Assessment
2014
A Critical Evaluation of Assessment Methods: BREEAM-In Use, LEED for Existing Building and CASBEE-Existing Building
TOPICS: 4- The developments towards to the assessment tools in existing buildings, 5-Why framework is an important subject for a successful assessment tool? 6- The certification process, BREEAM In-Use, LEED for Existing Buildings, CASBEE-EB, 8-Discussion and conclusions
Abstract:
Since the end of 20 century, there has been a growing attention to the understanding of the performance of existing buildings. The improvement strategies of existing buildings have been in a great discussion in terms of providing better social, economic and environmental spaces. There is no doubt, the increasing consideration of the behaviour of existing buildings is highly interconnected with the emerging countries’ target strategies, energy efficiency regulations due to the large environmental impacts of existing building stocks which have been a major contributor of the failure against sustainable development. Hence, to tackle this global challenge, well-motivated and comprehensive assessment methods have launched and continued their improvement across to the global sustainable development day by day. In this paper, the most worldwide known assessment methods Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Japanese assessment method Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) will be investigated at the existing building level. This paper examines these assessment methods in terms of their background, the process of the certification and the rating system including major similarities and differences. In particular, the advantages and disadvantages, weakness and strengths of each assessment method compared to the each other will be discussed in terms of adaptability, practicability and transparency. The paper proposes that the method and procedure of assessment methods in existing building scale should offer a broad understanding of a variety of existing buildings in order to be able to measure the data, evaluate and produce effective implementations without compromising the occupancy socioeconomic and cultural life.
Key Words: BREEAM In-Use, LEED-Existing Building and CASBEE-EB, assessment methods and tools, existing buildings, sustainability
1-Introduction:
As the awareness of the impact of existing buildings in particular, to the environment and energy consumption, the necessity of tackling this challenge has become an emerging global concern. (Table 1) By the beginning of the 21st century, in connection with this issue and seeking for a sustainable development at existing building scale, BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE have introduced their individual assessment tools to the market for solely existing buildings context. In parallel, there have been made, significant strategies, demonstrated targets and policies on the government’s side, especially, in developed countries such as the USA, the UK and Japan in order to minimize the factors that cause environmental problems. Accordingly, the major featured targets that the governments have set out, which can be indicated as follows:
- The UK plans to cut CO2 emission by %60 by 2050 (by the UK Government) (Edwards, 2005, p21)
- The USA plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by %28 by 2020 (according to the White House in 2012 (Croome, 2013, p322)
- Japan has declared to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of %25 by 2020, and %80 by 2050 in comparison to the 1990 levels. (CASBEE brochure, 2011, p2)
The statistics in Table I reveal essentially buildings how important for a sustainable development. In addition to this, these indicators clarify that not only new buildings, but also the performance of existing buildings require a great attention. Yet, still majority of authorities conceives “building performance” as the performance of unused building, as a result, the evaluation has been assumed of “the potential of the building”, instead of “actual performance.” (Al Waer and Kirk, 2012, p247) Similarly, Bordass (2013b, p6) argues that the construction industry actually lack of understanding building performance while thinking design, builds and alters buildings, shortly, the follow through is incomplete. According to the Figure 1 below, the building behaviour in terms of CO2 emission at the design stage and the actual two years after the occupation has been investigated. As can be seen there is a big difference observed in electricity use in the building as more than 2 times higher actual CO2 emission than estimated at the design stage.
This draws attention to important issues that significantly affect achieved energy performance but need more recognition in briefing, design and management – and in certification. (Bordass, Cohen and Field, 2004, p2)
For such highly significant reasons, the assessment methods in relation to the existing buildings BREEAM In-Use, LEED for Existing Building and CASBEE for Existing Building (CASBEE-EB) existence have great importance for the future development and maintenance of the built environment and methods towards sustainability.
2-Aims of the paper
This research paper aims to make a comprehensive evaluation of the assessment tools BREEAM In-Use, LEED Existing Building and CASBEE-EB in relation to the existing buildings. For this objective at first, the overview of these emerged assessment tools will be highlighted in order to realise the key drivers behind such developments including comparative analysis from beginning to the present time. The second argument is to look at the inside of the assessment tools separately how the assessment and certification pathway designed to meet the target. And at last, examination of the rating system and the weighting of the assessment tools will be discussed from the perspective of sustainability principles.
