Green building rating systems comparative study and development methodology from global and local prospective

Yousif Mohammed, Gasim Hayder () and Sivadass Thiruchelvam
Additional contact information
Yousif Mohammed: Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
Gasim Hayder: Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
Sivadass Thiruchelvam: Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)

Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 2025, vol. 27, issue 3, No 2, 5479-5524

Abstract: Abstract Building environmental assessment for the current day has become a concern, because of the tremendous impact of greenhouse gases (GHG), energy consumption, and quality of life along the building lifecycle. Those parameters have great influence in directing the trend in the world to initiate rating or calculation tools to assess building sustainability. The question is, where is the assessment focus of the sustainability initiators, and how far do its effects extend to the global climate? The objectives were set for in-depth research and comparative review of the rating systems around the globe and inside Malaysia, alongside reviewing their development methodologies, to come up with the findings. Ten international and Malaysian rating systems were detailed in their assessment systems to have a holistic view on sustainability industry measures, representing different climatic and regional zones around the world. The study’s design was conducted in two parallel paths to verify the rating tools and carbon calculation tools, side by side during data collection, processing, and analysis. However, the analysis revealed that energy dominates weightage allocation by more than half of the average, with 55% for Green Mark on an international scale and 56% for GreenRE on a local scale, for example. That indicates the influence of the assessment category among the group. Also, it was noted that for all reviewed systems’ energy efficiency is 38% on average, which was estimated to be 1/3 of the total categories' assessment weightage allocation, while transportation and water are each allocated half (1/2) of their respective allocations. The tool development methodology is effective, based on the positive results of the applied projects. Future research should focus on the limitations of tall-building sustainability assessment tools.

Keywords: Green building; Sustainability; Carbon footprint; Rating systems; Tall-building; Energy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-04113-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:endesu:v:27:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-023-04113-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10668

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-04113-z

Access Statistics for this article

Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development is currently edited by Luc Hens

More articles in Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().