED.
There have been five versions since the pilot version, LEED Construction v1.0; currently
buildings looking to be LEED certified can choose between LEED 2009 and LEEDv4, the
newest version, until October 31, 2016, after which all projects must register under LEEDv4.
LEEDv4 builds upon LEED 2009 by looking beyond simply the quantity of materials used, but
also the composition and quality and how that affects both the building’s residents and the
environment. In addition, there is a greater focus on occupant comfort and water efficiency; the
constant evolution of LEED ensures that it stays as relevant to green technologies and policies as
possible.1
Particularly in the US, many federal and local governments either encourage or mandate
LEED certification of buildings. As of November 2015, there are over 83,000 registered and
certified LEED projects, despite the fact that Alabama, Georgia, Maine, and Mississippi have
indirectly banned the use of LEED in favor of other green initiatives with laxer policies. The
1 "LEED." LEED | U.S. Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building Council, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
3
University of Chicago itself has several of these buildings; University policy states that new
construction projects costing more than $5 million must be certified as LEED Silver or higher.
New or renovated campus icons such as the Logan Center, Saieh Hall, and Searle Chemistry
Laboratory are all certified LEED Gold, and Harper Court has achieved three LEED
certifications, two Gold and one Platinum. There are ten LEED certified buildings on campus
and four pursuing LEED Gold or Silver in construction.2
3. BENEFITS OF LEED
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, buildings consume a staggering
amount of resources every day in the United States. They account for 68% of total electricity
consumption, 30% of landfill waste, 12% of total water consumption, and 39% of total energy
use. They are responsible for 38% of total carbon dioxide emissions, more CO2 emissions than
those of any other country in the world except China. It then becomes of utmost importance to
take measures to alleviate the environmental impact of these buildings.
The greatest hindrance to building green is the extra cost of the various energy efficient
materials, appliances, building structures, etc., versus conventional supplies and equipment in
regular buildings. These extra costs are generally perceived to be an excessive initial investment
or a money sink that is unable to be recovered in the lifetime of the building. However,
according to market research by Capital E where the cost for 33 green buildings across the
United States were ascertained and compared to their conventional counterparts, the average
premium for building green is less than 2%, or $3-5/ft2. In fact, the bulk of the additional costs
stem from an increase in architectural and engineering (A&E) design time to incorporate energy
2 "The University of Chicago Sustainability." LEED Buildings on Campus. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
4
efficient materials and building structures into the current blueprint. Furthermore, as found by a
2007 study by Langdon, investments in green practices actually impact total building costs less
than other decisions such as amenities and building finishes. Much of the additional cost can thus
be conserved by making the decision to incorporate LEED into earlier stage of the building
construction.
In the past couple decades, as increasingly more building projects make the decision to
acquire LEED certification, experience in green building design and construction has drastically
increased. Hence, the cost of design for these buildings, cited previously as a major portion of
the additional premium for going green, has decreased more and more in recent years. For
example, in Portland, three LEED Silver-ranked buildings, finished in 1995, 1997, and 2000 had
a higher premium of 2%, 1%, and 0%, respectively. Similarly, in Seattle, the extra cost in green
investment for LEED Silver-ranked buildings has dropped from a 3-4% increase in cost to 1-2%
today.
Additionally, according to the observations of a research group in the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, once the design teams of a building project are committed to adhering to
LEED standards, they strive to maximize the number of LEED points within their construction
budget to achieve the highest certification levels possible. For these teams, the LEED system
transforms from a green building rating system into a design guide for optimizing energy
efficiency in their projects. Thus, the structure of LEED’s point system provides the benefit of
encouraging construction design teams to attempt to get as many points as possible when
drafting the blueprint, which in turn allows these new buildings to be the greenest possible.34
3 Eijadi, David; Vaidya, Prausad; Reinertsen, James; & Kumar, Satish. (2002). Introducing comparative analysis to the LEED system: A case for rational and regional application.4 "Introducing Comparative Analysis to the LEED System: A Case for Rational and Regional Application." EScholarship. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
5
Once a green building is constructed, its operational costs consisting of energy use, waste
disposal, etc., are drastically reduced. Energy strategies implemented in sustainable construction
and design desire to increase on-site renewable energy sources using features such as ground
source heat pumps (GSHP), solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays, and electrochromic glazing.5
Reduced energy consumption in buildings equates to lower emissions in nitrogen oxide (NO),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and coarse particulate matter (PM10), which are
some of the main content that contribute to global warming, smog, and acid rain. Further studies
may expand upon these approaches by monitoring and documenting the post-occupancy
satisfaction with LEED-certified buildings over the lifespan of a building, typically defined as 50
years according to Bribian’s study conducted in 2012. Construction building materials account
for 50 percent of the embodied energy in a building and owners and with LEED certifications in
play it enables the operators to have an opportunity to specify building materials with lower
amounts of embodied energy.