3-Research method
For the purpose of this paper, the secondary research method is applied. The reports, articles, books about environment of buildings and its impact in terms of sustainability are referenced. The sources of assessment methods BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE highly used in this research to develop and clarify the statements that bring forward. The usage of these assessment tools sources assists to indicate and illustrate a comparative analysis, strengths and weakness against each other from their perspective that will allow seeing the similarities and differences at the same page of these assessment methods from their view as well as their individual advancement progress as the time goes by.
4- The developments towards to the assessment tools in existing buildings
After realization of a holistic approach for building performance evaluation, which Preiser and Schramm (2012, p19) underlines “occupancy” is required for closing the loop as suggested by Edwards and Naboni (2013, p36)” the mismatch between design expectations and the reality of use” of buildings as well as Santa Fe Institute(in Bordass, 2013a, p5) argues for buildings “in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they aren’t”, the scope of major concern against existing buildings in a variety of way has been largely acknowledged.
On the other hand, in recent years, significant progress in terms of assessment tools in existing buildings has been made worldwide. Firsty, LEED has announced its assessment tool as LEED-Existing Building in 2004. (Green Building Rating System for Existing Building- Upgrades, Operations and Maintenance-Version2, 2007, p1) At the same year in 2004, CASBEE has launched its assessment tool as CASBEE-EB. (CASBEE for New Construction, 2008, p5) However, BREEAM has established earlier than LEED and CASBEE, in this particular assessment tool, BREEAM has introduced its assessment tool as BREEAM In-Use yet around 2009. (breeam BES 5058: ISSUE 1.0 BREEAM in Use,2009, p1) However, after the first edition of these assessment tools, the continuous development and updating has been periodically preceded in all assessment methods. (Figure1)
The initial approach on the basis of introduced descriptions of assessment methods on existing building tools can be important. At the beginning of the clarification of the meaning of the tool will likely to explain their key expectations and objectives from their assessment tools in their perspective. According to the BREEAM, BREEAM In-Use is one of the stages of the life cycle of the building. (Figure 2)
BREEAM In-Use is a scheme to help building managers, investors, owners and occupiers reduce the running costs and improve the environmental performance of existing non-domestic buildings. It consists of a standard, user friendly assessment methodology and an independent certification process that provides a clear and credible route map to improving sustainability credentials of existing buildings. (BREEAM in-Use, 2014)
The comprehensive approach and a clear statement in the BREEAM description above highly complies with the definition of Lombardi and Cooper (2007a) and Lombardi et al. (2009) for the sustainable development process which must be: (In Brandon and Lombardi, 2011, p75)
- “A multi-stakeholder process” (in the BREEAM definition is “building managers, investors, owners and occupiers”)
- “Able to account for both tangible an intangibles” and “demand driven by stakeholders” (in the BREEAM definition is as “reduce the running costs and improve the environmental performance”)
Moreover, BREEAM In-Use at initial stage has started with the UK focus. However, currently, the development in this particular area has been widened as different from LEED and CASBEE and divided as assessment options:
BREEAM In-Use International
BREEAM In-Use
National BREEAM In-Use Scheme Operators: If National Scheme Operators (NSO) is available in the region out of the UK, clients must use their adapted tool. At present, BREEAM In-Use has already adapted in Netherlands, Spain, Germany and Austria at national level with their country language. (Conducting a BREEAM In-Use Assessment, 2014) This kind of division can enable to recognize the regional differences and bring global-local aspect of view together. Edwards (2013, p252) claims that the ability of understanding and adaptation of “regional resources shortage and the influence of local politics” is the one of the advantages of indigenous sustainability assessment. And, Edwards (2013, p253) continues while LEED stands out “market friendly”, BREEAM has affected by “a suburban and ecological bias”. However, as BREEAM(Conducting a BREEAM In-Use Assessment, 2014) underlines that from this moment, BREEAM In-Use International has been improved as their words: “the lessons learnt, and the feedback received” which highly meets with the recognition of culture and climate since sustainability is closely related to those principles. (Edwards, 2013, p253)Whereas, the explanation of BREEAM “International BREEAM In-Use Baseline scores and reports can be created based on the UK question set” highly contradicts with the understanding of the potentials and constraints of international local areas including climate and culture. (breeam BES 5058: ISSUE 1.3 BREEAM in Use, 2012, p4) There can be noted as an advantage of BREEAM In-Use tool, the large number of participating organisations from different specialized fields supports this development. This is a great opportunity to receive enormous acknowledge and feedback through the contribution of companies participated in the continuous development and leading more accurate system. However, the majority of the organizations participated in this tool standard are generally UK oriented, which might less likely to promote BREEAM In-Use at international level. (bream BES 5058: ISSUE 1.3 BREEAM in Use, 2012, p3) Whereas, in LEED rating system version 2009, the description of the assessment tool which is LEED for Existing Building has introduced as below:
Operations & Maintenance is a set of performance standards for certifying the operations and maintenance of existing commercial or institutional buildings and high-rise residential buildings of all sizes, both public and private. The intent is to promote high-performance, healthful, durable, affordable, and environmentally sound practices in existing buildings. (LEED 2009 – For Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance, 2014, p XV)
LEED, without inclusion of the word sustainability to its assessment tool description, in reality, it approaches closely to the fundamental principles environment and economic features of sustainability rather than the social aspect of sustainability as Sturge (In Al Waer and Kirk, 2012, p243) has indicated as these are “the triple bottom line” connected to each other in relation to the sustainable development.
