OPEN ACCESS
With rapid economic growth and urban expansion in China, the Chinese building sector is now facing the huge challenge of balancing its energy demand and pollution. In order to minimise the environmental impact, the Ministry of Housing Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) has set an ambitious energy reduction target requiring that 30% of all new constructions to be green by 2020. This paper presents comparative analysis of two environmental rating systems: the latest version of Chinese Green Building Label (GBL 2014) released by the MOHURD in order to promote the market transformation of green buildings and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM 2014), the widely recognised environmental assessment methodology in the global construction industry. To compare the two environment assessment standards, a public office building currently under construction in Fujian (China) has been used as a case-study to rate its environmental credentials using both BREEAM and GBL.
Results have shown that although both standards use a similar methodology, they require different levels of input data and may result in differentratings for the same building.
[1] Urge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L.D.D., Mirasgedis, S. & Levine, M.D., Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world’s buildings. Building Research & Information, 35(4), pp.379–398, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210701325883
[2] Asif, M., Muneer, T. & Kelly, R., Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment, 42(3), pp.1391–1394, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.023
[3] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Buildings: Investing in Energy and Resource Efficiency.UNEP, 2011, available at www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/9.0_Buildings.pdf
[4] Sodagar, B. &Fieldson, R., Towards a low carbon construction practice. Construction Information Quarterly (CIQ) Journal Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), 10(3), pp.101–108, 2008.
[5] Fieldson, R., Rai, D. &Sodagar, B., Towards a framework for early estimation of lifecycle carbon footprinting of buildings in the UK. Construction Information Quarterly (CIQ) Journal, Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), 11(2), pp. 66–75, 2009.
[6] Sun, F., Sodagar, B. & Bell, J., Building heating consumptions under present and future climate scenarios. PLEA2013 of the 29th Conference on Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future, Germany, 2013.
[7] Brunsgaard, C., Dvořáková, P., Wyckmans, A., Stutterecker, W., Laskari, M., Almeida, M., Kabele, K., Magyar, Z., Bartkiewicz, P. &Op’t Veld, P., Integrated energy design -Education and training in cross-disciplinary teams implementing energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD). Building and Environment, 72, pp.1–14, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.10.011
[8] Sharifi, A. & Murayama, A., A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assessment Review, 38, pp.73–87, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.006
[9] Haapio, A. &Viitaniemi, P., A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), pp.469–482, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002
[10] Ali, H.H. & Al Nsairat, S.F., Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries- case of Jordan.Build Environment, 44(5), pp.1053–1064, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.015
[11] Ortiz, O., Castells, F. &Sonnemann, G., Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction Building Materials, 23(1), pp. 28–39, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012
[12] Suzer, O., A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs other major certification systems.Environmental Management, 154, pp. 266–283, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.029
[13] Krause, A.L. & Bitter, C., Spatial econometrics, land values and sustainability: trends in real estate valuation research.Cities, 29(2), pp.19–25, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.006