Capital E surveyed 60 LEED rated buildings and their operational costs, and compared
them with their conventional counterparts, with the results shown below:
5 Kats, Gregory. "Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits." United States Green Building Council, Oct. 2006. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
6
On average, green buildings use 36% less energy than their regular counterparts. For
Massachusetts, where the average annual cost of energy use in buildings is $2.00/ft2, a 100,000
ft2 building, would accrue savings worth $72,000 per year. Assuming a real discount rate of 5%,
there is a 10-year present value of more than half a million dollars in energy savings. On
average, green buildings are also 28% more efficient than conventional buildings. A 30%
decrease in electricity consumption with an electricity price of $0.08/kWh amounts to roughly
$0.30/ft2 of savings per year. Over 20 years, the net present value amounts to over $5.00/ft2,
which is more than or equal to the average extra cost for incorporating green practices into
building designs.
On top of energy savings, the collective benefits of adhering to LEED standards range
from $50-65/ft2, which sums to over ten times the estimated premium for building green. These
values are compiled and shown in a chart below. According to a June 2012 report issued by the
White House Office of Management and Budget, the incorporation of green practices into
buildings for the last four years are expected to save upwards of $18 billion in energy costs over
the life of the projects.6
6 "Federal Agencies Release Annual Performance Updates on Energy and Sustainability Goals." The White House. Executive Office of the President, 15 Jan. 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
7
4. LEED SURVEY ON UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CAMPUS
In order to grasp a better sense of how students and faculty feel about new buildings on
campus with LEED certifications, we conducted a brief survey on campus regarding LEED
initiatives, where 100 responses were collected outside of the Saieh Hall for Economics. Out of
the 100 respondents, 56% were students who reported to use this facility on regular basis, and
44% were faculty members and miscellaneous visitors to the building. The table in Appendix A
contains the distribution of additional willingness to pay values across the respondents. It is
assumed that the amount of users remains the same in the future and that the views on LEED
buildings are unchanged as well. The total result demonstrated that the total willingness to pay
for everyone that uses the facility is $45 per person per year, with a standard deviation of $15.
While some level of extrapolation may be possible to future LEED projects, this analysis
focused specifically on one of the numerous LEED certified buildings on the University of
Chicago campus. Realistically speaking, it is likely that all of the benefits categories will
8
decrease in various degrees with future LEED projects (especially publicity and broader
education value), it is also likely that better design and experience will lower the initial costs
associated with LEED accreditation.
5. COST ANALYSIS
In terms of cost of LEED, it is important to foresee the amount of initial spending in a
longer time line, in order, to justify its benefits. Studies have been completed evaluating the
adoption of LEED credits by operations managers, city and public works planners, building
developers, and owners, yet perceptions from these studies reveal little post-occupancy
satisfaction information.7 In our case, we have performed a basic projection of costs on the Saieh
Hall of University of Chicago based on some of the previous evaluations by professionals.
LEED Credit Low HighSS Prereq. 1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control $ $SS Credit 1: Site Selection $ $SS Credit 4.1: Public Transportation Access $ $SS Credit 4.2: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms $ $SS Credit 7.1: Heat Island Reduction, Non-roof $ 5,000 $ 5,000SS Credit 7.2: Heat Island Reduction, Roof $ 8,000 $ 8,000WE Credit 1.1-1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping $ $EA Prereq. 1: Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning $ $ 50,000EA Prereq. 2: Minimum Energy Performance $ $EA Prereq. 3: CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment $ $EA Credit 1.1-1.2: Optimize Energy Performance $ $ 25,000EA Credit 3: Additional Commissioning $ 5,000 $ 15,000EA Credit 5: Measurement and Verification $ 15,000 $ 20,000EA Credit 6: Green Power $ $MR Prereq. 1: Storage and Collection of Recyclables $ $MR Credit 2.1-2.2: Construction Waste Management $ $MR Credit 4.1-4.2: Recycled Content $ $MR Credit 5.1-5.2: Local/Regional Materials $ $MR Credit 7: Certified Wood* $ 5,000 $ 15,000IEQ Prereq. 1: Minimum IAQ Performance $ 25,000 $ 100,000
7 Mason, Susan; Marker, Anthony; and Mirsky, Rebecca, "Green Building in the Pacific Northwest: Next Steps for an Emerging Trend" (2010). Research and Reports. Paper 50.
