Research Paper on LEED Rating System

Introduction

The construction sector holds a very significant responsibility in community development; both in terms of improving standards of living and contribution to the growth of the economy. Construction industry injects a lot of resources to the economy through the creation of employment and through the establishment of community service programs. Conversely, the construction industry has faced criticism for being in the forefront in undertaking activities that contribute majorly to the release of carbon gas into the atmosphere; environmental degradation and even greenhouse effect resultant of massive utilization of natural resources and consumption of energy. It for this reason, therefore, that several green rating systems have been initiated worldwide to assess the sustainability of building projects. The escalation of the construction processes have a devastating impact on the environment and if not controlled my make the environment totally inhabitable. The categories and criteria of the various green rating systems have been constantly updated consequently to the sustainable tendency of building progress. This paper aims at developing a systematic comparison of some of the green rating systems with the renowned American green rating system, LEED.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Some of the green rating systems that are evaluated in comparison to LEED are the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and the Comprehensive Assessment System for Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE). Even though all these three green rating systems were initiated in various countries within different contexts and with different standards, they all have common categories of assessment which are indoor environmental quality, material, and energy.

Green building rating systems have got general benefits that they impact on society. Some of these benefits include upholding of environmental sustainability, reduction of carbon emission into the surrounding, enhancing the likelihood of the construction projects that are to be sold or let, reduction of the rate of waste emission as well as the preservation of the natural environment. The society can leverage these benefits to improve its general living standards. Conversely, these rating systems have also faced criticisms that have continually hindered their smooth implementation on some construction projects of other countries. Some of the aspects of criticism that the various rating systems have faced include the high initial cost of assessment and most them have rigid guidelines that can only apply to specific countries like CASBEE is only applicable in Japan while BREEAM is only focused on the European Market.LEED which is an acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design was initiated in the United States in the year 1998 by the US Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED is available for various lifestyle stages which include Building Design and Construction, Interior Design and Construction, Operations and Maintenance together with Neighborhood Development, Homes. LEED rating system is the most adopted green rating system in most of the countries with over 79,000 projects across 135 countries by the year 2012. Construction projects that are evaluated by LEED are awarded in four various levels which are Platinum, Gold, Silver and Certified (Ghamdi et al., pg. 4850).

BREEAM which is an acronym for Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method was initiated in the United Kingdom by the Building Research Establishment and Consultants in 1990 as the very first assessment system worldwide. This assessment method is available for various lifestyle stages as well of which include New Construction, In-Use and Refurbishment, and Fit-out. By the year 2016, BREEAM was being applied to over 548,400 BREEAM certified developments globally with an approximate of 2,247,700 building projects registered for assessment in over 77 countries in the world since the year 1990. Generally, BREEAM demonstrates assurance to socially accountable development and creating ecological and healthy surroundings in which contemporary and future groups are to live and work (Hu et al., pg.412).

Generally, the main difference between BREEAM and LEED is in their approaches to certification. Their certifications process, however, is approved by professional bodies that determine the extent of their application in the construction process. BREEAM has qualified assessors who evaluate the evidence of building projects against the criteria and make reports of the assessment to the BRE who is responsible for the validation of the assessment report and issuance of certification to the building project. LEED, on the other hand, does not involve training of assessing because there is a credit offer in case an accredited professional (AP) is used in the assessment process. The AP is responsible for gathering the evidence of the construction project and advising the client of the assessment after which the evidence of the assessment is forwarded to the USGBC which finalizes on the evaluation and issues certification (Suzer, pg.270).

Despite the difference between LEED and BREEAM in regards to regional features, climate, and even culture, they are the green rating systems which are regarded to have a noteworthy value of green-certified buildings worldwide. Other countries apart from the United Kingdom or the United States have adopted BREEAM or LEAD because of their assessment criteria which can be regarded as international criteria or locally comparable standards. BREEAM and LEED are however very different as well in the context of their elasticity and the number of licensed buildings. A total of 561,000 buildings have been certified BREEAM which is a value equivalent to seven times the number of building projects certified by LEED. According to Freitas et al. (404) regarding their geographical adoption, up to a total of 160 countries have implemented the LEED system of a green rating compared to the 77 countries which have implemented the BREEAM system.

