Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building rating systems

Abstract Green building rating systems (GBRSs) address a variety of areas of protection to solve current environmental problems. This is more relevant to decision making but not as scientifically reliable as following the midpoint and endpoint approaches. The purpose of this paper is to pinpoint the lack of a standard base for carrying environmental assessment and show the interrelations between eleven most widely used GBRSs in these terms through a descriptive statistical analysis. The study adopts a qualitative and quantitative methodology through credits' classification method, quantitative assessment and comparison on the level of midpoint and endpoint impact categories. The first step requires expanding the discussion to include different methods and levels of incorporating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to support credits’ requirements. For other non-LCA based credits, a quantification index is used to express the contribution of each credit to the respective quantifiable inventory of midpoint impact categories. The analysis shows that the total weighted sum of midpoint and endpoint scores differ from one GBRS to another. Nevertheless, the correlation matrix indicates interrelations of some GBRSs which adopt similar approaches to address environmental problems. The study concludes that existing GBRSs although they have similar targets, they exhibit discrepancies in the base of their environmental assessment. This does not provide a robust base for comparing the outcome results and indicates the need for restructuring credits according to the midpoint and endpoint approaches. This investigation adds to the existing body of literature to demonstrate with evidence the need for using both approaches in a consistent framework for modelling environmental assessment. This allows optimum use of the benefits and overcomes existing gaps and limitations of both of them. This can assist GBRSs plan for future development in correspondence with national targets and international environmental initiatives.

[1]  Hiroto Takaguchi,et al.  INVESTIGATION ON EVALUATION RESULTS OF CASBEE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT , 2013 .

[2]  D. Pennington,et al.  Life Cycle Impact Assessment Workshop Summary Midpoints versus Endpoints: The Sacrifices and Benefits , 2000 .

[3]  F. Godlee An international standard for disclosure of clinical trial information , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment , 2014 .

[5]  Mark A J Huijbregts,et al.  Making fate and exposure models for freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment suitable for organic acids and bases. , 2013, Chemosphere.

[6]  Seungjun Roh,et al.  Integrated building life-cycle assessment model to support South Korea's green building certification system (G-SEED) , 2017 .

[7]  Gregory A. Norris,et al.  Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA , 2001 .

[8]  Walaa S. E. Ismaee Assessing and Developing the Application of LEED Green Building Rating System as a Sustainable Project Management and Market Tool in the Italian Context , 2016 .

[9]  Jessica Johansson,et al.  Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies , 2006 .

[10]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[11]  Yuan Wang,et al.  Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical review , 2017 .

[12]  Seungjun Roh,et al.  Development of a building life cycle carbon emissions assessment program (BEGAS 2.0) for Korea׳s green building index certification system , 2016 .

[13]  A. Zeinal Hamedani,et al.  A comparative study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM certificate systems in urban sustainability , 2012 .

[14]  Jeung-Hwan Doh,et al.  The contribution of structural design to green building rating systems: An industry perspective and comparison of life cycle energy considerations , 2015 .

[15]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) - A critical evaluation by LCA and recommendations for improvement , 2007 .

[16]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Integrated life-cycle analysis , 2002 .

[17]  U. Berardi Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings , 2012 .

[18]  Konrad Saur,et al.  Life cycle impact assessment , 1997 .

[19]  M. Hauschild Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[20]  A. R. Ometto,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of the use of Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: a case study on building materials , 2016 .

[21]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[22]  Ben Amor,et al.  Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review , 2017 .

[23]  Sherif Attallah,et al.  Utilization of life-cycle analysis to evaluate sustainability rating systems for construction projects with a case study on Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS) , 2013 .

[24]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[25]  M. Ilic,et al.  Whole-building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a passive house of the sub-tropical climatic zone , 2017 .

[26]  John Burnett,et al.  Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED , 2008 .

[27]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[28]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Environmental assessment of products , 1997 .

[29]  Sui Pheng Low,et al.  Project Management and Green Buildings: Lessons from the Rating Systems , 2010 .

[30]  Carla Pieragostini,et al.  On process optimization considering LCA methodology. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[31]  John Tookey,et al.  A critical comparison of green building rating systems , 2017 .

[32]  Libby Schweber,et al.  Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes , 2014 .

[33]  Dominique Bidou,et al.  The HQE approach , 2006 .

[34]  Anne Ventura,et al.  Classification of chemicals into emission-based impact categories: a first approach for equiprobable and site-specific conceptual frames , 2011 .

[35]  Hasim Altan,et al.  Comparative Review of Five Sustainable Rating Systems , 2011 .

[36]  Tatsuo Oka,et al.  COMPARISON OF THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS OF BREEAM, LEED, GBTOOL AND CASBEE , 2005 .

[37]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection , 2008 .

[38]  T. Niki,et al.  Formation of normal desmin intermediate filaments in mouse hepatic stellate cells requires vimentin , 2001, Hepatology.

[39]  Chiel Boonstra Editorial: Green Building Challenge and Sustainable Building 2000 , 2001 .

[40]  L. Bragança,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of residential buildings , 2011 .