9
IEQ Prereq. 2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control $ $IEQ Credit 1: CO2 Monitoring $ 1,500 $ 1,500IEQ Credit 2: Increased Ventilation Effectiveness $ $IEQ Credit 3.1: IAQ Management, During Construction $ 20,000 $ 20,000IEQ Credit 3.2: IAQ Management, Before Occupancy $ $IEQ Credit 4.1: Low Emitting Adhesives and Sealants $ 500 $ 500IEQ Credit 4.2: Low Emitting Paints $ 5,000 $ 5,000IEQ Credit 4.3: Low Emitting Carpet $ $IEQ Credit 4.4: Low Emitting Composite Wood* $ 5,000 $ 5,000IEQ Credit 5: Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control $ $IEQ Credit 6.1: Controllability of Systems, Perimeter $ $IEQ Credit 7.1: Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992 $ 10,000 $ 10,000IEQ Credit 7.2: Thermal Comfort, Permanent Monitoring $ $IEQ Credit 8.2: Views for 90% of Spaces $ $ID Credit 2: LEED Accredited Professional $ $Cost of Compiling LEED Documentation $ 25,000 $ 60,000Cost of LEED Registration and Certification $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Total Extra Cost $ 132,000 $ 342,000Extra Cost Estimates for LEED Certification of Saieh Hall at University of Chicago
(Total: 100,770 sqft)
The list of foreseeable cost might seem overwhelming at the first glance; however, there
are numerous intangible cost justifications. For example, sustainable construction practices
involve strategies to mitigate negative impacts on the environment, provide increased
performance in occupant well-being, productivity and social value. Implementation of these
measures requires a holistic approach to sustainable design and construction, including reviewing
long term environmental goals.8
6. LEED: FROM THE CRITIC’S POINT OF VIEW
It is a long standing practice in building science to calculate energy, the mean energy
intensity of a collection of buildings and, using this technique, have concluded that medium
energy LEED commercial buildings have 30% lower site energy intensity than comparable
8 Presley, A., Meade, L., & Sarkis, J. (2010). A strategic sustainability justification methodology for organizational decisions: A reverse logistics illustration. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18), February 5, 2011.
10
conventional buildings. Nevertheless, the USGBC LEED certification for commercial new
construction lacks a mechanism to verify proposed energy savings. Furthermore, the results
point to numerous outcomes beneficial to building owners and occupants. Even so, the validity
of these studies has been criticized, citing bias in data sampling, insufficient data, and
overgeneralization. 9
Various studies have even reported contradictory findings on whether LEED buildings
achieve site and source energy savings relative to other commercial buildings. For instance, the
term “going green” is gaining favor with a growing number of companies and “green”
certification plaques are displayed outside their buildings, but no annual evaluation has been
made on these sites to guarantee its “greenness.” It is important to realize that the so-called
“green” buildings possess ratings based on environmental standards, but the mere existence of a
rating system doesn’t make these organizations credible. LEED could be blended into one of
these standards, as it requires buildings to prove that they are ahead of the curve on energy
efficiency, without the annual checkup to ensure it.
Furthermore, applicants can acquire LEED status merely by offering computer models
that give a projection of the building meeting a certain threshold, even before the building is
occupied. Moreover, the buildings do not have to demonstrate continued efficiency upon
obtaining certification. The LEED rating system also contains points much easier to obtain than
others. For instance, installing a bike rack gets is worth one point, while adding only the
minimum number of parking spaces scores you two. This allows buildings to take the easiest
and cheapest path to certification without significantly improving the environment. LEED
developer Rob Watson has even admitted to “[throwing] a few gimmes in there” when designing
9 Scofield, John H. "Do LEED-certified Buildings save Energy? Not Really…." Energy and Buildings 41.12 (2009): 1386-390. Web.
11
the point rating system. Thus, some environmentalists have criticized LEED as mere
“greenwashing.”
7. LEED & OTHER BUILDING ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS
Through this history of green building movement, there are some key organizations
(mainly in U.S.) promoting the implementation of sustainable construction practices including
the U.S. Green Building Council, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and other public agencies and companies. The main green building
organization in the U.S. is the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and their building
assessment system LEED is the most widely used one in U.S.
The green building movement is a recent phenomenon that is growing at an exponential
rate. The LEED building assessment standard has emerged as the definitive guideline for green
buildings in the U.S. and internationally. In order to understand the major advantages of LEED
better, we will look at some three other building assessment systems: BREEAM (United
Kingdom), CASBEE (Japan), and GreenStar (Australia).
7.1. BREEAM (UK)
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is the
oldest building assessment system and was the most widely used one until the arrival of LEED.
Even though its development was initiated in 1988 by the Building Research Establishment
(BRE) to set high performance standards for office buildings, BREEAM Buildings can be used
to assess the environmental performance of almost any type of building. Like LEED, BREEAM
also has sub-categories for different types of buildings for assessment: BREEAM Other
Buildings, BREEAM Courts, BREEAM Ecohomes, BREEAM Healthcare, BREEAM Industrial,
12
BREEAM International, BREEAM Multi-residential, BREEAM Prisons, BREEAM Offices,
BREEAM Retail, BREEAM Education, BREEAM Communities, BREEAM Domestic
Refurbishment. Because it also considers material selection, energy use, and management areas,
this building assessment system could be considered as a parent of LEED and is used in many
different countries alongside LEED. In BREEAM, the credits are weighed based on an
environmental scale and added together to produce one score. In the end, the building is rated as
Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent.10
Categories Points Points
Management 13
Health & Wellbeing 13
Energy 26
Transport 10
Water 6
Materials 13
Waste 9
Land Use & Ecology 10
Pollution 14
Innovation 10
Table 1. BREEAM Categories (Source: BREEAM, http://www.breeam.org)
Credit Description Point
Reduction of CO2 Emissions 15
Sub-metering of Substantial Energy Uses 1
10 "Reducing Carbon with BREEAM - COP21." BREEAM. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
13
Sub-metering of High Energy Load and Tenancy Areas 1
External Lighting 1
Low or Zero Carbon Technologies 3
Building fabric performance and avoidance of air infiltration 1
Cold Storage 1
Lifts 2
Escalators and travelling walkways 1
Table 2. Energy: 26 Possible Points (Source: BREEAM, http://www.breeam.org)
Of BREEAM’s assessment categories, the Energy category has the largest number of
potential points as it is very crucial for a sustainable building to be energy efficient. The most
important issue in this category, as can be read from the table above, is the reduction of CO2
emissions of the building starting from construction phase to management phase of the building.
In addition to these, additional supplementary spaces and technologies like cold storage, lifts and
escalators are also assessed in this scoring category. Within this assessment category, reduction
of CO2 emissions has the maximum available points as it covers a wide range of issues. The
reduction of CO2 emissions could be maintained by using different techniques such as choosing
to use passive heating and cooling systems to avoid fossil fuels or using sustainable energy
resources like sun or wind to power up the mechanical systems of the building. Most points in
this assessment category cover the energy levels of the selected building. Other points like cold
storage, lifts and escalators are also related with the energy use of the building and these points
gave importance whether the energy needed to operate these functions came from a sustainable
energy resource or not.
7.2 CASBEE (Japan)
14
CASBEE was designed by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium to assess the
buildings in Japan that assesses not only energy efficiency, but also Japanese cultural, social and
political relevance. CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency) has a various of assessment tools for the each phase of the building: planning, design,
completion, operation, and renovation. CASBEE is composed of four assessment tools in terms
of building construction called the CASBEE Family: CASBEE for Pre-design, CASBEE for
New Construction, CASBEE for Existing Building, and CASBEE for Renovation. Each tool is
intended for a separate purpose and target user. These tools are designed to assess building uses
like offices, apartments, etc.11
Tools Name of the Tools
Tool 0 CASBEE for Pre-design
Tool 1 CASBEE for New Construction
Tool 2 CASBEE for Existing Building
Tool 3 CASBEE for Renovation
Table 3. CASBEE Assessment Tools (Source: CASBEE, www.ibec.or.jp)
CASBEE for Pre-design aims to assist the owner, planner and others involved at the
planning (pre-design) stage of the project. It has two main roles: to assist in understanding issues
such as the basic environmental impact of the project and to evaluate the environmental
performance of the project at the Pre-design stage.
CASBEE for New Construction is a self-assessment check system that allows architects
and engineers to raise the value of the building during its design process. It can also serve as a
11 "An Overview of CASBEE." CASBEE. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
15
labeling tool when the building is subjected to expert third-party assessment. CASBEE for
Existing Building assessment tool targets existing building, based on operation records for at
least one year after completion. CASBEE for Renovation, like CASBEE for Existing Building,
targets existing buildings. It can be used to generate proposals for building operation monitoring
and commissioning.
The following parts of this section will continue to focus more on the credit categories of
CASBEE for New Construction. Unlike other building assessment systems, the credits in each
assessment category does award only one point; on the contrary each assessment category of
CASBEE has the same total maximum score of 3.12
Credit Description Point
Noise & Acoustics 3
Thermal Comfort 3
Lighting & Illumination 3
Air Quality 3
Service Ability 3
Durability & Reliability 3
Flexibility & Adaptability 3
Outdoor Environment on Site 3
Energy 3
Resources & Materials 3
Off-Site Environment 3
Table 4. CASBEE Credit Categories (Source: CASBEE, www.ibec.or.jp)
12 Ibid.
16
The Energy scoring category of CASBEE evaluates the sustainable performance of the
building with regard to its thermal loads and natural energy utilization. All systems related with
the thermal loads of the building are analyzed technically rated in terms of efficiency. The
keywords of this assessment category are efficiency and energy. In this sense, the management
of energy is crucial for sustainable development. The management of energy is also closely
related with the thermal load of the building. The successful management of this energy will in
the end create the efficiency. Efficiency in building service system and operation of these
systems have separate points.