Regarding to the BREEAM and LEED classifications and stages, the major distinction between BREEAM and LEED is that having a different approach to the similar problems. While BREEAM recently divides its tools on a country basis, LEED preference is division tools into buildings and its environments.
According to the assessment tool, LEED for Existing buildings is situated under the title of “Building Operations and Maintenance.” And the Building Operations and Maintenance is one of the main parts of the LEED cycle. (LEED Rating System, 2014) (Figure 3) As the Figure 3 implies, LEED has separate six different working areas including existing buildings under the Operation and Maintenance part. At this stage, LEED for Existing Building assessment tool regulates, particularly the building projects except the buildings for data centers, schools, warehouse and distribution centers, retail and hospitality uses. (Getting to know LEED: Building Operations and Maintenance (O+M), 2014)
From the perspective of CASBEE, the main features of assessment tool CASBEE-EB are explained in its introductory guide rather than full description of the existing building assessment tool, as follows:
CASBEE-EB targets existing building stock, based on operation records for at least one year after completion… evaluates achieved performance…the result is valid for 5 years…used as a labelling tool to declare the environmental performance of building maintenance. Building owners, such as the real estate sector and large enterprises, may use as a self-evaluation tool… (CASBEE brochure, 2011, p4)
Indication of continuous development in the features of the CASBEE-EB assessment tool emphases the follow up process importance. Brandon and Lombardi (2011, p21) underline that the process followed as for a sustainable development is an ongoing process and not an end target or purpose. Therefore, the assessment is an open subject that address to further studies, variations and changes while the development advances. The life cycle of CASBEE considerably consists of a smaller number of assessment tools and more simple than BREEAM and LEED. The assessment method of CASBEE is divided into 4 tool as from 0 to 3 regarding to the building lifecycle as BREEAM and LEED organise its tools in a similar way. The classification of CASBEE and its tool CASBEE-EB can be shown as below: (An overview of CASBEE, 2014)
*Tool-0: CASBEE for Pre-Design
*Tool-1: CASBEE for New Construction
*Tool-2: CASBEE for Existing Building
*Tool-3: CASBEE for Renovation
*CASBEE for Specific Purposes: (For Detached houses, For Temporary Construction, Brief versions, Local government versions, For Heat Island Effect, For Urban Development and For Cities)
On the basis of introduction of assessment tools in BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE view, the attention to the environment can be seen clearly at all the existing building assessment tool’s description. On the contrary, however, there can be noted that promoting economy side through the processes of assessment tool in BREEAM and LEED has been defined as whether targeting reducing running cost or affordable housing, but CASBEE-EB comparatively is in the lack of mentioning the advantages of the contribution of the assessment tool to the economy at the introductory level.
At this point, whether the economic factor of establishment of sustainable development in the context of existing buildings is recognized or not, there are “critical success factors” in a successful development that the majority of people make their decisions accordingly, for example return of the investment is important. This is also the foundation of some of the “sustainability indicators” to be applied. (Brandon and Lombardi, 2011, p42) At this view, consideration of the economic factor is one the key extension of sustainable building assessment tools to be enhanced. (Cole in Kibert, 2013, p139)
Further examination of the assessment tools in existing building scale can be made on the number of projects registered or certified in the world. Because, the adoption of the assessment tools around the world is considerably important in order to see which assessment tools have been widely accepted so far. The spread of the tool system around the world will highlight the country’s public and political interest to the tool process and rating system as well as the success of the assessment tool in the international arena.
