The Process of Adapting a Sustainable Building Assessment Method Worldwide: SEAM, A Case Study

The evolution of sustainable assessment tools created a competition amongst well-known tools toward international use. However, practical evidence shows that regional and sociocultural variations have been a strong obstacle to the direct use of those sustainable assessment tools. Hence this paper proposes to determine the applicable methodology supporting the adaptation of a sustainable building assessment method for any given region. The adaptation of the Saudi Environmental Assessment Method (SEAM) is taken in this paper as a subject of actual development. Because sustainable assessment tools involve multi-dimensional criteria, a mixed-methodology approach is used in conducting this study, given that the Delphi technique (DT) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) have a proven record of reaching consensus by a panel of experts. Therefore, DT and AHP have been conducted; involving leading global experts in the domain of environmental and sustainable assessment schemes, as well as professionals and highly informed local experts from academia, government, and industry. The result shows that international sustainable assessment tools are not fully applicable to the Saudi built environment, as reflected in the development of a new building environmental and sustainability assessment scheme (SEAM).

[1]  Drury B. Crawley,et al.  Building environmental assessment methods: applications and development trends , 1999 .

[2]  Sam Kubba.  Chapter 2 – Basic LEED™ Concepts , 2010 .

[3]  Hikmat H. Ali,et al.  Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries – Case of Jordan , 2009 .

[4]  Magda Sibley,et al.  Different Stakeholder Perceptions of Sustainability Assessment , 2008 .

[5]  Ian Cooper,et al.  Which focus for building assessment methods – environmental performance or sustainability? , 1999 .

[6]  Joel Ann Todd,et al.  Regional and cultural issues in environmental performance assessment for buildings , 1999 .

[7]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Lessons learned, future directions and issues for GBC , 2001 .

[8]  David H. Gustafson,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes , 1976 .

[9]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods , 1998 .

[10]  Michael Yit Lin Chew,et al.  Building Grading Systems: A Review of the State-of-the-Art , 2008 .

[11]  Yacine Rezgui,et al.  Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach , 2013 .

[12]  Po-Cheng Chou,et al.  Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005—searching for suitability in Taiwan , 2007 .

[13]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices , 2000 .

[14]  Appu Haapio,et al.  A critical review of building environmental assessment tools , 2008 .

[15]  Grace K C Ding,et al.  Sustainable construction--the role of environmental assessment tools. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[16]  John Burnett,et al.  Customization of GBTool in Hong Kong , 2006 .

[17]  Yacine Rezgui,et al.  Sustainable building assessment tool development approach , 2012 .

[18]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles , 2005 .