Credit Description Point
Building Thermal Load
3Natural Energy Utilization
Efficiency in Building Service System
Efficient Operation
Table 5. CASBEE Energy Categories (Source: CASBEE, www.ibec.or.jp)
Keeping in mind the simple categorization and single point assessing system of LEED, it
can be said that CASBEE is a more complicated building assessment system than LEED for
users. One clear advantage of LEED then is its user-friendly nature, as it does not require
complicated calculations and graphics to evaluate the performance of the selected building.
7.3 GreenStar (Australia)
Green Star is a new building assessment system used in the Australian building market. It
has rating tools for different phases of the building life cycle and for different building types.
17
GreenStar assessment system was built on existing assessment systems and tools including the
BREEAM and LEED. GreenStar covers the following categories:
Categories Points
Management 12
Indoor Environmental Quality 27
Energy 29
Transport 11
Water 12
Materials 22
Land Use & Ecology 8
Emissions 16
Innovation 5
Table 6. Green Star Categories (Source, http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star)
The topics covered by GreenStar building assessment system are very similar to
BREEAM and LEED as it was inspired by these assessment systems. A maximum of 142 points
is achievable in this assessment system. The certification in this assessment system is made by
various numbers of stars that indicate the level of performance. Six stars is the highest level of
assessment.
Credit Description Point Point
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 20
Energy Sub-metering 2
Lighting Power Density 3
Lighting Zoning 2
Peak Energy Demand Reduction 2
18
Table 7. Energy: 29 Possible Points (Source, http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star)
The energy assessment category tries to evaluate the thermal and lighting energy loads of
the selected building with its possible 29 points. As understood from the table above, the main
issue in this category is the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. Since greenhouse gas
emissions are an important issue when dealing with global warming, this assessment system
places much greater importance on it than the other systems we have looked at, giving the
category a total of 20 points.
Similar to BREEAM, GreenStar also gives great importance to CO2 emissions
(Greenhouse gas emissions) with its possible 20 points. The sub categories of this point are the
same as BREEAM building assessment system. The management of energy came on the scene
with energy sub-metering point. Lighting power and zoning is also important as it also consumes
energy and avoiding the extra energy is assessed in these points. Historically, the roots of Green
Star lie on LEED building assessment system. The categorization of points is similar to LEED as
some additional categories are included like Transportation and Emissions categories.13
8. COMPARISONS BETWEEN LEED AND OTHER BUILDING
ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS
The comparisons amongst BREEAM, CASBEE, GreenStar and LEED building
assessment systems will be made with respect to their general properties, assessment categories
and evaluation of their assessment (whether the system uses a single point scoring system or
not). At the end, with the data gained from these comparisons and analysis of major differences
13 "Green Star - Green Building Council Australia (GBCA)." GBCA News. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
19
between these four building assessment systems and the advantages of LEED assessment system
on other systems will be clarified.
8.1 Comparisons on General Properties
The first subsection of the chapter will compare BREEAM, CASBEE, GreenStar and
LEED building assessment systems with respect to their general properties. These general
properties consist of date, origin, whether the system is internationally used or not and for which
building types the assessment system could be applied.
The first assessment system to be analyzed is the BREEAM building assessment system.
BREEAM is the earliest example of building assessment systems. In addition to its local use, this
building assessment tool is also an international system that can be adapted to different countries.
BREEAM system assesses many building types as it has many sub-categories in its structure.
This building assessment system can be used for other buildings, courts, sustainable homes,
ecohomes, healthcare, industrial, multi-residential, prisons, offices, retail, education,
communities and domestic refurbishment.
As can be understood from these versions of BREEAM, this building assessment system
covers a very wide range of building types starting from a single storage building to a much
more complex urban refurbishment. However, this wide range of categories also makes this
system complex, as the users could be confused by these different versions in BREEAM.
Nevertheless, the complexity in the different versions of BREEAM makes it a more complete
building assessment system for a sustainable society. The oldest example on the field of building
assessment systems, BREEAM offers more variety in building categorization than LEED. This is
an advantage of BREEAM on LEED, as it covers a broader view in this sense. LEED, on the
20
other hand, has separate versions for primary building types like new construction, interiors,
shell. 14
CASBEE is the next building assessment system to be considered, a new assessment
system started in 2004. It is not an international assessment system and is used only as a local
system in Japan. Though CASBEE assessment system also has different versions for different
building types: pre-design, new construction, existing building and assessment system, it still
needs some developments and practical use to show its potential in building assessment. The
versions of CASBEE cover bigger primary building types different from the large assortment of
types in BREEAM. Compared to the LEED assessment system, CASBEE lacks categorization as
it covers just a few building types. 15
GreenStar is also a new building assessment system with its starting date 2003, used
locally by the Australian building market. This building assessment system is highly inspired by
BREEAM and LEED assessment system and build upon these systems. Since this system is a
combination of the BREEAM and LEED systems, it mainly focuses on the building types of
each assessment system like new construction, commercial, site, etc. The versions of GreenStar
does not cover the same range of BREEAM though it still covers a much more wider range of
building types than CASBEE assessment system, which makes GreenStar a building assessment
system between BREEAM and LEED in terms of target building types.
The last building assessment system to be analyzed with respect to its general properties
is the LEED building assessment system. LEED assessment system emerged in 1998 and is
being used by the U.S. This assessment system inspired many other building assessment systems 14 Trusty, J.A. 2000. Comperative assessment of GBC 2000 and LEED. Sustainable Buildings 2000, 22-5 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
15 Lutzkendorf, T. 2006. Using integrated performance approach in building assessment tools. Building Research & Information, 34
21
(like GreenStar building assessment system) but it is still a local building assessment system.
Other countries have analyzed this system and created their own version of a building assessment
system. LEED also covers many other different building types. The versions of LEED are:
existing buildings, commercial interiors, homes, core and shell projects and neighbourhood
development. The building types that LEED building assessment system covers are the main
building types like existing buildings and homes. Again, this assessment system does not cover a
wide range like BREEAM assessment system covers (BREEAM covers building types like
prisons, ecohomes, hospitals, retail, etc).
Through these four assessment systems; BREEAM is the oldest and most experienced
system followed by LEED. CASBEE and GreenStar can be seen as derivations of the older
systems but they also do a great job in assessing building for their local use and in time will turn
into more complete assessment systems. 16
CASBEE and GreenStar building assessment systems are used locally in Japan and
Australia, respectively, which makes these systems essential for their surrounding local region,
while BREEAM also has a separate version for international use. LEED is said to be a local
building assessment system used in U.S. but since the building market in U.S. is huge and this
market draws the way to sustainable development, LEED building assessment system is
becoming more important and influences many other sustainable design councils in creating their
own building assessment system.
8.2 Comparisons on Assessment Categories
16 Grace, M. 2000. BREEAM – a practical method for assessing sustainability of buildings for the new millennium. Sustainable Buildings 2000, 22-5 October, Maastricht, Netherlands.
22
This section will focus on the comparisons of these four building assessment systems
with respect to their assessment categories. These assessment categories will clarify the main
structures of each assessment systems.
Starting with BREEAM assessment system, the assessment categories of this system are:
management, health & wellbeing, energy, transport, water, materials, waste, land use & ecology,
pollution and innovation. As can be understood from these assessment categories, BREEAM
covers many topics with respect to sustainable development. Through these categories energy
category has the highest points followed by other categories with similar points and the water
category with the lowest points. Compared to the assessment categories of LEED assessment
system, BREEAM has more categories that concentrate both on the social and technical aspects
of sustainable design. But this also creates some disadvantages as more categories mean more
data to be collected, which in the end could create more complexity for the design team.
The next building assessment system, CASBEE has also many assessment categories that
are noise & acoustics, thermal comfort, lighting & illumination, air quality, serviceability,
durability & reliability, flexibility & adaptability, outdoor environment on site, energy, resource
& materials and off-site environment. Different from other building assessment systems, the
assessment categories of CASBEE mainly concentrates on technical issues with respect to
sustainable development. Many of these assessment categories need complex and detailed
calculations, a main issue of CASBEE system that makes it too complex and difficult to
understand for its users. 17 The interesting part of this assessment system is that, each assessment
category has the same maximum weighting – 3 points. Overall, CASBEE has more assessment
categories concentrated on more technical aspects of sustainable development.
17 Cole, R.J. 2006. Building environmental assessment: changing the culture of practice. Building Research & Information, 34(4), 303–307.
23
GreenStar building assessment system is a version of the LEED system, with the
assessment categories very similar to LEED. The assessment categories of GreenStar consist of
management, indoor environmental quality, energy, transport, water, materials, land use &
ecology, emissions and innovations. In these categories indoor environmental quality, energy and
materials have the highest available points, and land use & ecology and innovations categories
has the lowest available points. The innovations assessment category is crucial for this system as
this category assesses whether the assessed building has made an impact on sustainable
development and this category is crucial for the development of sustainable society. The
assessment categories of GreenStar cover both technical and social aspects different from the
more technical based categorization of CASBEE, but similar to the BREEAM and LEED
building assessment systems.
The last building assessment system to be analyzed with respect to its assessment
categories is the LEED building assessment system. The assessment categories of LEED are as
follows: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources,
indoor environmental quality and innovation and design process. The categories sustainable
sites, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality have
almost the same maximum available points within this assessment system, while water efficiency
and innovation and design process categories have the lowest maximum available points within
the structure of LEED. The last assessment category of innovation and design process category is
also crucial for the development of sustainable development as this category assesses the
building’s impact on the world of sustainable development. This category can also be found in
GreenStar building assessment system as this component is in the international version of LEED.
24
To sum up, when simplicity and user-friendliness of the building assessment system is
considered, LEED is the leading system with its adequate but complete assessment
categorization and equally distributed points among each assessment category. CASBEE is the
most complex system as it requires sophisticated technical calculations and graphics, which in
the end turn into a single certification. GreenStar and BREEAM have more categories than
LEED which, in the end, make them complex for the users of these building assessment systems.
The scoring weightings of the categories of BREEAM and GreenStar are also not equally
distributed like LEED.
8.3 Comparisons on Scoring Systems
This section will focus on the point systems of the selected four building assessment
systems. The point structures of these systems will be discussed and compared in the end.
Starting with the BREEAM building assessment system; this system, like many other
building assessment systems, use a single point system for each credit in the related assessment
category. Since the weightings of the assessment categories changes, the points gained from the
categories with a high availability of points is crucial for the owner to get an accredited
certification from BREEAM. The unequally distributed points between assessment categories is
one of the major disadvantages of BREEAM when compared with the scoring systems of other
systems.
CASBEE uses a different approach to this single point scoring system. Each category of
CASBEE has the same 3 available maximum points and the points corresponding to its
assessment category is calculated by dividing the maximum available points by the number of
credits in the selected assessment category. Since each assessment category has the same number
of points, the weighting of the categories is the same, a monumental decision in the history of
25
building assessment systems. However, this point distribution advantage is nearly worthless as
the categories of CASBEE are very complex in respect to the technicalities and complex
calculations involved and is not a user-friendly building assessment system. Finally, GreenStar
and LEED building assessment systems also use a single point for each credit in their assessment
categories. Similar to BREEAM, the weighting of each category changes in this system.
Thus, BREEAM, GreenStar and LEED use single point for each credit in the categories
while CASBEE uses a completely different approach. CASBEE’s approach promises
development of building assessment systems in terms of scoring. This new point system of
CASBEE is extremely complex to many of the new users of building assessment systems as they
are accustomed to use systems like BREEAM and LEED, which uses single point scoring
system. In this sense if the main idea of the building assessment systems is to be both simple and
user-friendly, the single point system used by BREEAM, GreenStar and LEED is much more
applicable than CASBEE’s scoring system.18
9. CONCLUSIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons. A system that rates a building
on all criterions presents a more complete building assessment system. When users can choose
the criteria to be included in the scoring, negative aspects of the building are not reflected in the
overall score. The disadvantage of this approach is that, a more complete approach has higher
costs and more effort is required for gathering the required data. In this sense, BREEAM has the
highest number of assessment categories, which requires the most extra expense. LEED has
adequate assessment categories and these categories cover aspects of sustainable design, which
18 Kilbert, C. 2005. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Desgn and Delivery. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
26
makes LEED building assessment system a much more widespread assessment system among
BREEAM, CASBEE and GreenStar.
LEED is attractive to users with its simple check-list system and can serve several
purposes including design assistance; but it cannot be modified as easily to reflect regional
differences and other concerns. Most building assessment systems require training programs for
their assessors. The LEED building assessment system depends on the design team to gather
required information and to submit their documentation to the rating organization.
These comparisons give us a better understanding of the properties and structures of
different building assessment systems. Each system has advantages and disadvantages on one
another assessment system but LEED is the system that has more advantages on other building
assessment systems with its simplicity, flexibility and ease of use.
27
Figure 6.1 Comparisons of Building Assessment Systems
Figure 6.1 shows the primary issues that the comparisons concentrated on. The
methodology of the comparisons are divided into three sub-categories which are; general
informations, assessment categories and scoring systems. The comparisons were made according
to these sub-categories. In the end, as can be read from the figure, BREEAM is the oldest
building assessment systems among other systems while GreenStar and CASBEE are the most
recent ones. LEED is located in the middle of these systems as a combination of new and old
topics on building assessment systems. Through these systems, BREEAM and LEED can be
applied to different countries while CASBEE and GreenStar can only be used in their local
building markets. The versions of these building assessment systems also vary. BREEAM and
GreenStar have the highest number of versions that could easily confuse the owners while LEED
was structured easily to assess major building types.