The difference between the two systems of assessment can be ascertained in three different perspectives one of which is the principle of BREEAM of targeting the European market where most of the countries are enriched with environmental sustainability awareness. Also, LEED is regarded to be more transparent rating methodology for determining the end results as compared to BREEAM which implements the pre-weighted classifications technique which is more intricate and strict. Finally, BREEAM is stringent in its principles of assessment and achievement of credit in the sense that it implements absolute restrictions whereas relative percentage improvement or reduction targets are adopted by LEED. On the other hand, regarding the number of primary categories of the rating schemes, BREEAM has the highest total value of categories which is ten slightly higher than the ones for LEED which are nine (Suzer, pg.270).

Even though BREEAM has been acknowledged for its high standard ratings of buildings, it has also been subject to criticism. One of the complaints against BREEAM is the privatization of the BRE which is thought to have crooked it towards the contrary commercial position. Additionally, there have also been complaining that BREEAM has given too much credit to outlying or even impractical environmental features of building design. Some of the impractical buildings include the assessment of bike racks and even recycling systems whereas the important aspects of assessment are neglected like lighting, water consumption, and building controls.

CASBEE is an acronym for Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency was initiated in Japan in 2002 and implemented in 2004. Unlike BREEAM and LEED which are available for implementation globally, CASBEE is restricted to Japan. CASBEE is accessible for four various life stages which include Pre-design, New Construction, Existing Building, and Renovation. Generally, CASBEE covers four assessment areas which are energy efficiency, resource efficiency, local environment, and indoor environment. CASBEE can be regarded as an independent scheme as compared to other assessment systems because its categories and subcategories are established based on the distinctive identity of Japan (Meiboudi et al. p.138). The criteria of assessing building projects by CASBEE is totally different from the ones of LEED and BREEAM even though all the three systems of assessment have sufficiently included the criteria for resources and transportation which is related to their assessment guidelines. CASBEE compared to the other two systems of assessment is stronger even though measures of preferred location are not explicitly expressed. Additionally, CASBEE does not use mandatory credits, unlike LEED which despite the fact that does not have reward points for mandatory credits has been regarded as a reference for the other green rating systems in mandatory credits.

Regarding the place making category which is comprised of the criteria of pattern, design together with infrastructure, CASBEE has no clearly defined criteria to determine the standard and condition of active outlooks, housing-job contiguity, density necessities, and green buildings in the progress. This is evident that CASBEE does not have a definite mechanism for evaluating profitable sustainability and is not capable of contributing to the growth of sustainability. Also, regarding community-related standards, CASBEE does not have any principles to evaluate the consistency of development with measures such as variety, affordability, and rational income dissemination (Suzer p.270). This is the reason as to why CASBEE is also different from LEED because LEED is renowned for its global implementation whereas CASBEE is popular with its balanced tools. However, the tools of CASBEE do not have strong approaches to apprehend the interrelationships between various magnitudes and this reduces the reliability of the system. Consequently, the concern of imbalanced exposure is even more critical in regards to CASBEE because it has no specific standards for accounting for the economic measurement of sustainability (Suzer p270).

One of the advantages of CASBEE is in the way it is different from other rating systems in the approach of evaluating the relationship between the building project and the surrounding. The evaluation of CASBEE depends on the integration between enhancing the performance in the internal setting and diminishing the negative influence of the building project on the external surrounding. CASBEE has therefore proved significant in enhancing the comfort of users of buildings and decreasing the negative influence on the environment as well as establishing a holistic perception of ultimate interaction between the construction project and the surrounding location (Meiboudi et al. pg.140).

Some of the disadvantages of CASBEE, on the other hand, include the fact that the certification process by CASBEE is very expensive as compared to other green rating systems. The implementation of CASBEE rating system is also limited given the scrupulous keeping of records which is required and the problematic availability of materials for assessment. Finally, the certification process of CASBEE assessment system takes a lot of time hence hindering its widespread implementation (Meiboudi et al. p140).

Summarily, most of the green building rating systems are similar with very negligible differences given the fact that all the assessment systems are focused at making the world a better place for the future generations. This implies that the principles of green building rating systems should be the same which is the reduction of harm imposed on the environment. Generally, the assessment systems evaluate construction projects in regards to ecological and eco...