5-Why framework is an important subject for a successful assessment tool?
The requirement of the framework is crucial for decision-making for an advancement of sustainability, specifically in the planning or design stage that may assist to analyse the problem of the structure. (Brandon and Lombardi, 2011, p146) Since, AlWaer and Kirk (2013, p249) explain the framework of any building assessment tool characterises the subject of the tool and describes which information is relevant for the measurement or not, Brandon and Lombardi (2011, p147) argue that the evaluation of the amount of information may require a long period of time and can cost high. Brandon and Lombardi (2011, p147) continues in the case of the existence of bad organized framework, the diversity of terms engaged and obligated by each assessment method would likely create an ambiguous situation among clients. This uncertainty considerably generates difficulty to make decisions over the unclear agreed framework. Addressing these problems will require a major attention to the framework principles how should it be, before starting explanations of the assessment tools in existing building scale. And, the major concerns can be given to the following indicators towards to the evaluation of the framework:
- The assessment should be organized on the basis of environmentally friendly
- An evaluation of the “financial and economic feasibility”
- A perception of “interest and concern” of what are the local ambitions and approaches. (Brandon and Lombardi, 2011, p147)
- As also Deuble and Dear (In Mallory-Hill, Preiser and Watson 2012, p175) observes that since, the occupants happiness is directly related to the environmental views, it can be enhanced through the close attention to the explanation of the green building systems and technologies. In other words, the success of green building principles is largely meaningful as long as occupants’ understanding, acceptance and adaptation observed against the changes. The approach to the existing building assessment tools framework and process towards to the certification and weighting system is essentially connected to the above illustrated major statements which will enable to make comparisons between the drivers of assessment tools BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE and sustainability requirement.
6- The certification process
The certification process from beginning to the end is a complex process. (Figure Process) As described in the Table II, while the scope of BREEAM In-Use is divided into building parts as asset, management of building and occupants, LEED for existing building tool makes the separation on the basis of the building types, which excludes school, retail, data centers, warehouses, distribution centers or hospitality uses. Because, these excluded types of buildings are the subject of other LEED assessment tools. From CASBEE-EB site, as mentioned in Table II, the scope of CASBEE tool covers all existing building stocks without regardless any distinction.
The approaching to the scale of the examined assessment tools indicates the different mindset behind the system. BREEAM In-Use evaluates existing building in three parts as asset, building and occupier management. According to this classification, BREEAM In-Use adjusted same assessment criteria in different percentage effect of the evaluation process towards certification. In contrary, LEED for existing building tool considers what percentage of the gross floor area will be subject to the appraisal of the LEED existing building tool. Similarly, CASBEE-EB perspective of the scale of the tool appears closer to the LEED tool on the basis of approaching to the assessment as a whole building as one concept rather than a distinction of building in the separate sections. Brandon and Lombardi (2011, p26) suggest and Al Waer and Kirk (2012, p247) agree with that the assessment in sustainability should be “holistic” and “harmonious” if the intention from the evaluation is a maximum benefit achievement. However, since the asset, building and occupier management assessment can be conducted independently, the other not conducted part regarding to the client decision will be incomplete. Therefore, the sustainability achievement across the subjected building will comparatively reach the target partially. (breeam BES 5058: ISSUE 1.3 BREEAM in Use, 2012, p7, 9, 12)
The good practice is that the limitation of certification validity to the time period in relation to the continuous sustainability achievement. As shown in the Table II, all assessment tools have already adopted validity process for their certification, however the relevant duration of validity of certificate changes in each BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE tool system. On the other hand, the relationship between the client and the person who conduct the assessment (in BREEAM auditor, in LEED project team) has primary importance for the present and future progress in the assessment towards establishment and advancement of sustainability governance. On the basis of the certification procedure, BREEAM offers to the client learning program free of charge and if the client requests, there is a possibility to become an auditor for different projects. In addition, the client is responsible to conduct pre-assessment, questionnaire and recording clients’ comments, as the auditor verifies these documents accordingly during the certification stage. This leads to the contribution and adaptation to a range of different actors and creating social attribution in the development. In contrast, the work program in the LEED, basically, the owner pays the fee, and the authorized project team largely does the job. Similarly, from this point view, Kibert (2013, p119-120) states that LEED main strategy is to accelerate the market demand for sustainable buildings. Another criticism about LEED is that, as Wargo (2010) (in Edwards and Naboni, 2013, p37) has observed in one of the research, LEED pays likely less attention to the human aspects such as “psycho-physical comfort of occupants” in its assessment. Further note in relation to the Table II, is that the fee payment to the auditor licencing, training and monitoring by the client in BREEAM system. And, this process has to be done outside of any BRE system which might obstruct the transparency. Moreover, the direct payment of client to the auditor may create a substantial control of client on the auditor which may affect to the assessment objectivity. Another interesting point is that, LEED for Existing Building tool, the buildings which under 93 m2 gross floor areas are out of the assessment consideration as shown in Table II. The question can be asked in relation to this minimum area requirement of LEED as mentioned in Table II, how the sustainable environment will meet the broad acceptance while neglecting to conduct sustainability appraisal against existing small buildings under 93 m2.
7- Weighting system and overview of the evaluation of Tools
The weighting system of assessment tool and its requirements obviously forms the shape of the evaluation and greatly indicates the major and minor factors affecting to the rating system towards advancement of the sustainability performance of existing buildings.
7.1- BREEAM In-Use:
This assessment tool weighting category remains same for each part (asset, building and occupier management) evaluation. However, the percentage of impact considerably changes. For example, the primary category energy affects Part-II: building management %31.5, Part I: asset %26.5 and Part III: occupier management %19.5 of the weighting. And, from the first issue to the last issue of this tool, the weighting system in each parts preserved same. There is a little change occurred in the waste and materials criteria which has separated after BREEAM In-Use issue 1.0. And as can be seen in Figure 4, the major assessment criteria are for BREEAM In-Use, energy, health and well-being and pollution respectively.
7.2- LEED for Existing Buildings:
LEED has introduced three version tools for existing building as LEED V2, LEED 2009 and final LEED V4 since now. Regarding to those projects checklist criteria similarly LEED has relatively retained its same indicators from beginning to the present time. However, the criteria location and transportation has added yet to the last version LEED V4. In general, there are significant changes made in LEED for existing building tool either at obligated instructions or at the impact of the criteria to the weighting system over the years. For instance, the ‘’energy’’ impact has increased, in contrast, the effect of the ’’indoor environmental quality’’ condition has decreased against its rating system.(Figure5)Green Building Rating System For Existing Building Version2, 2005,p11-13/LEED 2009, 2014, pvi-vii/LEED for Existing Building:Operations & Maintenance-Scorecard (v4))
7.3- CASBEE-EB:
CASBEE has a virtually different approach to the weighting systems towards the sustainable development in existing building scale. There is an initial distinction between environmental gain and loss as CASBEE description environmental quality (SQ) environmental load reduction (SLR).
Built Environment Efficiency (BEE) = 25 x (SQ-1)
25 x (5-SLR)(CASBEE for Existing Buildings, 2014)
From the point of the scoring in CASBEE, the range of evaluation of conditions varies from 1 to 5. The formula indicates essentially at the condition of achievement of all environmental quality (SQ) principles, the scoring still can be low if the required attention is not provided to the environmental load reduction(SLR). The CASBEE categories towards rating can be classified as follows:(CASBEE for New Construction – Technical Manual, 2008, p31)
Q1: Indoor Environment
Noise and Acoustics
Thermal Comfort
Lighting and Illumination
Air Quality
Q2: Quality of service
Service Ability
Durability and Reliability
Flexibility and Adaptability
Q3: Outdoor Environment on Site
Preservation and Creation of Biotope
Townscape and Landscape
Local Characteristics and Outdoor Amenity
LR1: Energy
Building Thermal Load
Natural Energy Utilization
Efficiency in Building Service System
Efficient Operation
LR2: Resource and Materials
Water Resources
Reduction of Non Renewable Material Use
Materials with low health risks
LR3: Off- Site Environment
Global Warming
Local Environment
Surrounding Environment
According to Tian ( in Brandon and Lombardi, 2011, p115) CASBEE creates an embracement of quality and quantity of environment at the same page and aims sustainable buildings by minimum effect to environment as maximum advancement at quality level. On the other Tian( in Brandon and Lombardi, 2011, p115) argues that Q and L indicators connection each other not constantly transparent as expected.