The assessment categories of each system differ, and it is difficult to find commonality in
the assessment categories. CASBEE has the highest number of assessment categories that are
concentrated on more technical issues with respect to sustainable design. BREEAM and
GreenStar systems follow CASBEE in this sense as they have significant numbers of assessment
categories. At the first glimpse, the number of assessment categories of LEED could draw a
conclusion that LEED is not sufficient enough to assess the selected building’s performance in
terms of sustainable design; but when analyzed further by looking at all the separate assessment
categories and credits of the four building assessment systems, it is seen that the assessment
categories of LEED is a combination of the major sustainable criterions that is represented in six
assessment categories and is indeed sufficient to determine a building’s green performance.
28
29
Appendix A. Willingness to Pay Survey for Added Benefits to LEED Certified Building
1) By LEED Certification requirements, Saieh Hall was designed with a forced air ventilation system, providing 100% fresh outside air to filter the indoor air quality. Did you notice a difference from the older buildings on campus?
Yes 58 58%No 40 40%N/A 2 2%
2) If you replied yes, how much would you be willing to pay in addition to your current student fee for this feature?
$1-$5 53 53%$5-$10 32 32%$10-$15 8 8%$15-$20 5 5%N/A 2 2%
3) By LEED Certification requirements, Saieh Hall was designed to allow maximum natural lighting with a strategic window design. Did you notice a difference from the older buildings on campus?
Yes 75 75%No 23 23%N/A 2 2%
4) If you replied yes, how much would you be willing to pay in addition to your current student fee for this feature?
$1-$5 42 42%$5-$10 45 45%$10-$15 6 6%$15-$20 5 5%N/A 2 2%
5) Saieh House floor plan was designed to encourage community interaction through group study rooms and common area on each floor. Do you notice a different from the older buildings on campus?
Yes 88 88%No 10 10%N/A 2 2%
30
6) If you replied yes, how much would you be willing to pay in addition to you current student fee for this feature?
$1-$5 69 69%$5-$20 31 31%$20-$40 5 5%$40-above 3 3%N/A 2 2%
7) The overall design and LEED accreditation to the Saieh Hall made it very environmental friendly building from the flooring to heating and cooling system. Did you notice these environmental efforts?
Yes 71 71%No 27 27%N/A 2 2%
8) If you replied yes, how much would you be willing to pay in addition to your current student fee for these features?
$1-$5 83 83%$5-$20 11 11%$20-$40 4 4%$40-above 0 0%N/A 2 2%
9) Does the sum to questions 2, 4, 6, and 8 represent the total addition you are willing to pay for your learning experience at Saieh Hall?
Yes 72 72%No 22 22%N/A 6 6%
10) If you replied no, what would be a more realistic range that you are likely to accept?
$1-$5 76 76%$5-$20 21 21%$20-$40 1 1%$40-above 0 0%N/A 2 2%
11) Do you use the Saieh Hall for more than five visits per week?
31
Yes 58 58%No 40 40%N/A 2 2%
Works Cited
Cole, R.J. 2006. Building environmental assessment: changing the culture of practice. Building Research & Information, 34(4), 303–307.
Eijadi, David; Vaidya, Prausad; Reinertsen, James; & Kumar, Satish. (2002). Introducing comparative analysis to the LEED system: A case for rational and regional application.
"Federal Agencies Release Annual Performance Updates on Energy and Sustainability Goals." The White House. Executive Office of the President, 15 Jan. 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
"Green Star - Green Building Council Australia (GBCA)." GBCA News. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
Grace, M. BREEAM – a practical method for assessing sustainability of buildings for the new millennium. Sustainable Buildings 2000, 22-5 October, Maastricht, Netherlands.
"Introducing Comparative Analysis to the LEED System: A Case for Rational and Regional Application." EScholarship. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
Kats, Gregory. "Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits." United States Green Building Council, Oct. 2006. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
Kilbert, C. 2005. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Desgn and Delivery. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
"LEED." LEED | U.S. Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building Council, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
Lutzkendorf, T. 2006. Using integrated performance approach in building assessment tools. Building Research & Information, 34.
Mason, Susan; Marker, Anthony; and Mirsky, Rebecca, "Green Building in the Pacific Northwest: Next Steps for an Emerging Trend" (2010). Research and Reports. Paper 50.
Presley, A., Meade, L., & Sarkis, J. (2010). A strategic sustainability justification methodology for organizational decisions: A reverse logistics illustration. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18), February 5, 2011.
"An Overview of CASBEE." CASBEE. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
"Reducing Carbon with BREEAM - COP21." BREEAM. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
32
Scofield, John H. "Do LEED-certified Buildings save Energy? Not Really…." Energy and Buildings 41.12 (2009): 1386-390. Web.
Trusty, J.A. 2000. Comperative assessment of GBC 2000 and LEED. Sustainable Buildings 2000, 22-5 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
"The University of Chicago Sustainability." LEED Buildings on Campus. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.
33
