Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rating Systems for Sustainability

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

  • 127 Accesses

Glossary

Building environmental assessment method (system or scheme) :

Technique that has environmental assessment as one of its core functions but may be accompanied by third-party verification before issuing an overall performance rating or label.

Assessment process :

Use of assessment methods, including deployment by the design team and engagement of other stakeholders as the basis for making informed decisions.

Certification :

Third-party verification and scrutiny of a performance assessment that adds to the overall credibility of the assessment process but invariably brings additional layers of constraints, bureaucracy, and costs.

Environmental (or green) assessment :

Assessment of resource use, ecological loadings, and indoor environmental quality.

Framework :

Organization or classification of environmental performance criteria in a structured manner with assigned points or weightings.

Green buildings :

Those that have a higher environmental performance compared to that of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  1. Baldwin R, Leach SJ, Doggart J, Attenborough M (1990) BREEAM version 1/90: an environmental assessment for new office designs. Building Research Establishment, Garston

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gann DM, Salter AJ, Whyte JK (2003) The design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Build Res Inf 31(5):318–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. CASBEE, Comprehensive assessment system for building environmental efficiency. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium Corps

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Green Building Rating System, US Green Building Council

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cole RJ (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Build Res Inf 35(5):455–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Birkeland J (2007) Positive development: designing for net positive impacts. BEDP Environ Des Guide 1(4):1–9. August, Gen 4. Melbourne: Royal Australian Institute of Architects

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kaatz E, Root D, Bowen P (2004) Implementing a participatory approach in a sustainability building assessment tool. In: Proceedings of the sustainable building Africa 2004 conference, Stellenbosch (CD Rom, Paper No. 001), 13–18 Sept 2004

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yokoo N, Oka T (2000) A study on modified weighting value of BREEAM, BEPAC and GBTool in Japan. In: Proceedings of international conference on sustainable buildings – 2000, Maastricht, 22–25 Oct 2000, pp 207–209

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ding GKC (2008) Sustainable construction – the role of environmental assessment tools. J Environ Manag 86(3):451–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reed R, Wilkinson, S, Bilos A, Schulte K (2011) A comparison of international sustainable building tools – an update. Presented at 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society conference, Gold Coast, 16–19 Jan 2011

    Google Scholar 

  11. Doan DT, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Naismith N, Zhang T, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Tookey JA (2017) Critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build Environ 123:243–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernardi E, Carlucci S, Cornaro C, Bohne RA (2017) An analysis of the most adopted rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings. Sustainability 9:1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The WELL Standard. https://www.wellcertified.com/

  14. Fitwel System. https://fitwel.org/

  15. Brady C (2017) Healthy debate: FITWEL vs WELL. http://xco2.com/news/healthy-debate-fitwel-vs-well/

  16. Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. LBC, V-1.3 (2008) Living Building Challenge Version 1.3. International Living Buildings Institute, Seattle. http://ilbi.org/

  18. Sustainable Project Assessment Routine (SPeAR®). http://www.arup.com/environment/feature.cfm?pageid=1685

  19. iiSBE (International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment) (2010) Sustainable building tool. http://www.iisbe.org

  20. Gibberd J (2001) The sustainable building assessment tool – assessing how buildings can support sustainability in developing countries. In: Continental shift 2001 – IFI international conference, Johannesburg, 11–14 Sept 2001

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gibberd J (2005) Paper 04-001, Assessing sustainable buildings in developing countries – the sustainable building assessment tool (SBAT) and the sustainable building lifecycle (SBL). In: The 2005 world sustainable building conference, Tokyo, 27–29 Sept 2005

    Google Scholar 

  22. German Sustainable Building Council’s Certificate Program. http://www.gesbc.org/

  23. Gibberd J (2001) The opinion of Gibberd. Sustain Build 3:41

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ecodistricts Protocol, Version 1, April 2016. https://ecodistricts.org/get-started/the-ecodistricts-protocol/

  25. Cole RJ (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions. Build Res Inf 27(4/5):230–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. European Parliament (2009) Press release. www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20090330IPR52892+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN. Last accessed Sept 2009

  27. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Code for sustainable homes: a step-change in sustainable home building practice. www.communities.gov.uk

  28. ASHRAE/USGBC/IES, Standard 189.1-2009, Standard for the design of high-performance green buildings (Except low-rise residential buildings), American society of heating, Ventilation and air conditioning engineers, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lorenz D, Lützkendorf T (2008) Sustainability in property valuation – theory and practice. J Prop Investt Finance 26(6):482–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sayce S, Sundberg A, Mohd A (2009) Sustainable property: a premium product? A working paper. Paper presented at ERES conference 2009, Stockholm, 24–27 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kats G (2003) The costs and financial benefits of green building: a report to California’s sustainable building task force. California: Capital E. October. www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf

  32. Matthiessen LF, Morris P (2004) Costing green: a comprehensive cost database and budgeting methodology. Davis Langdon Adamson, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  33. CASBEE for property appraisal, Japan Sustainable Building Consortium Corps, Dec 2009

    Google Scholar 

  34. ISA (2010) International Sustainability Alliance. http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=2019

  35. Sustainable Building Alliance. http://www.sballiance.org/

  36. International Sustainability Alliance. http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=2019

  37. World Green Building Council founded in (1999). http://www.worldgbc.org/

  38. Dixon T, Colantonio A, Shiers D, Reed R, Wilkinson S, Gallimore P (2008) A green profession? A global survey of RICS members and their engagement with the sustainability agenda. J Prop Invest Finance 26(6):460–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reed T, Clouston P, Hoque S, Fisette P (2010) An analysis of LEED and BREEAM assessment methods for educational institutions. J Green Build 5(1):132–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rivera A (2009) International applications of building certification methods: a comparison of BREEAM and LEED. In: Proceedings PLEA2009 – 26th conference on passive and low energy architecture, Quebec City, 22–24 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  41. Julien A (2009) Assessing the assessor: BREEAM VS LEED. Sustain Mag 9(6):30–33

    Google Scholar 

  42. Online (2009) BREEAM V LEED. Onoffice Mag, May 2009

    Google Scholar 

  43. http://www.melstarrs.com/elemental/2011/07/15/rip-breeam-gulf/

  44. Reed W (2007) Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration. Build Res Inf 35(6):674–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cole RJ (2012) Transitioning from green to regenerative design. J Build Res Inf 40(1):39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Plaut JM, Dunbar B, Wackerman A, Hodgin S (2012) Regenerative design: the LENSES framework for buildings and communities. Build Res Inf 40(1):112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Raymond J. Cole

Authors
  1. Raymond J. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond J. Cole .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ramtech Ltd., Larkspur, California, USA

    Robert A. Meyers

Section Editor information

  1. Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Vivian Loftness

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Cole, R.J. (2018). Rating Systems for Sustainability. In: Meyers, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_417-3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_417-3

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2493-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2493-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Earth and Environm. ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation