PubAg

Main content area

Asian green building rating tools: A comparative study on scoring methods of quantitative evaluation systems

Author:
Zhang, Xiang, Zhan, Changhong, Wang, Xuesong, Li, Guanghao
Source:
Journal of cleaner production 2019 v.218 pp. 880-895
ISSN:
0959-6526
Subject:
ecology, energy conservation, quantitative analysis, waste reduction
Abstract:
The mature stage of development of Green Building Rating Tools (GBRTs) is one of the factors that critically affect the development of green-building practices. A GBRT generally comprises an indicator system (IS) and a quantitative evaluation system (QES); for a given QES, the core component is the scoring method of terminal indicators (SMTIs). Given the predominant focus on the IS in the literature on GBRTs, the QES has not been studied as comprehensively, especially for the SMTIs. Hence, this study proposes a comparative analysis of the SMTIs between two GBRTs – the Evaluation Standard for Green Building (ESGB) and the “Ecology, Energy Saving, Waste Reduction, and Health” system (EEWH). This analysis not only elucidates the QES but also functions as a reference for the development of other GBRTs globally. Methodologically, eight types of SMTIs used in the ESGB or EEWH are categorized and defined. Besides, to examine the QESs, two indexes are proposed to compare the performances of the two GBRTs: the number of adopted SMTI types (N) and the utilization rate (UR) of SMTIs. Two findings are noteworthy. Firstly, two SMTIs, i.e. the Formula Scoring Method (FSM) and Direct Scoring Method (DSM), are respectively associated with the highest and the lowest levels of maturity. Additionally, the QESs of the ESGB and EEWH primarily depend on only one SMTI (DSM and FSM respectively) with the same UR (63.9%), leading to a poor SMTI balance in the both two QESs and to a higher QES maturity of EEWH than ESGB. For future studies, the QESs of other GBRTs can be examined based on the eight SMTIs and two indexes (N and UR) proposed herein.
Agid:
6340560