Sustainability rating systems for buildings: Comparisons and correlations

• Published in: Energy (Oxford) 2013-09, Vol.59, p.22-28
• Main Authors: Chandratilake, S.R., Dias, W.P.S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analytic hierarchy process; Applied sciences; Bioclimatic building; building construction; Buildings; Buildings. Public works; Correlation; Domain weights; energy efficiency; Energy management; engineers; Exact sciences and technology; Indicators; indoor environmental quality; National context; pollution; Pollution abatement; professionals; Rating systems; Ratings; surveys; Sustainability; Types of buildings; Wastes
• ISSN: 0360-5442
• DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.07.026

The issue of subjectivity in assigning weights for the domains and aspects in sustainability rating systems has not received much attention, and is hence explored in this study. A survey carried out among building construction sector professionals in a particular national context sought relative weights for various domains and aspects. Both direct ranking and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods were used. Reasonable agreement, with some differences, was found among architects, engineers and quantity surveyors on the relative weights for the six domains of Site, Energy efficiency, Water efficiency, Materials, Indoor environmental quality and Waste & Pollution; and also for the aspects. The overall domain weights were compared with those assigned in eight other rating systems, originating from eight different countries. While the Sri Lankan survey assigned the highest weight for the Site domain (with Energy efficiency a close second), in most other systems the Energy efficiency domain was top ranked. Relevant national indicators were chosen for 3 of the 6 domains, and the values of these indicators for the 9 countries were compared with the varying weights for the corresponding domains in the rating systems originating from those countries. Good correlation was found between the indicators and the weights. •Most sustainability rating systems have grouped indicators into similar domains.•There was little difference in obtaining domain weights via direct ranking or AHP.•Architects, engineers and quantity surveyors agreed broadly on domain weights.•Domain weights for different rating systems were both similar and different.•Good correlation was found between domain weights and relevant national statistics.