8-Discussion and conclusions
The establishment of assessment tools respect to the existing buildings have shown the sustainability scope larger than just looking forward to the future developments in the advancement of the new construction field. In fact, understanding of a holistic vision of sustainability requires mostly looking back to the what we have built to present date through analysis, measurement and reporting system. The realization of the impact of existing building stock to the environment and its low building performance urged to proceed assessment tools as BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE introduced. Moreover, launching new editions of existing building tools over the time indicates not only the necessity of more complex and comprehensive method by the time, but also the big sustainability gab in this particular area, which was not either discovered or out of the subject of the consideration under sustainability assessment scope.
Striving to achieve sustainability with its social, economic and environment factor at an existing building scale is more limited to make implementation than new construction or new development. The understanding of the existing building management and asset as BREEAM In-Use method examines, the occupant or owner of the building living pattern or culture may substantially influence the sustainability measurement. There can be discussed that the certification system largely checks the mechanical or engineering side such as energy, materials rather than human factor such as cultural or social indicators. As a result, the certification may not reflect the total performance of the building behaviour as assessment estimates. (Edwards and Naboni, 2013, p40) In this regard, except BREEAM In-Use client approach, BREEAM In-use, LEED and CASBEE for existing building assessment tool can be improved in consideration of the social aspect. For instance, the cultural factor can be included as a condition in the rating system to be improved on occupant request.
Over a relatively short time, the adoption and acceptance of the existing building tool throughout the world is promising for the future developments in this specific area. Especially, recent development in BREEAM In-Use at international level is important attempt in order to enhance its tool oversea. However, the simplicity of the certification process and the clarity of method of calculation towards the weighting system has primary importance. For example, CASBEE-EB clarifies its formula and the evaluation can be seen from the observed rating. From a LEED perspective, the all the points and credits are visible, however the calculation process may take longer time. Similarly, BREEAM In-Use also indicates the impact of its assessment criteria, but the contribution of supplementary factors of the criteria is unclear.
To minimize the bad impact of the existing building stock to the environment across the world, as well as for improvement of occupant well-being in buildings, those assessment tools have critical importance and responsibility for the next years.
9-References
- AlWaer, H., Kirk, D.. (21/06/2012). Building sustainability assessment methods. ICE Institution of Civil Engineers . 165 (ES4). [Online], p241-253, Available:http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/ensu.10.00058 ,Last accessed 11/04/2014 .
- Bordass, B., Cohen, R., Field, J.. (2004). Energy Performance of Non-Domestic Buildings: Closing the Credibility Gap. [Online], p1-2, Available: http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/Pages/Unprotected/EnPerfNDBuildings.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Bordass, B.. (2013a). University of Dundee 25 October 2013- Part 1- Building Performance Evaluation and the Credibility Gap. the Usable Buildings Trust, p5-6
- Bordass, B.. (2013b). University of Dundee 25 October 2013- Part 2- Closing the Gap: The role of the building professional., the Usable Buildings Trust, p6
- Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P.. (2011). A Proposal Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development, In: Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P. Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Oxford and Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. P146-147
- Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P.. (2011). Assessment Methods. In: Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P. Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Oxford and Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. p115
- Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P.. (2011). Indicators and Measures. In: Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P. Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Oxford and Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. p75
- Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P.. (2011). Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development. In: Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P. Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Oxford and Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. p14, 21, 26
- Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P.. (2011). Time and Sustainability. In: Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P. Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Oxford and Iowa: John Wiley & Sons. p42
- BRE Global . (2014). BREEAM In-Use, Scope. Available: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=373. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- BRE Global Ltd. (2012). breeam BES 5058: ISSUE 1.3 BREEAM in Use. [Online], p3-4,5, 7, 9, 12 Available: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20In%20Use/BES_5058_Issue_1_3_BREEAM_In_Use.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- BRE Global. (2013). BREEAM In-Use Client Training. [Online], p37 Available: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20In%20Use/BREEAM_In-use_Client_Training.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- BRE Global. (2014). BREEAM Fee Sheet FS021, 2013. [Online], p2-4, 7 Available: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20In%20Use/FS_021_Rev_20_BREEAM_In_Use_fee_sheet_(2).pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- BRE Global. (2014). BREEAM Scheme Document SD096. [Online], p18 Available: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20In%20Use/SD096_-_Rev_24.1_BREEAM_In-Use_Scheme_Document.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- BRE Global. (2014). BREEAM: Schemes. Available: http://www.breeam.org/podpage.jsp?id=54. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- BRE Global. (2014). Conducting a BREEAM In-Use Assessment. Available: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=378. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- BREEAM Global Ltd.. (2009). breeam BES 5058: ISSUE 1.0 BREEAM in Use. [Online], p1, Available: http://www.fdea.co.uk/sites/default/files/BREEAM_In-Use_Standard_BES_5058_Issue_1.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- Cole, R.J.. (2013). Green Building Assessment. In: Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction Green Building Design and Delivery. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken. p139.
- Croome, D.C. (2013). Intelligent Buildings. 2nd ed. London: ICE Publishing. p322.
- Edwards, B (2005). Rough Guide to Sustainability. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Steven Cross. p21
- Edwards, B.W. and Naboni, E.. (2013). Conclusions. In: Edwards, B.W. and Naboni, E. Green Buildings Pay Design, Productivity and Ecolog. Oxon: Routledge. P252-253.
- Edwards, B.W. and Naboni, E.. (2013). Designing green buildings. In: Edwards, B.W. and Naboni, E. Green Buildings Pay Design, Productivity and Ecolog. Oxon: Routledge. P36-37, 40
- Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) / Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC),. (2011). CASBEE for Existing Buildings . Available: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/accredited_pdf/0051.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) / Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC),. (2014). An overview of CASBEE. Available: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/overviewE.htm. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) / Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). (2014). CASBEE Certified Buildings. Available: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/certified_bldgs.htm. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Japan GreenBuild Council(JaGBC)/ Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). (2011). CASBEE - broshure.[Online], p2-4, Available: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/document/CASBEE_brochure.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)/ Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC). (2008). CASBEE for New Construction - Technical Manual 2008 Edition. [Online], p5, 31 Available: http://www.sc-os.ru/common/upload/CASBEEl.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Kibert, C.J.. (2013). Green Building Assessment. In: Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction Green Building Design and Delivery. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken. P119-120
- Preiser, W. F. E., Schramm, U.. (2012). A Process Model for Building Performance Evaluation(BPE). In: Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. and Watson, C. Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford, West Sussex and Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. p19
- Schramm, U and Westlund, A.. (2012). Evaluating the Impact of Green Building onWorker Productivity and Health: A Literature Review. In: Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F. E. and Watson, C. Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford, West Sussex and Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. p175
- U.S. Green Building Council. (). Guide to LEED Certification: Commercial. [Online], p4-5, 7 Available: http://www.usgbc.org/cert-guide. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (). LEED Certification Fees. [Online], p3 Available: http://www.usgbc.org/cert-guide. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (). LEED for Existing Building:Operations & Maintenance-Scorecard . Available: http://www.usgbc.org/credits/existing-buildings/v4. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (2007). Green Building Rating System For Existing Building- Upgrades, Operations and Maintenance - Version 2 . [Online], p1, 11-13, Available: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-existing-buildings-v20-rating-system. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (2013). Reference Guide Building Operations and Maintenance-v4. [Online], p15-16,28-29, 33-34 Available: http://www.usgbc.org/sites/all/assets/section/files/v4-guide-excerpts/Excerpt_v4_OM.pdf. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (2014). Getting to know LEED: Building Operations and Maintenance (O+M). Available: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/getting-know-leed-building-operations-and-maintenance-om. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (2014). LEED 2009 For Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance.[Online], p xv, vi-vii Available: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-existing-buildings-v2009-current-version. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- U.S. Green Building Council. (2014). LEED Rating System. Available: http://www.usgbc.org/leed#rating. Last accessed 11/04/2014.
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2014). BREEAM. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREEAM. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2014). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design. Last accessed 11/04/2014
- World Green Building Council. (2010). Green Buildings Facts and Figures. [Online], p1, Available: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukgbc.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fprivate%2Fdocuments%2FStatistics%2520on%2520Green%2520Buildings%2. Last accessed 10/04/2014.
Copyright © onurnurdogan All rights reserved