Loading…
Development of Green Building Ranking Based on Stakeholders Values Using the AHP
Green buildings conserve precious natural resources and increase our standard of living. Green building, in principle, seeks to reduce the negative impact on our atmosphere and natural environment. This effort is marked by the existence of a green building rating. However, currently, not many constr...
Saved in:
Published in: | IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science 2021-04, Vol.738 (1), p.12009 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3 |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 12009 |
container_title | IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science |
container_volume | 738 |
creator | Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini Larasati, Dewi Sugeng Triyadi, S Hanifah, Yulita Wardhani, Anedya Ekawati, Novya |
description | Green buildings conserve precious natural resources and increase our standard of living. Green building, in principle, seeks to reduce the negative impact on our atmosphere and natural environment. This effort is marked by the existence of a green building rating. However, currently, not many construction stakeholders have used this rating system. Therefore, this paper attempts to illustrate the critical points of the green building concept based on stakeholder knowledge and, at the same time, offers new ranking criteria. This paper then chooses a general analytic approach, including literature on green buildings’ ranking and Indonesian religious values. AHP was selected as a method in this study to provide an overview of how much stakeholder confidence for spiritual values in green criteria. This study shows different weight values on the requirements for green buildings based on religious values and Greenship. Most of the stakeholders chose the Water criterion at 27.66% as a substantial point value for realizing a sustainable site, while in Greenship, almost all the criteria have the same weight. Confidently, the criteria and value weights used in realizing a sustainable site align with religious values because the implementation will be more straightforward. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1088/1755-1315/738/1/012009 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2521604713</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2521604713</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kNtKw0AQhhdRsFZfQRa8jt3z4bKtthUKFrXeLpvuxB7SpO6mgm9vQqVX3wzzMzN8CN1T8kiJMQOqpcwop3KgedsNCGWE2AvUOw8uzzXR1-gmpS0hSgtue2jxBD9Q1oc9VA2uCzyNABUeHTdl2FRf-M1Xu44jnyDgusLvjd_Bui4DxIQ_fXmEhJepizRrwMPZ4hZdFb5McPfPPlpOnj_Gs2z-On0ZD-fZillhM9BCWWN47qXIwTMajOCE-EIoqpVkJnDLrLUtCkGUsbkXNihjqAnSy5z30cNp7yHW3-0XjdvWx1i1Jx2TjCoiNOVtSp1Sq1inFKFwh7jZ-_jrKHGdPdeJcZ0k19pz1J3s8T-FP2AM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2521604713</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Development of Green Building Ranking Based on Stakeholders Values Using the AHP</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini ; Larasati, Dewi ; Sugeng Triyadi, S ; Hanifah, Yulita ; Wardhani, Anedya ; Ekawati, Novya</creator><creatorcontrib>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini ; Larasati, Dewi ; Sugeng Triyadi, S ; Hanifah, Yulita ; Wardhani, Anedya ; Ekawati, Novya</creatorcontrib><description>Green buildings conserve precious natural resources and increase our standard of living. Green building, in principle, seeks to reduce the negative impact on our atmosphere and natural environment. This effort is marked by the existence of a green building rating. However, currently, not many construction stakeholders have used this rating system. Therefore, this paper attempts to illustrate the critical points of the green building concept based on stakeholder knowledge and, at the same time, offers new ranking criteria. This paper then chooses a general analytic approach, including literature on green buildings’ ranking and Indonesian religious values. AHP was selected as a method in this study to provide an overview of how much stakeholder confidence for spiritual values in green criteria. This study shows different weight values on the requirements for green buildings based on religious values and Greenship. Most of the stakeholders chose the Water criterion at 27.66% as a substantial point value for realizing a sustainable site, while in Greenship, almost all the criteria have the same weight. Confidently, the criteria and value weights used in realizing a sustainable site align with religious values because the implementation will be more straightforward.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-1307</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/738/1/012009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bristol: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>Construction ; Criteria ; Critical point ; Green buildings ; Green development ; Natural resources ; Ranking ; Religion ; Stakeholders ; Standard of living ; Sustainable development ; Weight</subject><ispartof>IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science, 2021-04, Vol.738 (1), p.12009</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2521604713?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larasati, Dewi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugeng Triyadi, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanifah, Yulita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wardhani, Anedya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekawati, Novya</creatorcontrib><title>Development of Green Building Ranking Based on Stakeholders Values Using the AHP</title><title>IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science</title><description>Green buildings conserve precious natural resources and increase our standard of living. Green building, in principle, seeks to reduce the negative impact on our atmosphere and natural environment. This effort is marked by the existence of a green building rating. However, currently, not many construction stakeholders have used this rating system. Therefore, this paper attempts to illustrate the critical points of the green building concept based on stakeholder knowledge and, at the same time, offers new ranking criteria. This paper then chooses a general analytic approach, including literature on green buildings’ ranking and Indonesian religious values. AHP was selected as a method in this study to provide an overview of how much stakeholder confidence for spiritual values in green criteria. This study shows different weight values on the requirements for green buildings based on religious values and Greenship. Most of the stakeholders chose the Water criterion at 27.66% as a substantial point value for realizing a sustainable site, while in Greenship, almost all the criteria have the same weight. Confidently, the criteria and value weights used in realizing a sustainable site align with religious values because the implementation will be more straightforward.</description><subject>Construction</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Critical point</subject><subject>Green buildings</subject><subject>Green development</subject><subject>Natural resources</subject><subject>Ranking</subject><subject>Religion</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Standard of living</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>Weight</subject><issn>1755-1307</issn><issn>1755-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kNtKw0AQhhdRsFZfQRa8jt3z4bKtthUKFrXeLpvuxB7SpO6mgm9vQqVX3wzzMzN8CN1T8kiJMQOqpcwop3KgedsNCGWE2AvUOw8uzzXR1-gmpS0hSgtue2jxBD9Q1oc9VA2uCzyNABUeHTdl2FRf-M1Xu44jnyDgusLvjd_Bui4DxIQ_fXmEhJepizRrwMPZ4hZdFb5McPfPPlpOnj_Gs2z-On0ZD-fZillhM9BCWWN47qXIwTMajOCE-EIoqpVkJnDLrLUtCkGUsbkXNihjqAnSy5z30cNp7yHW3-0XjdvWx1i1Jx2TjCoiNOVtSp1Sq1inFKFwh7jZ-_jrKHGdPdeJcZ0k19pz1J3s8T-FP2AM</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini</creator><creator>Larasati, Dewi</creator><creator>Sugeng Triyadi, S</creator><creator>Hanifah, Yulita</creator><creator>Wardhani, Anedya</creator><creator>Ekawati, Novya</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>Development of Green Building Ranking Based on Stakeholders Values Using the AHP</title><author>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini ; Larasati, Dewi ; Sugeng Triyadi, S ; Hanifah, Yulita ; Wardhani, Anedya ; Ekawati, Novya</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Construction</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Critical point</topic><topic>Green buildings</topic><topic>Green development</topic><topic>Natural resources</topic><topic>Ranking</topic><topic>Religion</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Standard of living</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>Weight</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larasati, Dewi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugeng Triyadi, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanifah, Yulita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wardhani, Anedya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekawati, Novya</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Muchlis, Aulia Fikriarini</au><au>Larasati, Dewi</au><au>Sugeng Triyadi, S</au><au>Hanifah, Yulita</au><au>Wardhani, Anedya</au><au>Ekawati, Novya</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Development of Green Building Ranking Based on Stakeholders Values Using the AHP</atitle><jtitle>IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science</jtitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>738</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>12009</spage><pages>12009-</pages><issn>1755-1307</issn><eissn>1755-1315</eissn><abstract>Green buildings conserve precious natural resources and increase our standard of living. Green building, in principle, seeks to reduce the negative impact on our atmosphere and natural environment. This effort is marked by the existence of a green building rating. However, currently, not many construction stakeholders have used this rating system. Therefore, this paper attempts to illustrate the critical points of the green building concept based on stakeholder knowledge and, at the same time, offers new ranking criteria. This paper then chooses a general analytic approach, including literature on green buildings’ ranking and Indonesian religious values. AHP was selected as a method in this study to provide an overview of how much stakeholder confidence for spiritual values in green criteria. This study shows different weight values on the requirements for green buildings based on religious values and Greenship. Most of the stakeholders chose the Water criterion at 27.66% as a substantial point value for realizing a sustainable site, while in Greenship, almost all the criteria have the same weight. Confidently, the criteria and value weights used in realizing a sustainable site align with religious values because the implementation will be more straightforward.</abstract><cop>Bristol</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/1755-1315/738/1/012009</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1755-1307 |
ispartof | IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science, 2021-04, Vol.738 (1), p.12009 |
issn | 1755-1307 1755-1315 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2521604713 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database |
subjects | Construction Criteria Critical point Green buildings Green development Natural resources Ranking Religion Stakeholders Standard of living Sustainable development Weight |
title | Development of Green Building Ranking Based on Stakeholders Values Using the AHP |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T05%3A58%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Development%20of%20Green%20Building%20Ranking%20Based%20on%20Stakeholders%20Values%20Using%20the%20AHP&rft.jtitle=IOP%20conference%20series.%20Earth%20and%20environmental%20science&rft.au=Muchlis,%20Aulia%20Fikriarini&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=738&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12009&rft.pages=12009-&rft.issn=1755-1307&rft.eissn=1755-1315&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1755-1315/738/1/012009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2521604713%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2949-e7469883ba54bea21d84300af46176528d392999d39f40689ba49d68818d5a5b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2521604713&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |