figure 1 in appendix 1
TRANSCRIPT
A sustainable assessment method for non-residential
buildings in Saudi Arabia: Development of Criteria
Raji Adnan Banani
Supervisors
Dr. Maria Vahdati
Dr. Abbas Elmualim
April 2011
School of Construction Management and Engineering
Transfer Report, Ph.D
AB
STR
AC
T
ii
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is to develop effective sustainable rating method criteria for
non-residential buildings in Saudi Arabia. Developing such criteria is gaining significance in
developing countries as a result of increased awareness of the environmental, economic and
social issues. In particular, there is stringent need for such assessment criteria in Saudi Arabia
due to the country’s high energy consumption, pollution and carbon footprint.
In this work, various environmental assessment methods, such as BREEAM, LEED, Green
Star, CASBEE and Estidama have been investigated. The aim of this work is to define new
assessment criteria relevant to the local conditions of Saudi Arabia. A review of literature has
been conducted, and the findings have been analysed. Pilot case studies will be carried out, and
discussions with a number of stakeholders including academics, and individuals from industry
and the government will take place. This will allow an exploration of the suitable criteria for
developing a sustainable rating method for buildings in Saudi Arabia.
In addition, Pair-wise comparison within the Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP) method
will be applied to the selected criteria and the outcome will be analysed and discussed. The final
research findings will be presented as suitable criteria for developing a sustainable building
assessment method for Saudi Arabia in terms of environmental, economic, social and cultural
perspectives.
CO
NT
EN
T
iii
CONTENT
1. FOREWORD…………………………………………………….…………………………………………… 1 1.1. Importance of the research………………...…………………………………………………............... 1 1.2. The research aim…………………………………………………………………………………..…… 2 1.3. The research objectives………………………………………………………………………....…...… 2
2. ASSESSMENT TOOLS BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………........ 3 2.1. Sustainable Construction………………………………………………………………………...…..… 3 2.2. Environmental Performance of Building………………………………………………………...……. 3 2.3. Sustainable Buildings Rating Systems………………………………………………………….…...… 4 2.4. Building Assessment Tools……………………………………………………………………...……... 4
2.4.1. BREEAM Rating Tool…………………………………………………...…………..………… 4 A. The BREEAM Weighting system, Ranking and Categories………………………...…..…… 4 B. Standards……………………………………………………………………………...….…… 5 C. The BREEAM Certification Process…………………………………………………...……… 5
2.4.2. LEED Rating Tool………………………………………………………………………..….… 6 A. The LEED Weighting system, Ranking and Categories………………………………...…… 6 B. The LEED Certification Process………………………………………………………..…..… 7
2.4.3. Green Star Rating Tool…………………………………………………………………...…… 8
2.4.4. CASSBEE Rating Tool………………………………………...…………………………..…… 9 2.4.5. Estidama Rating Tool…………………………………………………………………………… 10
3. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………….………………………………..…………………………… 11 3.1. Review the use of tools……………………………………………………..…………………..……… 11 3.2. Economic, Cultural and Social aspects…………………...…………………...……………………..… 12 3.3. Systems Categories……………………………………………………………...……………………… 13
3.3.1. Qualitative and Quantitative…………………………………………...…………………..… 13 3.3.2. Tools Development Roots………………………………………………..……………...…… 14 3.3.3. Systems Criteria……………………….……………………………………………………… 14
4. TOOLS COMPARISON OVERVIEW…………………....…………………………………...……………….. 14 4.1. Tools Categories………………………………………………………………………..…………….… 15
4.1.1. Environmental Aspects………………………………………………………...…………...… 15 i. Energy……………………………………………………………………………...………...… 15
ii. Water………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 iii. Waste………………………………………………………………………………...………… 16 iv. Materials……………………………………………………………………………...…...…… 16 v. Indoor Environmental Quality…………………………………………….…………..……... 18
vi. Emission and Pollution…………………………………………………………………......… 20 vii. Land use, Site and Ecology……………………………………………………………..…...… 21
viii. Management……………………………………………………………..………..…………… 21 5. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………..……… 22
5.1. Intended knowledge from reviewing the Literature ……………………….…………………...…… 22 5.2. Full comparison among five different assessment methods………...………………………..…...… 23
5.2.1. Why those assessment tools are chosen.................................................................................. 23 5.2.2. The comparison Method............................................................................................................ 23
5.3. Multiple-Pilot Case Studies………………………..………………………………………….…...…… 23 5.4. Conducting interviews……………………………………………………………………………….… 24 5.5. Analyse data collected from reviewing the literatures, pilot case studies and interviews…...……. 25
5.5.1. Evaluate the results of Data Collection………………………………………………….....… 25 5.5.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process Method (AHP)…………………………………...…………… 25
6. THE RESEARCH LIMITATIONS………………..………………………………………………....………… 28 7. PROPOSED WORKING PLAN…………………………………………...………………………...……..… 28 8. CONCLUDING REMARKS…………………………………………………………………………...….…… 30 9. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………...…...… 31 APPENDIX 1: Distribution of Rating tools internationally……………….…………………………….....…… 36 APPENDIX 2: Saudi Arabia Background…………...………………………………………..………………...… 38 APPENDIX 3: Summarising Different Key Papers Table of Environmental Rating Tools……..………...…… 59 APPENDIX 4: Assessment Methods Categories………………………………………………...……….……… 65
LIS
T O
F F
IGU
RE
S
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of Rating tools internationally……………………………………….…….. 37
Figure 2. BREEAM Buildings Rating Method Categories…………………………………..……… 5
Figure 3. BREEAM Certification Process…………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 4. LEED Buildings Rating Method Categories…………………………..…………..……… 7
Figure 5. LEED Certification Process………………………………………………………..……… 7
Figure 6. Green Star Buildings Rating Method Categories………….…………..………………… 8
Figure 7. CASBEE Buildings Rating Method Categories…………………………………………… 10
Figure 8. Estidama Assessment Method Categories…………………………………………..…… 11
Figure 9. Green Building Rating Tools Relationships……………...………..…………………… 12
Figure 10. The flow chart of the AHP process…………………………………...………………… 27
Figure 11. The AHP simple structure of the problem into a hierarchy……………...…………… 27
LIS
T O
F T
AB
LE
S
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. BREEAM Assessment method weightings……………………………………………… 5
Table 2. LEED Points Distribution …………………………………...…………………………… 7
Table 3. Green Star Credit Distribution……………………………………………..……………. 8
Table 4. Estidama Credit Distribution…………………………………….……………………… 10
Table. 5. Summarising Different Key Papers Table of Environmental Rating Tools……...…… 59
Table 6. Table of Environmental Rating Tools Features ………………...……………………… 17
Table 7. The Comparison Table of Rating Tools Categories…………..………………………… 18
Table 8. Comparison Table of Energy Category of Rating Tool………………………...……….. 18
Table 9. Comparison Table of Energy assessment method of Rating Tools……………….…… 19
Table 10. Comparison Table of Water Category of Rating Tools……………...………………… 19
Table 11. Comparison Table of Waste Category of Rating Tools………………………………... 19
Table 12. Comparison Table of Materials Category of Rating Tools……….…………………… 19
Table 13. Comparison Table of Indoor Environment Quality Category of Rating Tools………. 20
Table 14. Comparison Table of Emissions and Pollutions Categories of Rating Tools…...……. 20
Table 15. Comparison Table of Land use and Ecology Categories of Rating Tools….….……… 21
Table 16. Comparison Table of Management Category of Rating Tools…………...…..……….. 22
Table 17. The fundamental scale of absolute numbers…………...….…………………………… 27
Table 18. Timetable of the Ph.D Research……………………………………………………....... 29
LIS
T O
F A
BB
RE
VIA
TIO
NS
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Saudi Green Building Council……………………………………………………..……..………….... SGBC
World Green Building Council……………………………………………………...…………..…….. WGBC
King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy…………………………………..…………. KACARE
King Abdullah Financial District………………………………………………………….………….. KAFD
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology………………...…………………………….. KAUST
Gross Floor Area……………………………………...……………………………..………………… GFA
Analytical Hierarchy Process Method……………………………….………………………….…….. AHP
The Conseil International du Batiment…………………………………………………..………….. CIB
Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method…………………………… BREEAM
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design………………………………...…..……….……. LEED
Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency…………………… CASBEE
Sustainable Built Environment Tool…………………………….…………………………….………. SuBET
Qatar Sustainability Assessment System……………………………………………………………… QSAS
The U. K. Building Research Establishment……………………..……………...……………...……… BRE
The U. S. Green Buildings Council………………………………………………....……………….… USGBC
The Japanese Sustainable Building Consortium………………….………………...………….……. JSBC
Environmental Quality………………………………………………………………...……..……….. Q
Environmental Lode…………………………...…………………………………..………………….. L
Building Environmental Efficiency……………..……...……………………………..……………… BEE
The Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council……………………………………………..……..………….. AUPC
The Pearl Rating System………….………………………..………………………….……………… PRS
The United Arab Emeritus……………………………………………………………………………… UAE
International Organisation for Standardization………………………………………………………. ISO
United Kingdom Accreditation Service…………………………..……………………………………. UKAS
Compliance Interpretation Request…………………………………………………………………… CIR
UK National Calculation Methodology……………………………………..………………………….. NCM
Building Energy Performance…………………………………...………….………………………….. BEP
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineering……...………...... ASHRAE
National Australian Built Environmental Rating System……………………………………….… NABERS
American National Standards Institute……………………………….……………...……………. ANSI
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America…………………………………...………….. IESNA
Global Warming Potential……………...…………………………………………………..……….. GWP
Ozone Depletion Potential…………..……………………………………………………...………. ODP
FO
RE
WO
RD
1
‘‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful '’
1. FOREWORD
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a major oil exporting country accounting for 13.2% of the
oil produced worldwide in 2011 (BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012). However,
the rapid growth in the population of Saudi Arabia has influenced the construction industry,
resulting in the growth in the demand for new buildings (as illustrated in appendix 2), which in
turn has resulted in a large consumption of resources, such as energy (Lahn and Stevens, 2011).
This forced the government to launch the Saudi Green Building Council (SGBC) in 2010, which
can be considered a starting point for effectively applying the concept of green buildings (SGBC,
2011). Being a prospective member of the World Green Building Council (WGBC), Saudi Arabia
has to contribute towards global efforts in reducing the significant effects of buildings on the
environment. One of the most effective strategies the country can adopt is to develop its own
building assessment tools. This will not only raise the profile of the country in the WGBC, but
can also bring great benefits to the construction sector from different perspectives
environmental, economic and cultural.
Therefore, environmental, economic and cultural aspects need to be considered when
developing these tools (Rahardjati et al., 2010). The contribution of the construction industry
towards these assessment criteria is to develop the methodology by which a building can be
assessed.
There has been a notable development in the construction sector in Saudi Arabia which
needs to be organised and managed in order to avoid problematic issues such as high
consumption of resources and increasing level of pollution which significantly affect the
country. An example of these new developments is King Abdullah City for Atomic and
Renewable Energy (KACARE), which is located 30 kilometres from Riyadh with a total Gross
Floor Area (GFA) of 22,659,859 square meters. This development includes residential,
industrial, commercial, educational, social and cultural areas (Yeang and Umm AlQura
University, 2010). The design stage of the development was based on the framework of
Sustainable Built Environment Tool (SuBET) to ensure high standards of sustainable urban
design (Alwaer and Clements-Croome, 2010). In future the KACARE is very likely to be the main
source of knowledge related to the atomic and renewable energy sector in Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah Financial District (KAFD) is another example in Riyadh city, which has used
the applied sustainability design approach to deliver a number of key objectives. To name a few:
the minimisation of water use and energy consumption, the improvement of indoor
environment quality taking into account global atmospheric impacts, and local air quality
(Kurek, 2007). The total GFA of the project is 2,708,356 square metres included offices,
residential, retail, hotels, education social and cultural areas (KAFD, 2007).
The application of building assessment tools, therefore, indicates that the awareness of
sustainability in Saudi Arabia construction industry has increased recently. However, so far as it
is concern there is no assessment tool developed has considered the condition of Saudi as a
country such as weather, social and culture. Hence, an assessment tool for the efficiency of the
application of the concept of sustainability is required.
1.1. Importance of the research An international tool covering all regions in the world is ‘relatively complex’, due to the
unique characteristic of each country. Studies revealed that an assessment method which could
be applicable in one country may not be applied in other. The importance given to the issues
(Energy, water….etc.) associated with a tool design is different across regions (Cole, 1999; Reed
FO
RE
WO
RD
2
et al., 2009; Zuhairuse et al., 2009; Alyami and Rezgui, 2012). Consequently, if a tool specific to a
country is used in another, the assessment results will not reflect the realistic performance of a
building.
A number of environmental factors could prevent the direct use of currently available
tools in another country other than its own origin (Mao et al., 2009; Alyami and Rezgui, 2012).
Some of such factors are as follows:
Climate context
Geographical Features
Resources consumption
Understanding of building stocks
Government policy and regulation
Understanding of the importance of historical
Understanding of the culture value and public awareness
From the above list, it appears that all these factors vary between regions. Thus, understanding
of the concept of sustainability is changed in relation with these environmental factors. Even in
one country designing a tool could be a challenge where climate and topography change from
one place to another. For example, findings of the research that took place in Jordon by Ali and
Al Nsairat (2009) concluded that Jordon needs to develop domestic assessment method due to
the differences in its climate and topography.
While Saudi Arabia consists of different climate, cultural and topographies (as shown in
appendix 2), it has not yet implemented any domestic assessment method to measure building
performance. Study by Zuhairuse et al. (2009) revealed that the reasons for success of applying
rating tools in developed countries are as follows:
Understanding the need of a rating tool and its value for the stakeholder;
Designing a tool with well-based framework of sustainable construction;
The tool must be approved by governments and construction sector.
Meanwhile, number of countries in the Arabian Gulf have introduced country specific
assessment tool. The United Arab Emeritus (UAE) introduced Estidama (AUPC, 2010b) and
Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS) is used in Qatar (GORD, 2012).
Therefore, Saudi Arabia needs to develop its territorial assessment method. The
development of assessment method should take into account number of factors such as
vernacular architecture, cultural, social and economic aspects (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012).
1.2. The research aim The aim of this project is to develop criteria for a sustainable rating system for new non-
residential buildings in Saudi Arabia.
Recently, SGBC presented LEED as the official tool to measure building performance in
Saudi Arabia (SGBC, 2011) However, there are no specific rating criteria which encompass the
different aspects of Saudi society. Architects, contractors, environmental engineers, clients and
professionals need to have a better understanding and a great deal of information about the
relationship between different aspects of sustainability and non-residential construction such
as offices, retail and commercial buildings.
1.3. The research objectives To compare and contrast different assessment methods;
To review the literature and to gain knowledge published by other researchers and
organisation on building assessment methods and their development progress;
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
3
To gain understanding of building assessment methods and their criteria and the
relationship between them;
To find strength and weaknesses of different tools as well as the elements of success of
implementation of those tools;
To investigate the current sustainability approach in non-residential construction
projects in Saudi Arabia in order to clarify which building assessment methods are used
in these projects (two pilot case studies are conducted).
To use Analytical Hierarchy Process Method (AHP) through pair-wise comparison to
scale each pair-wise comparison of the criteria and sub-criteria.
To weigh the scaled pair-wise comparison of criteria and sub-criteria based on
respondents’ opinions to meet the priorities.
To define the criteria for a non-residential building rating tool in Saudi Arabia.
2. ASSESSMENT TOOLS BACKGROUND
2.1. Sustainable Construction The term sustainable construction is the most comprehensive environmental solutions
that covers ecological, social and economic issues in construction industries (Kibert, 2008). It
was initially used to describe the responsibility of the construction sectors in accomplishment
of sustainability concepts (Hill and Bowen, 1997; Ding, 2005). In fact, the first definition for
sustainable construction goal was presented by the Conseil International du Batiment (CIB) as
’’Creating and operating a healthy built environment based on resource efficiency and ecological
design’’ (Kibert, 2008).
However, a description for ‘sustainable buildings’ has been given by Alwaer and
Clements-Croome (2010a) as a ‘‘Subset of sustainable development which requires a continuous
process of balancing all three systems environmental, social and economic sustainability’’.
Moreover, Godfaurd et al. (2005) defined sustainable buildings as "those buildings that have
minimum adverse impacts on the built and natural environment, in terms of the buildings
themselves, their immediate surroundings and the broader regional and global settings". It is clear
from this definition that the environment is the fundamental hub with sustainability revolving
around it. Furthermore, they also defined it as "…building practices, which strive for integral
quality (including economic, social and environmental performance) in a broad way. Thus, the
rational use of natural resources and appropriate management of the building stock will
contribute to saving scarce resources, reducing energy consumption, and improving environmental
quality" (Godfaurd et al., 2005). It is clear that sustainable development effectively fits in to such
a definition significantly. There is no debate that sustainability concept has changed the
conventional buildings criteria by reducing their consumptions and increasing their
environmental performance.
2.2. Environmental Performance of Buildings The performance of a building is a key indicator of its impact on the environment. Studies
have found that in the construction industry, diverse sectors are engaged which make the
defining term ’building performance’ very complex (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a). Indeed,
various parties who are involved in the buildings sector such as owners, investors and
occupants have their direct influence on buildings performance. For example, in practice, the
building’s owner and investor tend to define the building performance from a financial point of
view which falls under the economic performance while building’s occupants specify indoor
environment, comfort, health and safety as the main issues that affects a building performance
definition (Ding, 2008; Sev, 2011). Consequently, a building’s performance in terms of
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
4
sustainability can be divided into three groups; environmental performance, economical
performance and social performance.
2.3. Sustainable Buildings Rating Systems To guarantee the quality of sustainable construction, a sustainability rating method is
required. A report provided by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has defined
‘Sustainable building rating systems’ as ‘’tools that examine the performance or expected
performance of a ‘whole building’ and translate that examination into an overall assessment that
allows for comparison against other buildings’’ (Fowler and Rauch, 2006). In addition, according
to Ding (2008) ‘’As environmental issues become more urgent, more comprehensive building
assessment methods are required to assess building performance across a broader range of
environmental considerations’’
Since 1994 the number of environmental assessment methods has increased
considerably. It is evident that there is a high number of rating methods around the world (Reed
et al., 2009) (Figure 1 in appendix 1). This report aims to investigate the following sustainability
rating methods:
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method);
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design);
Green Star;
CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency);
Estidama.
A number of criteria are used in the application of these assessment tools. This report
outlines a brief about each rating system and compares some of the key features of these tools.
In addition, as some of these rating methods are applied in different countries, it will be
possible to compare their application in different environmental, economic and social settings.
A comparison of all the tools will be presented in order to deliver a clear idea of the most
suitable criteria for Saudi Arabia.
2.4. Building Assessment Tools 2.4.1. The BREEAM Rating Tool
BREEAM has a long track record in the United Kingdom having been developed in 1990 by
the U. K. Building Research Establishment (BRE). It is considered as the first green buildings
assessment method (Ding, 2008; Kibert, 2008; Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; Mao et al., 2009).
The main goal of developing the BREEAM method is to “Provide authoritative guidance on ways
of minimising the adverse effects of buildings on the global and local environments while
promoting a healthy and comfortable indoor environment” (Baldwin et al., 1998). Additionally,
different types of buildings have been included within this rating system such as offices, homes,
industrial units, retail units, and schools (Fowler and Rauch, 2006). The latest version of the
assessment system is BREEAM New Construction 2011. This new version of assessment tool has
updated all previous versions in one tool, while the old versions consist of several tools which
cover several types of buildings. For example, the BREEAM office tool version 2008 is only
applicable for office buildings, but not other types of buildings. However, there are different
BREEAM versions in respect of region such as BREEAM Gulf, BREEAM Hong Kong , BREEAM
Canada and BREEAM International (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; BRE, 2012a).
A. The BREEAM Weighting system, Ranking and Categories The evaluation of a building takes place in a given time using the BREEAM system,
whereby a total score is awarded through adding assessment weighting for each criterion
(Table 1). The BREEAM uses a fixed weighting system developed by BRE to provide a means of
defining, and ranking the relative impact of environmental issues (BRE, 2011). The assessment
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
5
Management
Health & Wellbeing
Energy
Transport
Water
Materials
Waste
Land Use and Ecology
Pollution
Innovation (additional)
system has different scores: Pass (30-44 points); Good (45- 54 points); Very Good (55- 69
points); Excellent (70- 84 points); Outstanding (85+ points) (Roderick et al., 2009).
Moreover, the different main categories in BREEAM, including the one additional
category in BREEAM New Construction 2011, are shown in figure 2 (BRE, 2011).
The additional category incorporated into the new version allows for an extra 10% credit
towards the improvement of the building’s performance and supports a building being awarded
a higher final score. Moreover, each category includes different aspects that contribute to the
final score and, overall, they cover most of a building’s facilities with respect to the environment
and human needs.
B. Standards standardised requirements for environmental assessment of buildings have been defined
by the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) (Sev, 2011). Accordingly, all
BREEAM activities have been formally certified by ISO 9001 (BRE, 2011). Moreover, to ensure
independence, competence and impartiality of BRE, the organisation has accredited by the
United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) for:
ISO 17024 (Conformity assessment - General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons) for BREEAM assessors. To ensure that an assessors have produced competent, accurate and professional services for a client.
BS EN 45011 (General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems) for the complete BREEAM assessment process. (BRE, 2011)
Also, the 2011 version of the BREEAM is associated with BRE Global International Code for A
Sustainable Built Environment. The Code is defined as ‘’a set of strategic principles and
requirements which define an integrated approach to the design, management, evaluation and
certification of the environmental, social and economic impacts of the built environment’’ (BRE,
2011).
C. The BREEAM Certification Process The assessment for BREEAM certification require licensed assessors as illustrated in
figure 3 (Saunders, 2008). The process starts with registration of the project through a form
assessed from extranet. This form can be submitted online or by post according to the scheme
appropriate to development, and then a reference number will be issued. Next, information
required will be collected by the assessor to establish compliance with BREEAM criteria. An
Environmental section Weighting
Management 12%
Health & Wellbeing 15%
Energy 19%
Transport 8%
Water 6%
Materials 12.5%
Waste 7.5%
Land Use & Ecology 10%
Pollution 10%
Total 100%
Innovation (additional) 10%
Figure 2. BREEAM Buildings Rating Method Categories
Table 1. The BREEAM assessment method weightings (BRE, 2011)
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
6
7 Certification
1 Registration
2 Assessment Reference
Number Issued
3 Information Collection
4 Assessment by Independent
BREEAM Assessor
5 Assessment report
submitted
6 Quality Assurance
process
Figure 3. BREEAM Certification Process (Saunders, 2008)
independent BREEAM assessor will then complete the assessment, calculates BREEAM rating
and submitted a report for Quality Assurance. The produced report outlining the performance
of the development against each of the criteria, its overall score and the BREEAM rating
achieved. Finally, and upon successful Quality Assurance, a BREEAM certificate will be issued
(Saunders, 2008).
2.4.2. The LEED Rating Tool LEED is an environmental assessment system that was developed in the United States and
was designed by the U. S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC), in order to transform the market for
green buildings (Sev, 2011). It is defined as “a framework for identifying, implementing, and
measuring green building and neighbourhood design, construction, operations, and maintenance’’
(USGBC, 2009b). This rating system was launched in 1998 as the trial version known as the
LEED Version 1.0. Due to the success of the development of the version, LEED was sponsored
for a pilot to test its assumptions to evaluate eighteen projects containing more than 93,000
square meters. Nevertheless, this version was influenced by BREEAM approaches in building
assessment against multiple categories and award credits (Sleeuw, 2011).
However, LEED 2.0 has been developed in 2000, incorporating great improvements and
provide maximum of 69 credits and four different ratings: Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze
building certification (Kibert, 2008). Furthermore, in 2009 the latest version of LEED developed
as LEED-NC 2009 and has been consistently used for most building types except single-family
homes (Kibert, 2008). The 2009 version of LEED is different than previous versions by a
number of achievement points with 110 (Kibert, 2007). Currently, LEED is the second
worldwide most used building assessment method (Sleeuw, 2011). However, almost all the
studies agree that BREEAM and LEED can be considered as the foundation for most assessment
rating tools around the world (Reed et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2011).
A. The LEED Weighting system, Ranking and Categories To achieve LEED-NC2009 a building is awarded a total score using a point system for
each criterion (Table 2), with the assessment producing one of the four possible ratings:
Certified (40-49 points); Silver (50-59 points); Gold (60-79 points); Platinum (80+ points)
(Roderick et al., 2009). In fact, the assessment considers all various parameters through
different categories which are included in LEED as shown in figure 4 (USGBC, 2009a).
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
7
7 Certification
1 Eligibility of building for certification
2 Registration
3 CIR Submission
4 Document preparing
5 Document Submission
6 Receipt of final
assessment
It can be seen that the LEED categories concentrate on a building’s performance relating
to environmental sources such as water, energy and materials. As a result, LEED is used not just
in the USA, but also in Canada, Spain, China and India (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a). These
globally spread notion of sustainable buildings is helping this assessment method to be an
international assessment tool along with BREEAM
B. The LEED Certification Process
According to Kibert (2008) LEED certification needs a great care and attention during the
entire assessment certification process in order to achieve all steps in the documentation
process successfully. Building’s documentation preparation is followed by registration of the
building with the USGBC as illustrated in figure 5. The preparation process is project’s team
responsibility; to ensure that building is compatible with assessment criteria (Saunders, 2008).
Furthermore, USGBC will be ensuring and documenting that the scheme meets the requirement
of the appropriate LEED assessment. However, if the project included features that do not fit
with LEED criteria, a Compliance Interpretation Request (CIR) is required. Moreover, preparing
documents that proved building’s attainability at least the minimum number of points to
achieve at least minimum rating. Then, online submission of the prepared documents is carried
out. The USGBC will process the information and submit for final assessment. Final notification
will be received from the USGBC once the project has been certified (Kibert, 2008).
LEED Categories Possible Points
Sustainable Site 26
Water efficiency 10
Energy and atmosphere 35
Materials and Resources 14
Indoor Environment Quality 15
Total 100
Innovation and design process 6
Regional Priority Credit 4
Figure 4. LEED Buildings Rating Method Categories
Sustainable Sites
Regional Priority Credits
Innovation and Design Process
Indoor Environmental
Quality
Materials and Resources
Energy and Atmosphere
Water Efficiency
Table 2. LEED Points Distribution (USGBC, 2009a)
Figure 5. LEED Certification Process (Kibert, 2008)
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
8
Management
Indoor Environment
Quality
Energy
Transport
Water Materials
Land Use & Ecology
Emissions
Innovation
2.4.3. Green Star Rating Tool Green Star is an Australian environmental rating system launched in 2003 which was
developed by the Green Building Council Australia (GBCA, 2012). The assessment tool was
originally developed to accommodate buildings’ requirements in hot climates, where cooling
systems and solar shading are considered as being of fundamental importance (Roderick et al.,
2009). The council designed the tool to deliver the needs of the environment and the people in
their buildings through different purposes: to reduce the impact of buildings on the
environment (environmental purpose); to enhance the health and productivity of the buildings’
users (humanity purpose) and to achieve cost savings (economic purpose) (GBCA, 2012). Green
Star is concerned with delivering sustainability in the building sector in a practical way. The
latest version of Green Star was launched recently in 2011, for use in the new and refurbished
office buildings.
In addition each assessment method has its own rating system to deliver the purpose of
the tool. Green Star has a credit points system for each criterion (Table 3) that helps buildings
be awarded the rating method assessment: 1-3 Stars (10 – 44 points); 4 Stars (45 – 59); 5 Stars
(60 – 74 points); 6 Stars (75 +) (Roderick et al., 2009). These assessment points are awarded by
examining a building through various categories. As it can be seen, different assessment
methods have different categories that drive to deliver sustainability in buildings. The
Australian rating method has various categories that cover most aspects of a building as shown
in figure 6 (GBCA, 2012).
It is clear that the main goal of the most of these categories is to target a building’s
impacts on the environment and provide a healthy and comfortable interior for a building’s
occupants. It has been found that one of the main features of this tool is its flexibility in its
rating system, as all the tool’s credits are not available for every project (Roderick et al.,
2009). This feature helps the tool to deal with every building as a unique case, which supports
the rating system to be successfully used globally. The reason behind such flexibility is that
Green Star has designed on various systems and tools from around the world, such as BREEAM,
and LEED (GBCA, 2012).
Green Star Categories Possible Points
Management 12
Indoor Environment Quality 27
Energy 29
Transportation 11
Water 12
Materials 25
Land use and Ecology 8
Emission 19
Total 143
Innovation 5
Figure 6. Green Star Buildings Rating Method Categories
Table 3. Green Star Categories credit distribution (GBCA, 2012)
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
9
2.4.4. CASSBEE Rating Tool The Japanese Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) is the developer of the
environmental assessment method CASBEE that evaluates and rates the environmental
performance of buildings. It was launched in 2001 and the first assessment tool for office
buildings was completed in 2002. In fact, CASBEE includes different assessment tools which
comprise on an assessment method that is designed to accommodate different scales:
construction (residential and non-residential buildings) and urban (town and city
development). In addition, the assessment tools developed as required (Reed et al., 2011) which
contain a number of main tools; New construction (Tool-1); Existing building (Tool-2);
Renovation (Tool-3); Heat Island (Tool-4) and Urban development (Tool-21). The latest version
of CASBEE is NEW construction 2010 in which consideration is given to three main principles in
the development of tool to gain maximum environmental benefits which are listed as follows:
Comprehensive assessment throughout the life cycle of the building;
Assessment of Building Environmental ‘’Built Environment Quality (Q)’’ and ‘’ Built
Environmental Lode (L)’’;
Assessment based on the newly-developed Building Environment Efficiency (BEE)
indicator. (IBEC, 2011)
CASBEE defines Built Environment Quality (Q) as’’ Evaluates improvement in living amenity for
the building users, within the hypothetical enclosed space (the private property)’’; Built
Environmental Lode (L) defined as ‘’ Evaluates negative aspects of environmental impact which
go beyond the hypothetical enclosed space to the outside (the public property)’’ (IBEC, 2011)
As with most environmental assessment methods, CASBEE has a number of rating credits
to label a building after completing the system’s examination: Poor (C), Slightly Poor (B-), Good
(B+), Very Good (A), Superior (S). These classifications are awarded through examining a
building under different assessment categories that guarantee the application of the concepts of
sustainability in the construction. However, CASBEE has different assessment categories from
BREEAM, LEED and Green Star. It has two main categories which are (Q) Building
Environmental Quality and Performance and (LR) Reduction of Building Environment Loading.
Each category is divided into three categories, (Q) including (Q-1) Indoor Environment; (Q-2)
Quality of Service and (Q-3) Outdoor Environment on site. LR also has three other categories
incorporating (LR-1) Energy, (LR-2) Resources and Materials and (LR-3) off-site Environment.
The system’s categories are shown in figure 7 (IBEC, 2011).
Moreover, BEE is considered as a tool indictor and it is an additional process that a
building goes through to be awarded the assessment. It could be defined as the following
equation calculation:
( )
( )
It appears that all the categories focus strongly on the environmental issues. It could be said that
the tool categories are based on a building’s life cycle which plays a key role in the assessment
method.
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
TO
OL
S B
AC
KG
RO
UN
D
10
(Q) Indoor Environment
(Q) Quality of Service
(Q) Outdoor Environment
on Site
(L) Energy
(L) Resources
and Materials
(L) Off-site Environment
2.4.5. Estidama Rating Tool Estidama is the first environmental assessment method developed in the Middle East
especially in the Arabian Gulf countries. It means ‘’Sustainability’’ in Arabic and it was developed
in 2008 by the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (AUPC) in the UAE. The assessment method
has a ratings tool called The Pearl Rating System (PRS) that helps to deliver sustainable
development efficiently. The main aim of using PRS is to address the sustainability in a building
throughout its entire lifecycle design, construction and operation. It rates a building’s potential
performance by five different assessments: 1 Pearl, 2 Pearl, 3 Pearl, 4 Pearl and 5 Pearl (AUPC,
2010b).
In addition, the assessed building can be awarded at least 1 Pearl point which contains a
number of required credits for each criterion (Table 4). However, the system has 66 optional
credits that encourage the building to achieve high pearl rating. For example, to achieve a 2
Pearl rating a building should pass all the required credits plus 60 credit points. Moreover,
those credits can be awarded through different categories as shown in figure 8 (AUPC, 2010b).
Estidama Categories Maximum Credit Points
Integrated Development Process 13 Natural System 12 Livable Buildings 37 Precious Water 43 Resourceful Energy 44 Stewarding Materials 28 Innovation Practice 3
Total 177
Figure 7. CASBEE Buildings Rating Method Categories
Table 4. Estidama Assessment credit distribution (AUPC, 2010a)
LIT
RA
TU
RE
RE
VIE
W
11
Integrated Development
Process
Natural Systems
Livable Buildings
Precious Water
Resourceful Energy
Stewarding Materials
Innovating Practice
Further, each category covers different aspects in the build environment. Indeed, the
system is built on four pillars: Environmental; Economic; Cultural and Social. The government of
the United Arab Emirates started applying Estidama on new buildings in Abu Dhabi from 2010.
However, the system is still under the development process to cover all buildings’ types around
the UAE.
3. LITRATURE REVIEW
Assessment methods of the build environment have become a popular research field in
recent times (Haapio, 2008c). A number of papers have compared, reviewed and even
presented different building environmental rating tools. It has been found that different
comparison units have been considered in order to deliver sustainability efficiently and to
recognise the gap within an assessment method which will allow for development (Haapio and
Viitaniemi, 2008a; Buttler and Stoy, 2009). It is also found that such side-by-side comparisons of
different starting points provides for the generation of applicable methods in countries keen to
develop new assessment tools (Cole, 2005).
3.1. Review the use of tools Table 5 in appendix 3 presents a summary of the work conducted by various researchers.
The aim of each study, the tools evaluated, the parameters studied and some of the main results
are presented. A large number of tools have been used around the world. However, it can be
seen from table 5 that almost all the studies have used either BREEAM or LEED or both of them
in terms of comparing, analysing and reviewing; indeed, they both predate the other tools by
almost a decade. Most of these new tools have been developed in different countries, but have
been clearly influenced by both BREEAM and LEED. Additionally, Rahardjati et al. (2010) linked
this pre-existence of BREEAM AND LEED to the reason that energy efficiency consistently
appears as the main criteria in all new assessment methods, Mao et al. (2009) have argued that
BREEAM has influenced most assessment methods whether directly or indirectly as shown in
figure 9.
However, recently CASBEE and Green Star have attracted the attention of researchers as
they are being used beside BREEAM and LEED to provide comprehensive development systems
Figure 8. Estidama Assessment Method Categories
LIT
RA
TU
RE
RE
VIE
W
12
Figure 9. Green Building Rating Tools Relationships (Mao et al., 2009: 3)
(Sinou and Kyvelou, 2006; Ding, 2008; Ali and Al Nsairat, 2009; Mao et al., 2009; Reed et al.,
2009; Roderick et al., 2009; Sebake, 2009; Reed et al., 2011; Lee, 2012). This attention to the use
of the different tools is a result of examining different environments and climates.
However, different tools have unique characteristics associated with their country of
origin which could be considered as a barrier to reaching international status (Reed et al.,
2009). The characteristic concepts, as proved by Zuhairuse et al. (2009), through applying an
international assessment method (the GBTool) on a Malaysian case, found such a method to be
unsuitable for that country as a great number of adjustments would have to be made. Both
Zuhairuse et al. (2009) and Reed et al. (2009) prove that each country should design its own
assessment method. Moreover, Reed et al. (2009) present a useful work for global comparison
of sustainable rating tool in order to find an international tool that could use on a global level. It
has suggested that issues which are addressed in environmental rating tools mostly related to
three different issues levels: Global, Local and Internal environment (Cole, 1999). For instance,
one of the global environmental issues is sourcing and consumption of energy. However, some
issues on the local level could affect the importance of those in the global level. For example,
water is also one of global issues and it was considered as significant measure in Australia as
result of the drought, while it is not an important measure in Northern region of the UK where
heavy downpours are common in this area. It could be infer that sustainability plays an
important role in an environmental rating tool. In fact, building assessment methods developed
to deliver sustainable development concepts efficiently within buildings sector through
addressing those issues. Nevertheless, the absence of an international tool does not prevent the
achievement of progress towards more sustainable buildings (Reed et al., 2009). Nowadays,
important aspects such as economic, social and cultural issues are considered as the major
obstacles to achieving a comprehensive tool.
3.2. Economic, Cultural and Social aspects It is a fact that the assessment method must deliver improved environmental
performance in the construction sector. However, most of the current assessment tools focus on
environmental aspects such as energy, landscape, resources, emissions and the indoor
environment quality (Sinou and Kyvelou, 2006; Poston et al., 2010). It can be seen in table 5 that
the environmental aspects are a global issue and concern for most existing rating tools (Mao et
al., 2009; Poston et al., 2010). Consequently, just an environmental evaluation is presented by
these tools. Understanding of the concepts of sustainability has improved internationally, which
shows the requirement of more comprehensive sustainability measurement methods in the
future (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; Sebake, 2009). A number of studies have presented the
three pillars or dimensions of sustainability, which are the environmental, economic and social
aspects (Hill and Bowen, 1997; Cole, 2005; Sinou and Kyvelou, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2009; Mao et
al., 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Alwaer and Clements-Croome, 2010). Parallel to those pillars, a
BREEAM
LEED SBTool/GBTool
BCA-GM CASBEE
Direct influence
Indirect influence
ESGB
LIT
RA
TU
RE
RE
VIE
W
13
study has pointed out three images of sustainability: Natural, Cultural and Technical images
(Poston et al., 2010).
There is no doubt that environmental issues have significant importance, but
consideration of other aspects of sustainability will deliver successful sustainable assessment
tools (Ding, 2008; Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a). Todd et al. (2001) found that the
consideration of economic, social and cultural aspects are responsible for different types of
barriers and opportunities that developing countries could face in designing their own domestic
rating methods. While,Forsberg and von Malmborg (2004); Sinou and Kyvelou (2006); Haapio
and Viitaniemi (2008a); Mao et al. (2009) found that these aspects are required for delivering
sustainability successfully. Moreover, Poston et al. (2010) mentioned that though a number of
assessment tools have shifted their emphasis from green to sustainable buildings, there has
been criticism of the dominance of environmental criteria at the expense of the social and
economic criteria.
Ali and Al Nsairat (2009) present economic and cultural aspects, but link their
importance with the local context. It is believed that local context determines the importance of
economic, social and cultural aspects as a result of their variation from one country to another.
For instance, social and cultural aspects in Arabic countries such as Saudi Arabia play an
important role in those countries, while economic aspects are the important ones in developed
countries. This example is corroborated by Cole (2005) who considers the social and economic
aspects as important in developing countries with different aspects holding importance in
developed countries. So it can be seen that Reed et al. (2009) consider economic, social and
cultural aspects as unique characteristics that could prevent a tool take-up. Such importance can
be inferred from the table 5 which includes different studies (Ali and Al Nsairat, 2009;
Zuhairuse et al., 2009; Al-Sallal et al., 2012) that have developed environmental assessment
tools for different developing countries. It is noticeable that a number of developing countries
have started developing their domestic assessment methods to be suitable with their
environment, and economic, social, cultural and historical contexts (Todd et al., 2001) .
Therefore, it is clear that different papers have debated the engagement of economic,
social and cultural aspects in building assessment methods which is a strong indicator of their
importance. In fact, those aspects could significantly affect current environmental assessment
methods such as BREEAM and LEED if action is not taken. For example, most countries start
their assessment method instead using the available existing tools as result of their lack for
cultural aspects. Evidence has been given by a new generation of assessment methods
appearing as a result of increasing the demand to consider economic and cultural aspects in
assessment tools such as Estidama (Poston et al., 2010).
3.3. Systems Categories 3.3.1. Qualitative and Quantitative
Reijnders and van Roekel (1999); Forsberg and von Malmborg (2004); Sebake (2009)
divided assessment tools into two categories: Qualitative and Quantitative assessment methods.
The qualitative assessment tools (the subject of this study) are often based on the auditing of
buildings, followed by the rating of assessed criteria, which results in an overall score for the
performance of a building (Sebake, 2009). A number of commonly used assessment tools are
included in this category, such as BREEAM, LEED and Green Star. However, the quantitative
assessment methods depend on a physical life cycle approach which requires quantitative input
and output data on flows of matter and energy (Forsberg and von Malmborg, 2004). The
quantitative class of assessment methods is also referred to as LCA tools and it includes a
number of tools such as ATHENA and Eco-Quantum schemes (Sebake, 2009).
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
14
Additionally, quantitative criteria cover annual energy use, water consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, although qualitative criteria comprise impact on ecological values of
the site and impact on local wind patterns (Ding, 2008). It is clear that these criteria are used in
the assessment methods which have led to the belief that assessing the environmental
performance of a building requires both qualitative and quantitative criteria (Ding,
2008). Quantitative criteria tend to be objective, reproducible, and reliable. On the contrary,
qualitative criteria can be interpreted widely by assessors, and requires substantial resources
from unbiased third party. To avoid such criticism, misinterpretation can be reduced by giving
careful attention to the descriptions of qualitative criteria (Cole, 1999).
3.3.2. Tools Development Roots Poston et al. (2010) classify a range of nationally available assessment tools depending
on their development roots. Three roots have been given; tools based on Green Building
Challenge (GBC) frameworks, tools based on LEED and tools based on the analysis of other
existing tools. This third class considers culture as a unique assessment criterion. However,
Poston et al. (2010) consider BREEAM as the common reference for most assessment methods.
Such consideration is agreeable with the influence of BREEAM on most rating tools mentioned
by Mao et al. (2009) and Rahardjati et al. (2010).
3.3.3. Systems Criteria The prime role for the criteria is to achieve an environmental building assessment method
goal which ‘’provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of a
building’’ (Ding, 2008). Systems criteria and its structure have significant effects on the
performance evaluation of an assessment method (Cole, 2005). This is supported by Ali and Al
Nsairat (2009) who suggest that the system categories define the external boundaries of a tool
which is different from one region to another. Therefore, systems criteria are different from one
tool to another as a result of continuous development applied to tools criteria to deliver
different market, professionals’ and owners’ aspirations.
In fact, it can be seen that most of the comparison units in table 5 (Appendix 3) include
tools criteria which indicate their importance for a built system. It is clear that the effect of
chosen criteria has a significant influence on the assessment results of rating tools. Rahardjati et
al. (2010) point out that through criteria and sub criteria the Green Building Rating System
(GBRS) allows the evaluation of a building performance and provides a rating award. This
illustrates the importance of criteria within a system where there is a reliance on the tools in
those categories to measure the overall performance of a building.
Additionally, most of the assessment methods features such as flexibility and weighting
systems link significantly with systems criteria (Ding, 2008). Inflexibility, complexity and lack of
consideration of a weighting system have been considered as major obstacles to the acceptance
of an assessment method (Ding, 2008). It is clear that the role of system’s criteria is important in
building assessment method.
4. TOOLS COMPARISON OVERVIEW
BREEAM and LEED are the most commonly used tools internationally among the selected
tools as shown in tables 5 (Sebake, 2009). Nevertheless, table 6 highlights the most features that
distinguish each assessment tool. According to Ding (2008) life cycle assessment is linked with
building assessment method. It includes different building phases; design, construction,
operation and deconstruction. However, design, construction and operation phases are
considered in all potential assessment methods (BREEAM, LEED, Green Star, CASBEE and
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
15
Estidama) as shown in table 6. However, CASBEE is the only tool that considers deconstruction
stage. This stage plays an important role in building life cycle (Mao et al., 2009). Deconstruction
stage is not affected the application of the tool because this stage could be add to a tool while
developing it regularly. Further, Ding (2008) found that the most impact stage to apply a tool is
the design stage and it is included in all rating tools.
4.1. Tools Categories System’s categories are broadly comparable however, as result of the differences in their
parameters, they are not directly comparable (Sleeuw, 2011). Therefore, this report will
compare BREEAM, LEED, Green Star, CASBEE and Estidama based on the three dimensions of
sustainability. This can be categorised as Environmental, Economic, Social and Cultural. In
reference to the literature review for the most commonly used building assessment tools, the
research defines energy, water, waste, materials, indoor environment quality, emission and
pollution, land use, site and ecology and management as environmental aspects to mention but
a few. While defining economic aspects cost efficiency and quality of services will be focused
and addressed. Finally, innovation, mobility and transportation will be defined in the context of
the cultural and social issues as social aspects (Table 7).
4.1.1. Environmental Aspects
i. Energy
On the account of its impacts on the environment as well as its vitality for construction
sector; energy is considered as key category in all assessment methods (Table 7). Furthermore,
it also obtains the largest credit points amongst all assessment categories (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4).
BREEAM measures the building Energy performance (BEP) considering the reduction of CO2
emission having the target of net zero emission. This target is met following the standards of the
UK National Calculation Methodology (NCM) Part L in order to acquire maximum points of the
total score (Table 9). LEED emphasises upon the reduction of energy cost rather than CO2
emission following the standards of American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
conditioning Engineering (ASHRAE) in order to achieve maximum credit points in the total
score (Table 9). The difference between BREEAM and LEED appears in their measurement
methods in the category of energy assessment (Table 8) (Figure 1 in Appendix 4). Green Star
follows the BREEAM method for measuring BEP by predicting emissions reduction in relation to
National Australian Built Environmental Rating System (NABERS) Energy methodology.
Estidama assesses BEP following the different standards such as American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), ASHRAE and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
Standard or based on local code, whichever is more stringent (Table 9). CASBEE has a different
approach to assess BEP by focusing on the improvement percentage on annual energy use in
relation to Performance Rating Method (PRM) based on PAL values; with applied efficiency in
building service system and efficient operation to the energy category.
ii. Water
Water preservation is one of the most important elements in human life. However,
construction sector consumes about 15% of overall fresh water resources (Saghafi and Hosseini
Teshnizi, 2011). Thus, water is considered as a key category in all five assessment tools in order
to encourage the proper use of water in construction sector (Table 7). To achieve this aim,
number of alternative sources have been considered such as recycling grey water and rain
water harvesting to mention but a few (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012).
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
16
Most of the water parameters are evaluated in the five assessment methods shown in
table 10. Nevertheless, due to limited annual rainfall, hot climate, and the great energy
embodied to provide potable water through desalination in the United Arab Emirates, Estidama
is the only tool that considers water conservation as priority criteria (Table 4).
iii. Waste
Waste is defined as ‘’unused materials and products, off-cuts left over from construction,
refurbishment or demolition activities, or by-products and materials consumed during business
activities and building management and maintenance’’ (Casey et al., 2008). Additionally, it is
overlapped by other categories such as water, materials, resources and indoor environment
quality. It is important to note that waste has become a challenging task to achieve
sustainability. Therefore, the majority of waste criteria as shown in table 7 and its parameters
as shown in table 11 have been kept as very important category in all five assessment methods.
Waste management and recycling are the most prominent features in waste criteria in which
they could prevent human and the surrounding environment from negative impacts of waste
(Casey et al., 2008).
iv. Materials
Building Materials are important elements in environmental assessment methods due to
their impacts on building users and the environment (Franzoni, 2011; Alyami and Rezgui,
2012). Moreover, materials are overlapped by other criteria such as energy, pollution, waste,
resources and indoor environment quality. The definition of sustainable materials or green
materials does not exist yet, hence it is commonly reflected using the term as ’environmentally
friendly materials’ instead (Franzoni, 2011).
As shown in table 7 all five schemes included materials as main assessment category.
Different parameters have been considered in this category in order to be measured (Table 12).
Materials in terms of low impacts on the environment, use re-use materials and disassembly
design are covered under all five schemes as shown in table 12. Comparatively, BREEAM
emphasises on materials type which has more specific parameters in related with materials
category. According to Alyami and Rezgui (2012) Green Guide to Specification released by
BREEAM could be the reason beyond this change in the list of parameters for the criteria of
materials. Particularly, The Green Guide to Specification contains, more than 1500 specifications
used in various types of buildings. It helps designers and decision makers to compare and make
decisions about materials in relation to material criteria such as materials performance, the
environmental impacts and responsible sourcing (BRE, 2012b) (Table 12). On the other hand,
LEED emphasised on where materials are used in a building with poor consideration of
responsible sources. Though LEED, CASBEE and Estidama encourage for use of locally
manufactured materials, they are not as strong as BREEAM for addressing materials criteria. In
terms of cost consideration, Estidama and Green star assess materials whilst calculating its cost
in relation of building construction.
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
17
BREEAM LEED Green star CASBEE Estidama
Developer &Year the U. K. Building Research Establishment (BRE); 1990
the U. S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC); 1998
Green Building Council Australia (GBCA); 2002
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC); 2001
Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (UPC); 2008
Building Phases Design, Construction and
Operation Design, Construction and
Operation Design, Construction and
Operation
Design, Construction, Operation and Deconstruction
Design, Construction and Operation(under development)
Buildings Types
-Offices -Housing -Healthcare -Courts -Industrial Units -Prisons -Retail -Schools -Multi Residential - Schools Neighbourhoods
-Offices -Homes -Neighbourhoods Development -Retail -Healthcare -Schools
-Education -Healthcare -Industrial -Multi Residential -Office -Office Interiors -Retail Centre
-Residential -Office -Schools -Retail -Health care -Urban development -Cities
-Offices -Retail -Multi-Residential -School
Scope -New build -Refurbishment -Existing building
-New build -Refurbishment -Existing building
-New build -Refurbishment -Existing building
-New build -Refurbishment -Existing building
-New building -Existing building
Categories
-Management -Health & Wellbeing -Energy -Transport -Water -Materials -Land Use and Ecology -Waste -Pollution -Innovation (additional)
-Sustainable Site -Water Efficiency -Energy and Atmosphere -Materials and Resources -Indoor Environment Quality -Innovation and Design Process -Regional Priority Credits
-Management -Indoor Environment Quality -Energy -Transport -Water -Materials -Land Use and Ecology -Emissions -Innovation
Environmental Quality (Q)
-Integrated Development Process -Natural Systems -Livable Buildings -Precious Water -Resourceful Energy -Stewarding Materials -Innovating Practice
-Indoor Environment -Quality of Service -Outdoor Environment on site
Environmental Load (L)
-Energy -Resources and Materials -Off-site Environment.
BEE (Building Environmental Efficiency)= Q/L
Rating
-Pass -Good -Very Good -Excellent -Outstanding
-Certified -Silver -Gold -Platinum
-1 – 3 Stars -4 Stars -5 Stars -6 Stars
-Poor (c) -Slightly Poor(B-) -Good(B+) -Very Good (A) -Superior (S)
- 1 Pearl - 2 Pearl - 3 Pearl - 4 Pearl - 5 Pearl
Update process Annual As required Annual As required Not available
Number of certificated Buildings
7,202 2,858 78 80 Not available
International use Canada, Hong Kong and
Netherlands Emirates, India and Brazil
New Zealand and South Africa
- -
Table 6. Table of Environmental Rating Tools Features (USGBC, 2009a; AUPC, 2010a; BRE, 2011; IBEC, 2011; GBCA, 2012)
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
18
Table 7. Comparison Table of Rating Tools Categories
Table 8. Comparison Table of Energy Category of Rating Tools
v. Indoor Environment Quality The quality of indoor environment is considered as key objective in all building
assessment methods (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012) due to its overlapping feature with other
categories. It aims to provide healthy and comfortable indoor place in respect of visual comfort,
sound comfort and thermal comfort as shown in table 13. All five schemes cover this category as
show in table 7 with respect to different elements. BREEAM covers this category under ‘health
and wellbeing’ while giving importance for ventilation and HVAC systems. At the same time
LEED covers this category focusing upon low-emitting materials criteria and ignores the
parameters of sound insulation and sound absorption while only considering noise level
(Kawazu et al., 2005; Alyami and Rezgui, 2012) (Table 13). Green Star has emphasised on air
condition systems and lighting. Moreover, CASBEE covers indoor environment quality well
enough under the sub category of indoor quality (Q1) of Built Environment Quality category (Q).
It also further supports this category by including most of the parameters from Quality of service
category which is also the sub-category (Q2) of the Built Environment Quality. Furthermore,
Estidama assesses indoor environment quality under Livable Indoors category with more
consideration for materials emission and thermal comfort. However, BREEAM and Estidama are
the only tools covering safe and security environment in indoor quality environment category
(Table 13).
Items BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Energy
Water
Waste Materials Indoor Environment Quality Economics Management Mobility and Transportation Emission and Pollution Land Use, Site and Ecology Resources
Cultural and Social
Energy Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASSBE Estidama Energy Performance
HVAC System Lighting System Transportation Systems Hot Water System Cost Reduction Energy efficient Equipment
Energy Operation Monitoring Emission reduction
Energy Resources Renewable Energy Energy Strategies
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
19
Table 9. Comparison Table of Energy assessment method of Rating Tools
Table 10. Comparison Table of Water Category of Rating Tools
BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Assessment Method
UK National Calculation
Methodology (NCM) based on Approved Document Part L.
Performance rating method
(PRM) based on ASHRAE 90.1-
2004 Appendix G
National Australian Built Environmental Rating System
(NABERS) Energy
methodology
Performance rating method
(PRM) based on PAL values.
Performance rating method (PRM) based on ANSI/ ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G or
local code, whichever is more stringent
Scope of assessment
Energy performance certificate (EPC)
rating: CO2 based index
Improvement percentage based on annual energy
cost
Predicted GHG emission
Improvement percentage based on annual energy
use
Improvement percentage based on
annual energy consumption
Simulation tool
Approved software interfaces to SBEM method. Approved
Dynamic Simulation Modelling software
Software approved by the rating authority and subject to
requirements in ASHRAE 90.1-
2004 Appendix G
Software must meet the
requirements laid down in
Green Star Office Design Tool
HASP/ACSS and BECS and BEST
or able to simulate the
hour-by-hour energy
Software approved by the rating authority
and subject to requirements specified
in Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1-2007
Water Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Potable water Consumption Monitoring Leak Detection Alternative Sources Irrigation use Grey water Heat Rejection Reduction Landscaping Water Quality
Waste Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Construction waste management
Operational waste
Waste strategies
Recycling
Materials Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Low impact on life cycle Responsible Sourcing Used of Re-use Materials Use of Existing structural Frame Use of non-structural Materials Renewable Materials Insulation Region Materials Disassembly Design Materials Cost
Table 11. Comparison Table of Waste Category of Rating Tools
Table 12. Comparison Table of Materials Category of Rating Tools
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
20
vi. Emissions and Pollutions As responding to Global Warming issues, most building assessment methods utilised
emission and pollution in their assessment criteria. The prime goal of this assessment category
is to protect the surrounding environment from the negative impacts of the building (Alyami
and Rezgui, 2012). In addition, it provides healthy and comfortable environment for building
users (Cole, 2000). As shown in table 7, all five assessment schemes cover the issues of
emissions and pollutions.
However, each tool assesses emissions and pollutions using various methods. BREEAM,
Green Star and CASBEE are the only tools dedicated the issue as an individual category, whilst
LEED and Estidama distribute the themes of emissions and pollutions across the scoring
process. BREEAM covers the issue under Pollution category which evaluates refrigerant issues
beside the number of pollutions and emissions such as CO2 and NOx emissions (Table 14).
Similarly, Green Star addresses the same problems almost like BREEAM but under Emission
category. CASBEE deals with emissions and pollutions under consideration of local environment
criterion.
In contrast, LEED and CASBEE evaluate Heat island effects criterion while it is overlooked
in BREEAM, Green Star and Estidama (Kawazu et al., 2005). Nevertheless, CASBEE considers
local environment of Japan and measures parameters which cannot be found in other
Indoor Environment Quality Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Visual Comfort Lighting
Link with surrounding area- View out
Average daylight factor The amount of light (illuminance)
Glare control
Sound Comfort Noise level
Sound insulation Sound absorption
Thermal Comfort Ventilation rate
Ventilation system
Performance of natural ventilation
Ventilation sensors
Outside air intakes
Supply of fresh air
Smoke Control
Room temperature & humidity control
Occupants control
Design
Safe and Secure environment
Emission and Pollution Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Refrigerant ODP Refrigerant GWP Refrigerant Leaks Light pollution Noise pollution Watercourse pollution Legionella Heat Island Effect CO2 emission NOx emission Fire Risk
Table 13. Comparison Table of Indoor Environment Quality Category of Rating Tools
Table 14. Comparison Table of Emissions and Pollutions Category of Rating Tools
TO
OL
S C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OV
ER
VIE
W
21
assessment methods such as Earthquake Resistance and Restriction of Wind Damage (IBEC,
2011). Whilst, Estidama emphasises on refrigerant issues due to the higher demand of air-
condition system.
vii. Land use, Site and Ecology Land use, site and ecology are the most important categories that relate to building
environmental effect directly. The main purpose for these categories are to mitigate the effects
of construction activities on site ecology (Akadiri et al., 2012) such as soil erosion, waterway
sedimentation and airborne dust generation (USGBC, 2009a). The application of land use
category focuses on site selection, site reuse and site protection criteria, thereby results in
reduction of soil erosion and groundwater contamination along with the improvement of land
ecology (Table 15). Land use and ecology is a main category in BREEAM and Green Star which
uses 10% of BREEAM weighting system (Table 1) and 8% of Green Star weighting system
(Table 3) consequently. In contrast, LEED uses Sustainable Site category to assess land use and
ecology in construction site with 26 of the possible points (Table 2). The issue of land use and
ecology is considered in CASSBE under Outdoor environment on-site category, while under
Estidama, it is considered as Natural system and Livable Outdoors categories with total weight of
12 and 37 credit points (Table 4).
As shown in table 15 all five assessment methods cover almost a same criteria of land use
and ecology. However, each method has applied them differently. BREEAM has considered the
creation of ecology as the most important criterion, whilst under LEED; site selection is a highly
important. Green star pays more attention to the ecological value of site, while CASBEE focuses
on the local characteristics of the site, townscape and landscape. Estidama focuses more on
natural resource management, sustainable land use and creation and restoration of habitat
(Kawazu et al., 2005). Basically, the criteria of Townscape and Landscape, Local Characteristics
and Out-door Amenity are not given that much importance in BREEAM, LEED and Green Star,
however, they are given considerably much importance in CASBEE and Estidama.
viii. Management Management category plays an important role in building assessment methods. It also
impacts significantly on the relationship between construction design and operation (Cole,
2000). In buildings assessment methods, where management is not available as a category for
assessment, it is included in other categories such as energy, materials, waste and pollution as
parameters (Clements-Croome et al., 2004) . BREEAM and Green Star consider management as a
separate category, whilst LEED, CASBEE and Estidama distribute parameters of management
across different assessment categories.
Land use and Ecology Criteria BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama Land use
Site selection Site Re-use Site Protection
Ecological Value Contaminated Land Land Ecological Value Protection of ecological features Enhance site ecology Conservation of natural habitats Mitigation ecological impact Use of Green space Habitat management plan
Table 15. Comparison Table of Land use and Ecology Category of Rating Tools
ME
TH
OD
OL
OG
Y
22
Along with managing impacts of construction on site, management category aims to
consider whole-life cycle of building. It ensures suitable level of commissioning and provides
building operation and maintenance guidelines for building users (Table 16). Commissioning
and environmental management are the common management sub-categories covered in all
five schemes. Green star focuses on commissioning and environmental management, while
CASBEE prioritises planning and management of maintenance. Estidama and LEED explicitly
address the management of indoor air quality and materials. However, Estidama covers more
management category than LEED such as providing user guidelines and site protection during
construction activities.
Management Category BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE Estidama
Commissioning Tool accredited professional Stakeholder participation Building whole life plan Building occupants guide Construction site impacts Environmental management Maintenance management
Table 16 illustrates that BREEAM delivers the theme of sustainable management
principles more comprehensively than LEED and CASBEE (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012). BREEAM
is the only tool that highlights importance of stakeholder participation. As all relevant parties
are identified and consulted by the design team before key design decisions are made (BRE,
2011).
5. METHODOLOGY
The research is divided into five different stages to deliver the project’s aim as follows:
1) Understanding building rating methods by critically reviewing literature,
2) Compare five different tools from different parts of the world;
3) Multiple-pilot case studies;
4) In-depth interviews to establish the importance of the selected criteria;
5) Data analysis.
Each stage has different categories to deliver it successfully.
5.1. Intended knowledge from reviewing the Literature The research intends to find different results from reviewing the literature. The expected
findings from the literature review are listed as follows:
Understanding the nature of different tools which helps to engage in the field smoothly.
Gaining the ability to find strengths and weaknesses in each tool which is required to
develop them for application in Saudi Arabia.
Finding the fundamental elements of successful implementation of different buildings
rating methods.
Knowledge about various aspects that influence the performance and quality of a rating
tool which is a fundamental outcome that the research intends to gain through reviewing.
Understanding the similarities and differences between various tools which will lead to
find the relationship between them.
Table 16. Comparison Table of Management Category of Rating Tools
ME
TH
OD
OL
OG
Y
23
Understanding the relationship between tool elements such as criteria, indictors and
approaches as a function of the importance of their roles in the research.
Understanding the role of systems criteria within a tool and different aspects that
influence these criteria.
Understand and develop an appropriate research method to achieve the aims of the study.
5.2. Full comparison among five different assessment methods It is notable that most previous research has used a comparison method to develop a tool
for different countries such as Ali and Al Nsairat (2009); Poston et al. (2010) and Zuhairuse et
al. (2009). In addition, comparing tools can be used to find gaps, differences and similarities
among them (Poston et al., 2010). Therefore, the comparison used in this research is oriented
towards developing a new assessment tool for Saudi Arabia.
The main objective beyond the need to use the comparison method is to determine the
critical criteria for application in Saudi Arabia. This can be gained through comparing different
elements within each tool. Different systems criteria are compared to find the differences and
similarities among tools. Common criteria are provided through comparison and the reason for
such commonality is identified below.
5.2.1. Why those assessment tools are chosen? In order to cover a wide range of systems criteria, as well as providing a comprehensive
comparison, a number of tools have been chosen based on the number of criteria can listed as
follow:
The seniority (BREEAM and LEED);
An international Used;
A tool proposed environment and climates;
The context of the chosen tool based on the country of origin.
The aim of choosing different tools is to investigate the effects of their countries of origin on
them. Each tool presented is a part of a world leading to diversity in environmental, economic,
social and cultural aspects.
5.2.2. The comparison Method It is agreed that comparing different tools is not an easy task as it results from a wide
range of assessment criteria, application and building life-cycles which are covered by building
assessment methods (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; Papadopoulos and Giama, 2009; Poston et
al., 2010). Therefore, to deliver the particular comparison of the selected assessment methods
the research classifies the criteria of each rating tool into three categories based on three
dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. Indeed, based on the
literature review for the most commonly used building assessment tools, the comparison
defines energy, water, waste, materials, indoor environment quality, emission and pollution,
land use, site and ecology and management as environmental aspects. However, it defines cost
and quality of services as economic aspects. Finally, innovation, mobility and transportation will
be defined in the context of the cultural and social issues as social aspects. From all the
aforementioned, the intended result of the comparison is to find tool criteria suitable for Saudi
Arabia, covering environmental, economic and social contexts.
5.3. Multiple-Pilot Case Studies The case study is one of the various research methods which have been used. In addition,
it is a preferred method of examining the current events in ‘’real-life’’ (Yin, 2009: 20). In this
sense, therefore, it is considered as the first research method to be used, as the pilot case studies
method delivers the objective of data collection, which helps the investigation of the current
sustainability approach in non-residential construction projects in Saudi Arabia. It includes two
ME
TH
OD
OL
OG
Y
24
purposes: first, to clarify which building assessment method is most used in non-residential
buildings in Saudi Arabia combined with identifying the reason for selecting this assessment
method; second, to determine the nature of the questions contained in the interview.
The most important reason for using pilot case studies is to assist the researcher in
developing relevant interview questions (Yin, 2009). Thus, several pilot case studies of projects
in Saudi Arabia will be investigated to fulfil this purpose. However, a number of criteria should
be considered in each case and are listed as follows:
A project overview
A project plans ( Site plan, Façades, Floors plans)
Location ( Place, nature of surrounding environment, weather)
Function (Educational, Industrial)
Type of organisation ( Private, Government)
Size ( total area, floors)
Services ( cooling system, water, energy, ventilation, lighting)
The used assessment tool information
Achieved tool (LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE)
Achieved Rating
Achieved Score (%)
Applied Stage (Design , Procurement, Construction, Operation)
A Tool’s Version
Project features
Environmental features ( Waste, Green materials, Rainwater capture)
Technological features ( Sensors, renewable energy)
Strategies (Green Strategy, Waste management, Recycling)
The used tool assessment
The achieved categories (the percentage of each system’s category achieved)
The applied method to achieve each category ( energy strategy, access for public
transportation)
It appears that these criteria revolve around identifying the most of the features that
could be applied to Saudi construction. The resulting information will be used in parallel with
reviewing literature to present the final design by using prevailing theories and a fresh set of
empirical observations.
5.4. Conducting interviews Conducting interviews is one of the most widely used data collection methods in
qualitative research (Bryman, 2008; Saunders et al., 2009). There are various types of
interviews, yet the types most relevant to qualitative research are the semi-structured interview
and the unstructured interview, although some researchers used the term ‘qualitative
interviews’ to cover both types (Robson, 2002; Bryman, 2008).
This research is used the semi-structured interview with open-ended question. This
method allows the interviewer to collect in-depth data about the assumed assessment tool and
its criteria for Saudi Arabia. Also, the interview tends to explore different experts’ opinions
which require flexibility in an interview questions. In addition, it has found that open-ended
questions are more commonly used for interview purposes. For this reason advantages and
disadvantages of open-ended questions have been presented by Robson (2002: 276) as follows:
Flexible;
More depth and clear up any misunderstandings;
Enable testing of the limits of a respondent’s knowledge;
ME
TH
OD
OL
OG
Y
25
Encourage co-operation and rapport;
Make a truer assessment of what the respondent really believes;
Can produce unexpected or unanticipated answers.
However, two disadvantages have been found in open-ended questions: the possibility for
loss of control by the interviewer, and they are more difficult to analyse than close and scale
questions. It is clear that the open-ended questions help an interviewer to gain maximum
knowledge from an interviewee.
The researcher is conducting interviews to constitute the importance of the selected
criteria from the literature review and pilot case studies. However, the interview questions are
designed based on the results of pilot case studies. The interviewees are experts from three
different backgrounds (sectors). The first interviewee sector is formed of academics from a
Saudi university. The second sector is formed of Saudi architects from private and government
sectors. The third sector is formed of the decision makers in Saudi Arabia (i.e. Municipalities, the
Ministry of Economy and Planning and Presidency of Meteorology and Environment). These
three sectors present different opinions reflecting the three foundations of sustainability
(environment, economy and society). It also gives research strength to deal with the
construction policies of Saudi Arabia. The interview is designed through four stages listed as
follows:
Formulate interview questionnaire;
Test-out the questionnaire on samples from members of staff and postgraduate
students;
Modify the questionnaire;
Determine the number of interviewees.
It is clear that these different stages of forming an interview questionnaire are designed to
guarantee its effectiveness.
5.5. Analyse data collected from reviewing the literatures, pilot case studies and interviews
5.5.1. Evaluate the results of Data Collection In order to determine the importance of collected data, a decision will be made. In
addition, a number of building assessment criteria that are suitable for Saudi Arabia will be
produced from data collection, literature review, comparisons, pilot case studies and
interviewing. However, these criteria need to be weighted and ranked to determine their
importance. It has been found that identifying the important elements is the most creative task
in making a decision (Saaty, 1990). Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that a number of
parameters are required to make a successful decision as Saaty (2008) mentioned: know the
problem, the need and purpose of the decision, the criteria and sub-criteria of the decision, the
stakeholders and groups affected and the alternative action to take. Evaluating the date that has
been collected is the final stage in this research to present the criteria of a building assessment
method for Saudi Arabia. The research uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process method (AHP) to
deliver successful evaluation in terms of identifying the importance of systems criteria and their
weighting. The method helps the researcher in taking the decision to determine the priority of
each criterion in terms of the environmental, economic and social aspects of Saudi Arabia.
5.5.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process Method (AHP) The AHP is a methodology that is used for structuring, measurement and synthesis. The
basis of AHP is ‘’a set of axioms that carefully delimits the scope of the problem environment’’
(Forman and Gass, 2001). The methodology was developed by Thomas Saaty, in the 1970s; it
ME
TH
OD
OL
OG
Y
26
depends on a clear mathematical structure of consistent matrices and their associated right-
eigenvector's ability to produce true or approximate weights (Forman and Gass, 2001).
The AHP arranges the potential factors based on their importance in a hierarchical
structure descending from the main goal to criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives in subsequent
levels. To construct a hierarchical structure, sufficient relevant details should be included to:
Illustrate the problem carefully ;
Acknowledge the surrounding environment of the problem;
Identify the aspects that contribute to solving the problem;
Identify factors associated with the problem. (Saaty, 1990)
Identifying these four elements - the goals, the problem, features and stakeholders – will help to
provide a comprehensive view of the complex relationship embedded in the situation. Also, it
will help the decision maker to assess the alternative associated with the order of the issues in
the same level depending on their importance. These two purposes can lead to finding
comparable elements in the issues which can help to achieve an accurate comparison (Saaty,
1990).
In addition, the decision needs to be composed of four steps to make an organised
decision which will generate priorities (Figure 10). First, represent the problem and determine
the kind of required knowledge. Then, structure the decision hierarchy starting with the goal of
the decision at the top. This should be followed by looking at the objectives from a broad
perspective, through the in-between levels which include criteria on which subsequent
elements depend, to the lowest level which is usually a set of alternatives. The third step is to
construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices. Each element in a higher level is used to
compare the elements in the level immediately below with respect to it. The final step is to use
the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weigh the priorities in the level immediately
below (for every element), then for each element in the level below add its weighed values and
obtain its overall or global priority (Saaty, 2008).
The methodology is applied through a number of specific steps. However, identifying the
categories that include weighting criteria is required. For example, in the case of an assessment
method the main categories are environment, economic and social. The weighting criteria are
flexibility, adaptability, conformability, sustainability and consumability. These criteria are used
to make the judgment while comparisons are included as part of the AHP process (Saaty, 1990).
The first step to apply the AHP is to structure the problem into a hierarchy (Figure 11). In the
first level (the top) of the hierarchy is the overall goal. In the second level are the judgment
criteria. Finally, in the third (bottom) level are different alternatives which include the potential
system. Moreover, each criterion should have different sub-criteria that help to identify the
priority of the criteria efficiently (Saaty, 1990).
The second step is to extract a pairwise comparison judgment (Saaty, 1990) (the pairwise
matrix is included in the criteria in the second level), and extract the judgments from the people
associated with the problem with respect to the overall goal. To deliver an accurate comparison
the AHP uses a fundamental scale that consists of verbal judgments ranging from equal to
extreme that corresponds to numerical judgments from 1 to 9, and compromises between these
values (Table 17). The AHP method has been used in this study due to its adaptability within
different sectors such as education, engineering, government, industry, management,
manufacturing, personal, political, social, and sports. It has also been used in the last two
decades in all applications related to multiple criteria decision making. Therefore, a number of
the method’s features such as clarity, ease of use and considerable flexibility have distinguished
the AHP from others and encourage the using of the application (Ho, 2008).
ME
TH
OD
OL
OG
Y
27
Overall Goal
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
Criterion 1
System B System C System A
The use of the methodology is divided into two stages in this research. The first stage uses the
pairwise comparison in data analyses to determine the suitable criteria for Saudi Arabia and
their weighting. The second stage uses the AHP methodology to evaluate the expected tool for
Saudi Arabia.
Intensity of
Importance Definition Explanation
1 Equal Importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective
3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over
another
5 Essential or Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over
another
7 Very strong importance An activity is strongly favoured and its dominance
demonstrated in practice
9 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the
highest possible order of affirmation
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the two
adjacent judgments
Reciprocals If activity i has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared with activity j, then j has the
reciprocal value when compared with i.
Rationals Ratios arising from the scale If consistency were to be forced by obtaining n numerical
values to span the matrix
Figure 10. The flow chart of the AHP process
Figure 11. The AHP simple structure of the problem into a hierarchy
Start
Step 1: Define the problem and determine the kind of knowledge sought
Step 2: Structure the decision hierarchy starting with the goal of the decision in the top, then the objectives from a broad perspective
Step 3: Construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices
Step 4: Use the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weigh the priorities in the level immediately below
Finally: Obtain the final priorities of the
alternatives in the bottom most level
are obtained
Table 17. The fundamental scale of absolute numbers (Saaty, 1990)
HE
RE
SESR
CH
LIM
ITA
TIO
NS
28
6. HE RESESRCH LIMITATIONS
This research has a number of limitations which are listed as follows: The scope of the study is limited to commercial buildings such as offices, retail and
industrial. Buildings such as houses, schools, courts and healthcare are not included in
this study;
The primary focus of the study is performance assessment of construction from
environmental, economic, social and cultural perspectives in Saudi Arabia;
The study uses interview method to collect data from specific samples such as
academics, Saudi architects from industry and the decision makers in Saudi Arabia.
Representatives from public, contractors, other professional disciplines and technicians
are not included in this work.
7. PROPOSED WORKING PLAN
This research is currently in the stage of tools criteria comparison so far. However, as
soon as it completes various tasks will be considering as shown in table 18. Additionally, the
steps that will follow after the transfer meeting to achieve the aim of the research can be
illustrated as follows:
Working on publishing a conference papers,
Designing the research interview questionnaire;
Collecting data stage,
Second pilot case study apply to interview interviewees in Saudi Arabia;
Publishing the first journal paper;
Data analysis stage;
Publishing the second journal paper;
Start writing the thesis;
Preparing to submitting;
Submit the thesis.
Through these processes regular meeting will be held with supervisor to monitor the progress.
PR
OP
OSE
D W
OR
KIN
G P
LA
N
29
Tab
le 1
8. T
imet
able
of
the
Ph
.D R
esea
rch
CO
NC
LU
DIN
G R
EM
AR
KS
30
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Therefore, and based on the aforementioned discussion, a building assessment method
plays a significant role in delivering sustainability in buildings. The aim of this research is to
develop criteria for a sustainable rating system for non-residential buildings in Saudi Arabia.
Investigate Saudi Arabia urban and construction from environment, economic, social and
culture perspectives are vital to understanding the nature of the country.
In this era, demand for sustainability concepts has been increased dramatically. In
addition, the impact of sustainable construction on human and the environment has become
evident in number of developed countries such as the UK, the USA, Australia and Japan.
However, application of sustainability concepts in the constructions sector need assessment
tools to show their positive impacts in the form of producing more eco-friendly buildings
products. Reviewing different published literatures has been extra ordinarily productive to
develop a full understanding of different tools, strategies and approaches. It is also required to
build the knowledge of the discipline and to provide a robust framework for having the
understanding of the assorted developments that have appeared in the literature in the past 15
years.
This research has chosen the most commonly used building assessment methods from
different developed countries in order to understand the nature of assessment tools. BREEAM,
LEED, Green Star, CASBEE and Estidama have been chosen based on a number of criteria such
as tools seniority, and its adoptability for application in global perspective. However, each tool
has influenced by different aspects such as the environment, economic and cultural (Reed et al.,
2009). In order to find the differences and similarities among these tools, a comparison has
been mad. A critical attention has been given to system criteria comparison in order to find such
differences and similarities among them.
A number of Saudi projects which used building assessment methods will be considered
for pilot case studies. Application of LEED on KACARE, KAUST and KAFD projects will be
investigated in order to identify the most reliable and suitable criteria for Saudi Arabia
construction. Moreover, this case studies investigation will be used to design an interview
questionnaire effectively. This step considers as second step in this research to achieve its aim.
Furthermore, Pair-wise comparison within AHP method will be applied to the selected
criteria and the outcome will be analysed and discussed. The final research findings will be
presented as suitable criteria for developing a sustainable building assessment method for
Saudi Arabia in terms of environmental, economic, social and cultural perspectives.
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
31
9. REFERENCES
Abbaszadeh, S, Zagreus, L, Lehrer, D and Huizenga, C (2006) Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. In.
Akadiri, P O, Chinyio, E A and Olomolaiye, P O (2012) Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings, 2(2), 126-152.
Al-But’hie, I and Eben Saleh, M (2002) Urban and industrial development planning as an approach for saudi arabia: The case study of jubail and yanbu. Habitat International, 26(1), 1-20.
Al-Hathloul, S (2002) Riyadh architecture in one hundred years. In, Public Lecture presented in Darat Al-Funun, Amman, 1 – 20.
Al-Naim, M (2011) Riyadh: A city of 'institutional' architecture. In: Elsheshtawy, Y (Ed.), The evolving arab city: Tradition, modernity and urban development, 4 edn., pp. 118-151. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Al-Sallal, K, Al-Rais, L and Dalmouk, M B (2012) Designing a sustainable house in the desert of abu dhabi. Renewable Energy(0).
Ali, H and Al Nsairat, S (2009) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries – case of jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053-1064.
Alwaer, H and Clements-Croome, D (2010) Building sustainability awards 2010- sustainable innovation of the year, Hilson Moran.
Alwaer, H and Clements-Croome, D (2010a) Key performance indicators (kpis) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Building and Environment, 45(4), 799-807.
Alyami, S H and Rezgui, Y (2012) Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustainable Cities and Society(0).
Ar-Riyadh Development Authority (cited 2011) Arriyadh in the past. [Available online from http://www.ada.gov.sa/ar/Photos/OldRiyadh/eallPhotos.aspx?CurClass=Even.]
AUPC (2010a) Pearl building rating system for estidama: Design and construction, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council.
AUPC (2010b) Pearl building: Guide for consultant. Report, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. Baldwin, R, Yates, A, Howard, N and Rao, S (1998) Breeam 98 for offices: An enviromental
assessment method for office buildings. In, London: Construction Research Communication Ltd, 1-36.
Barrientos, M and Soria, C (cited 2012) Index mundi.[Available online from http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/EN.CO2.BLDG.MT/compare?country=sa.]
BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012 (2012) Bp statistical review of world energy june 2012, London: BP p.l.c.
BRE (2011) Breeam new construction: Non- domestic buildings Technical Manual SD5073-2.0:2011, Watford: Building Research Establishment Ltd.
BRE (cited 2012) Breeam. [Available online from Building Research Establishment Ltd, http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=829.]
BRE (cited 2012) Background to the green guide to specification: Methodology and sponsors. [Available online from Building Research Establishment Ltd. http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/page.jsp?id=2069.]
Bryman, A (2008) Social research methods. 3rd ed. New York: OXFORD University Press Inc. Buttler, M and Stoy, C (2009) Comparing the benefit of international assessment methods. In:
Abstract for the ERES Conference 2009, Doctoral Session, Institute for Construction Economics, Stuttgart University, Germany, 1- 7.
Casey, M, Andrew, P, Hosking, P, King, T A, Roussac, C, Raina, D, Hansen, R, McDonald, T and Jackson, S (2008) Waste and sustainable commercial buildings. In: Your Building.
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
32
Clements-Croome, D, Himanen, M, Glover, N, Corne, D, Liu, K, Maver, T, Beaven, M, Vincent, J, Fairey, V, Bennett, J, Al-Bizri, S, Gray, C, Fisher, N, Finch, E and Streliz, Z (2004) Intelligent buildings; design, management and operation. London: Thomas Telford Ltd.
Cole, R (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: Clarifying intentions. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), 230-246.
Cole, R (2000) Building environmental assessment methods: Assessing construction practices. Construction Management and Economics, 18(8), 949-957.
Cole, R (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455-467.
Deputy Ministry for Urban Planning (1995) Traditional architecture in the kingdom of saudi arabia In: The Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Ed., 1-244.
Ding, G (2008) Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 451-464.
Ding, G K (2005) Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. Building Research & Information, 33(1), 3-16.
Eben Saleh, M (1998a) Place identity: The visual image of saudi arabian cities. Habitat International, 22(2), 149-164.
Eben Saleh, M (1998b) The integration of tradition and modernity: A search for an urban and architectural identity in arriyadh, the capital of saudi arabia. Habitat International, 22(4), 571-589.
Eben Saleh, M (2002) The transformation of residential neighborhood: The emergence of new urbanism in saudi arabian culture. Building and Environment, 37(5), 515-529.
Fenner, R and Ryce, T (2008) A comparative analysis of two building rating systems. Part 1: Evaluation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability, 161(1), 55–63.
Forman, E H and Gass, S I (2001) The analytic hierarchy process: An exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469-486.
Forsberg, A and von Malmborg, F (2004) Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Building and Environment, 39(2), 223-228.
Fowler, M and Rauch, M (2006) Sustainable building rating systems summary. In: Contract July 2006 for UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 1–55.
Franzoni, E (2011) Materials selection for green buildings: Which tools for engineers and architects? Procedia Engineering, 21(0), 883-890.
GBCA (cited 2012) Green star overview. [Available online from Green Building Council Australia ,http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-overview/.]
Godfaurd, J, Clements-Croome, D and Jeronimidis, G (2005) Sustainable building solutions: A review of lessons from the natural world. Building and Environment, 40(3), 319-328.
GORD (2012) Gsas/qsas technical guide. Report, Gulf Organization for Research & Development. Gulf News (cited 2011) Saudi arabia excludes homes from increased power prices. [Available
online from http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/saudi-arabia-excludes-homes-from-increased-power-prices-1.637198.]
Haapio, A (2008c) Environmental assessment of building, PhD, Forest Products Technology, Helsinki University of Technology.
Haapio, A and Viitaniemi, P (2008a) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 469-482.
Haapio, A and Viitaniemi, P (2008b) Environmental effect of structural solutions and building materials to a building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(8), 587-600.
Hill, R and Bowen, P (1997) Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework for attainment. Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 223-239.
Ho, W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228.
IBEC (2011) Casbee, comprehensive assessment system for built environment efficiency technical manual, Tokyo: Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC).
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
33
Jönsson, Å (2000) Tools and methods for environmental assessment of building products—methodological analysis of six selected approaches. Building and Environment, 35(3), 223-238.
KAFD (2006) Saudi arabia to launch middle east's major financial district. In: The King Abdullah Financial District, Ed., 1-8.
KAFD (2007) Technical appendix 2 environmental impact assessment, King Abdullah Financial District.
Kawazu, Y, Shimada, N, Yokoo, N and Oka, T (2005) Comparison of the assessment results of breeam, leed, gbtool and casbee. In, Proceedings of the Sustainable Building Conference (SB05), Tokyo, Japan.
Kibert, C (2007) The next generation of sustainable construction. Building Research & Information, 35(6), 595-601.
Kibert, C (2008) Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery. 2nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Kirkpatrick, J (2009) Assessing and improving the efficacy of breeam in relation to ecology, PhD Thesis, Institute for the Environment, Brunel University.
Kurek, J (2007) King abdullah financial district. HENNING LARSEN ARCHITECTS, 1-7. Lahn, G and Stevens, P (2011) Burning oil to keep cool: The hidden energy crisis in saudi arabia.
In, London: Chatham House, 1-36. Larsen, H (cited 2011) The king abdullah financial district. [Available online from
http://www.henninglarsen.com/projects/0700-0799/0770-king-abdullah-financial-district.aspx.]
Lee, W (2012) Benchmarking energy use of building environmental assessment schemes. Journal of Energy and Buildings, 45 (1), 326 - 334.
Lee, W and Burnett, J (2008) Benchmarking energy use assessment of hk-beam, breeam and leed. Building and Environment, 43, 1882 - 1891.
Mandeli, K (2008) The realities of integrating physical planning and local management into urban development: A case study of jeddah, saudi arabia. Habitat International, 32(4), 512-533.
Mao, X, Lu, H and Li, Q (2009) A comparison study of mainstream sustainable/green building rating tools in the world. In, Management and Service Science, 2009. MASS '09. International Conference on, 20-22 Sept. 2009, 1-5.
Ministry of Foreing Affairs (cited 2012) The kingdom: Site and geographical position. [Available online from http://www.mofa.gov.sa/sites/mofaen/aboutKingDom/Pages/KingdomGeography46466.aspx.]
Ministry of Hajj (cited 2012) Gallery. [Available online from http://www.hajinformation.com/main/galler1.htm.]
Mubarak, F (2004) Urban growth boundary policy and residential suburbanization: Riyadh, saudi arabia. Habitat International, 28(4), 567-591.
OPEC (cited 2012) Opec share of world crude oil reserves 2010. [Available online from Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm.]
Papadopoulos, A and Giama, E (2009) Rating systems for counting buildings’ environmental performance. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 28(1-3), 29-43.
Poston, A, Emmanuel, R and Thomson, C (2010) Developing holistic frameworks for the next generation of sustainability assessment methods for the built environment. In: Egbu, C. (Ed) Procs 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, Leeds, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1487-1496.
Rahardjati, R, Khamidi, F and Idrus, A (2010) The level of importance of criteria and sub criteria in green building index malaysia. In: International Conference on Sustainable Building and Infrastructure (ICSBI 2010), Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, 15-17
Reed, R, Bilos, A, Wilkinson, S and Schulte, K (2009) International comparison of sustainable rating tools. JOSRE, 1(1), 1 - 22.
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
34
Reed, R, Wilkinson, S, Bilos, A and Schulte, K (2011) A comparison of international sustainable building tools- an update. In: The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Society Conference, Gold Coast, 1- 15.
Reijnders, L and van Roekel, A (1999) Comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the environmental improvement of buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 7(3), 221-225.
Riyadh Municipality (cited 2011) Riyadh development. [Available online from http://www.alriyadh.gov.sa/en/alriyadh/Pages/development_of_population.aspx.]
Riyadh Municipality (cited 2011) The king abdullah international gardens. [Available online from http://www.kaig.net/00_index/0A_index.asp.]
Robson, C (2002) Real world research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Roderick, Y, McEwan, D, Wheatley, C and Alonso, C (2009) Comparison of energy performance
assessment between leed, breeam and green star. In: Eleventh International IBPSA Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, 1167 – 1176.
Saaty, T (1990) How to make a decision: The analytic hierarch process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
Saaty, T L (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Saghafi, M D and Hosseini Teshnizi, Z S (2011) Recycling value of building materials in building assessment systems. Energy and Buildings, 43(11), 3181-3188.
Salmi, L (cited 2011) Fosters and buro in possible riyadh sequel. [Available online from http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=10633.]
Saudi Aramco (cited 2011) Our history. [Available online from http://www.saudiaramco.com/en/home.html#our-company%257C%252Fen%252Fhome%252Four-company%252Four-history0.baseajax.html.]
Saunders, M, Lewis, P and Thornhill, A (2009) Research methods for business students. 5th ed. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, T (2008) A discussion document comparing international environmental assessment methods for buildings., BRE.
Sebake, T (2009) An overview of green building rating tools. Green building handbook South Africa, 1 (A guide to ecological design), 27-34.
Sev, A (2011) A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 28(3), 231-245.
SGBC (cited 2012) Saudi green building council. [Available online from http://www.saudigbc.com/.]
Sinou, M and Kyvelou, S (2006) Present and future of building performance assessment tools. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 17 (5), 570 - 586.
Sleeuw, M (2011) A comparison of breeam and leed environmental assessment methods, Norwich: University of East Anglia Estates and Buildings Division.
Taleb, H and Pitts, A (2009) The potential to exploit use of building-integrated photovoltaics in countries of the gulf cooperation council. Renewable Energy, 34(4), 1092-1099.
Todd, J, Crawley, D, Geissler, S and Lindsey, G (2001) Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the green building challenge. Building Research & Information, 29(5), 324-335.
USGBC (2009a) Leed 2009 for new construction and major renovations rating system with alternative compliance paths for projects outside the u.S., Washington, DC U.S. Green Building Council.
USGBC (2009b) Foundations of leed. USGBC policies, The U.S Green Building Councl Board of Directors
Van der Hoeven, M (2011) Co2 emissions from fuel combustion: Highlights. Report, Paris: International Energy Agency iea.
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
35
Welch, A and Lomholt, I (cited 2011) King abdullah botanical gardens. [Available online from http://www.e-architect.co.uk/saudi_arabia/king_abdullah_botanical_gardens.htm.]
WWF (2012) Living planet report: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices, World Wide Fund for Nature.
Yeang, L D and Umm AlQura University (2010) King abdullah city for atomic and renewable energy, Buro Happold.
Yin, R (2009) Case study research design and methods. 4th ed. Vol. 5, Applied social research methods series, London: SAGE Publications.
Zuhairuse, m D, Nor, A H, Elias, S, Lim, C H, Abdul Khalim, A and Siti, N A (2009) Development of rating system for sustainable building in malaysia. In, WSEAS Transactions on Environment and development, March, Vol. 5, 260-272.
AP
PE
ND
IX 1
36
APPENDIX 1 Distribution of Rating tools internationally
AP
PE
ND
IX 1
37
Fig
ure
1: D
istr
ibu
tio
n o
f R
atin
g to
ols
inte
rnat
ion
ally
AP
PE
ND
IX 2
38
APPENDIX 2
Saudi Arabia Background
Intr
od
uct
ion
39
Figure 1. Map of Saudi Arabia [ http://www.splendidarabia.com/kingdom]
Appendix 2: Saudi Arabia Background
1. Introduction
In the last five decades there has been rapid urban growth in the Middle East (Al-But’hie
and Eben Saleh, 2002). The Arabian Gulf countries are an important part of the Middle East that
consists of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, the Kingdom
of Bahrain and Qatar. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was created as result of the similarity
in various aspects of life, including religion, geography, society and economics (Taleb and Pitts,
2009). The discovery of oil led to rapid urban development in the region. Saudi Arabia is the
biggest country in the GCC with a total area of 2,250,000sq/k, which covers about 80% of the
Arabian Peninsula (Mubarak, 2004)(Figure 1).
1.1. Saudi Arabia Geography The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contains of variety different geographical features, including
deserts, mountains and hills. The deserts are covering more than half of Saudi Arabia land (Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 2012). To name a few, the Empty Quarter desert in the south, the Nefud desert in the north and Ad-Dahna desert in the east. These sand surfaces have great influence on people decision to settle in urban areas (Deputy Ministry for Urban Planning, 1995).
1.2. Saudi Arabia Climate The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is located in the desert region, where the weather is
considered as arid with high temperature of 50°C (122°F) in the shade. Furthermore, the lowest temperature con reach freezing point in the mountainous and in the heart of the desert (Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 2012). The average sunrise hours in most Saudi regions are around 3300 hours annually. Moreover, humidity is varying between regions in Saudi Arabia, which is considering as a major feature of the coastal areas. It is usually tempered by slightly lower and less variable temperatures as well as a steady breeze, especially in the east (Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 2012).
This paper will investigate the development of cities in Saudi Arabia from environmental,
economic, cultural and social points of view. First, the paper will review urban development in
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
40
the Saudi Arabia, with particular focus on urban planning and building between the periods
from the 1950s to the present time to deliver a clear understanding for the region. The paper
will start with the case of the urban development of the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh.
2. Transformation of Saudi Arabian cities from traditional urban to contemporary urban
2.1. Case of the Capital of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh City) ‘’The urbanization of Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s fastest. The existing major
urban centres of Riyadh, Jeddah, Madinah, Dhahran, and Makkah have experienced
explosive growth since 1973’’ (Mandeli, 2008: 515)
Most of the Arabian Peninsula is covered by deserts that affect the urban development
and architecture in the region significantly, which provides for a special and unique
urbanisation. Further, Saudi Arabia covers the greater part of this peninsula, which has led to
different types of urban development, for example, the country is divided into five regions:
North, South, East, West, and the Central region. The influences on the architecture and urban
planning pattern of each region depend on different aspects of those regions, such as culture
and weather (Eben Saleh, 1998a). In addition, culture plays an important role in the design of
the build environment in these regions due to religious rules. For instance, privacy is an
important requirement, which is demanded by both the people and their religion and has to be
included into basic design.
2.1.1. Riyadh During the period before the 1950s The common feature in all GCC countries and Saudi Arabia in particular is the Islamic
community. Research has shown that certain qualities and properties offer people a sense of
belonging to a place, and in an urban setting these are afforded by urban and architectural
identity (Eben Saleh, 1998b). However, the influence of this feature has decreased gradually as
result of the urbanisation. In fact, Saudi Arabia has several traditional towns in different regions
such as Riyadh, Al-Dariyah, Al-Majmaah, Onaizah and Hayel in the central region, which is
considered nowadays as a historical area containing enormously important Islamic
architectural and urban planning (Eben Saleh, 1998b) (Figure 2) (Figure 3). It is clear that this
paper is to investigate the urban development in Saudi Arabia. However, it is necessary to
introduce some information about the period before the 1950s to deliver a clear picture for the
reader about the architectural situation.
Figure 2: Saudi Arabia, Near Riyadh, Dir'Aiyah Village (1446 A.D.), Archaeological Site, City Wall [http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/4168-4124]
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
41
It can be seen that before the 1950s most of the architecture is traditional and made from
local materials, fulfilling people’s needs in the central region in that era (Al-Naim, 2011). It is
also noticeable that those buildings were built to cope with the region’s climate, being desert
(Figure 4). However, when first tanker load of petroleum was exported in 1939 life changed
completely in Saudi Arabia (Eben Saleh, 2002; Saudi Aramco, 2011). The development process
has moved rapidly throughout whole the country, laying most sectors in Saudi Arabia under
development including the education, health and urban development sectors.
2.1.2. Riyadh Development from 1950 to 1970s The discovery of oil resulted in rapid development in Saudi Arabia. Cities in the country
have expanded as result of population increase. The evidence of such expansion is that the old
core of Riyadh city has become enclosed by new urban development which has many different
features (Eben Saleh, 1998b). Indeed, the fast development in Saudi urban areas in such a short
time has pushed the government to depend on external agencies to develop cities and towns in
the country. Such dependency on the experience of other agencies comes as a result of the lack
of ‘’professionalism and technological knowledge’’ (Al-But’hie and Eben Saleh, 2002). In
Figure 3: The traditional architecture of King Abdul Aziz's palace in Riyadh, seen here in the 1930s [http://www.saudiembassy.net/files/PDF/Publications/Magazine/1996-Fall/continuity.htm]
Figure 4: A general view of Riyadh houses, seen here in the 1950s (Ar-Riyadh Development Authority, 2011)
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
42
Figure 5: The Master Plan of Al-Malaz neighbourhood. (Al-Naim, 2011: 125)
addition, the method that the government used at that time was to benefit from the developed
countries, which could provide the experience and the technology that Saudi Arabia needed to
deliver the modern urban plan. As foreign companies had already explored for oil in Saudi
Arabia, the Saudi government was well placed to gain from this experience and appropriately
exploit the relevant technologies. Al-Naim (2011) discusses in detail the considerable change
that Aramco applied in the Eastern region and the ‘’conflict’’ between traditional cultural
principles and the introduction of a modern Western picture. It could be said that the first
modern urban plan appeared in the late 1950s when the Al-Malaz neighbourhood construction
was completed (Figure 5)(Al-Naim, 2011). It is noticeable that other cultures, such as those of
America and Europe, have significantly influenced the new Saudi urban plan to deliver the
modern urban plan. Indeed, a new era for Saudis opened up, following an examination and
implementation of a new modern lifestyle based on the western style. This started in the
Eastern region where the first American oil company worked, and whose influence spread to
Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, and subsequently has spread throughout the whole country.
However, in the 1960s noticeable urban development is clear to see. Housing concepts
began to appear and people moved from their traditional places to the new houses in Al-Malaz.
Therefore, buildings concepts started to change, which opened the door to engage further new
urban concepts in the area, such as modern urban planning and architecture. A new level of
urbanisation clearly appeared as a result of people flowing from different cities in Saudi Arabia
to the capital for the job opportunities that caused urban growth throughout the whole city (Al-
Naim, 2011). Such growth encouraged the government to find solutions to control the flow of
people into the city. A global competition was carried out to plan the new capital in 1968, which
was won by Doxiadis Associates of Athens, and the city was completed in 1971 (Al-Naim,
2011)(Figure 6). Thus, the new Riyadh appeared in a new form, which allowed for the
beginning of a new urbanisation in line with other modern cities in the world. Studies have
discussed the first master plan of Riyadh and found three major principles that are outlined as
follows:
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
43
Figure 6: The master plan for Riyadh, designed by Doxiadis Associates (Al-Hathloul, 2002)
A city wide gridiron plan comprising a system of highways that circumscribe super-
blocks of 2 x 2 km, on the slightly undulating terrain of the city. It sorts the city area into
a functional land-use plan which has left the city with a profound urban form, essentially
a lower-income service-oriented, industrial south-west, set against an upper-income
residential, commercial and administrative north-east;
City-scale zoning regulations, which include type and density of residential
development, and minimum lot sizes for new residential areas;
The inclusion of a detailed design of individual Action Area Plans, covering 11.5km2 in
an effort to revitalize the City’s centre.
(Mubarak, 2004: 481)
It is clear that this urban planning was new in Riyadh, where land use was employed as the top
priority in the master plan. It could be suggested that these three principals have influenced the
city’s future significantly, because the city residents have gained several benefits beyond the
mere planning. For example, the master plan of Riyadh was built on a modular grid, simple,
straight and easy to control (Mubarak, 2004). Consequently the traditional build environment
fell out of favour and the people turned to modernization.
The influence of Riyadh on all the other cities in Saudi Arabia is clear. One of the
supporting factors that have encouraged urban development in Saudi Arabia is the
government’s initiative for the public sector (Mandeli, 2008). It is apparent that the Saudi
government takes urban development very seriously. From the outset they created the Central
Planning Organization (CPO), or the Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Municipal and
Rural Affairs as it is called today (Al-But’hie and Eben Saleh, 2002), which is responsible for
studying and planning a Developing Plan that identifies the national development objectives
and establishes targets for various sectors of the national economy, such as municipal services
for each five year period of time called the Five Year Plan (FYP) (Al-But’hie and Eben Saleh,
2002; Mandeli, 2008).
The first five-year plan in Saudi Arabia was for the period from 1970 to 1975 (Mandeli,
2008). However, in 1970 the government developed the concept of combining six five-year
plans in order to have a major goal to apply urbanisation and industrialisation onto the country
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
44
areas in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, research has found that the FYP purpose is mainly as
follows:
Set physical infrastructure targets;
Develop human resources;
Provide an overall-spending framework.
(Al-But’hie and Eben Saleh, 2002: 4)
It is clear that Saudi government has planned the country’s future in short-term and long-term
periods. The short-term periods are represented in each FYP, but the long-term plan takes six
FYPs as whole, and represents planning for three decades which significantly helps the
development of Saudi Arabia.
It could be suggest that the 1970s presented a clear image of Saudi Arabia moving
towards modernity. One of the intelligent steps that the Saudi government has made to
encourage their residents to build their own houses was by offering them mortgage loans in
1974 (Al-Naim, 2011). Indeed, such loans have contributed to changing habitation in Saudi
Arabia. The traditional buildings started to decrease and more modern design, or as Al-Naim
(2011) said ‘Western design’ has become more noticeable. It could be said that new design
thinking started, which opened the door for buildings’ design to include new functions that
could fulfil the new needs of buildings’ users, which we will discuss in the next chapter.
Eben Saleh (2002) argued that two elements have influenced the design of urban
development in Saudi Arabia, the religious law (Shariah) and cultural norms and social
conventions (Urf). These elements draw the shape of urban development in Saudi’s community.
Additionally, all aspects of life are dominated by Shariah and Urf which present challenges for
Saudi’s community to adapt to international development.
Al-Naim (2011) has discussed the collision between tradition and modernity in Riyadh.
He found that the term of modernity was significantly linked with westernisation both in
people’s minds and in literature. It could be suggested that such links are caused as a result of
new building design and unfamiliar urban development being forced on people in the region.
However, the story of urban development in Riyadh describes the clash that goes beyond two
different cultures facing each other and is reflected on people’s lifestyle in the region. In
addition, the Arabian people are proud of their identity, which is the main reason for refusing
any foreign influence that could change this identity. In fact, Saudis have gained their identity
from different aspects, but the most influential sector that affects their identity is the
surrounding environment (Al-Naim, 2011). It has been found that the issue of identity has
appeared as a concern as result of links between the modernization process and westernisation.
However, in 1976 the Saudi government decided to review the master plan of Riyadh
designed by Doxiadis as result of city expansion that skipped the first urban plan for the city.
This review was assigned to the French SCET International to make suggestions for the short
term, whilst continuing to apply the old urban development methods until the revision was
finished(Al-Naim, 2011). In 1982, the Saudi government approved the suggested review that
presented the city with a clear urban planning model that consists of a grid system design (Al-
Naim, 2011). It has found that both urban development planning take six years from the review
being assigned to approving the design from the government. However, the second urban
development plan can be considered as an upgrade of the Doxiadis planning which clarifies
more details in the design.
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
45
Figure 7: Views of the 1983 King Khalid International Airport (Al-Hathloul, 2002)
Figure 8: A view of the 1984 campus for the King Saud University (Al-Hathloul, 2002)
2.1.3. Riyadh Development During 1980s to late Nineties The 1980s are considered as a period of great projects in Riyadh’s history (Al-Naim,
2011). During this period oil prices rose which encouraged the Saudi government to decide to
start a number of large projects, including revitalising the historical area in Riyadh (the Qasr Al-
Hokm). Al-Hathloul (2002) mentions that the price rise in oil led to Riyadh witnessing a
wonderful boom in construction during this period of time. In 1983, two major projects were
built before the Qasr Al-Hokm renewal project started, which influenced the architectural and
urban development of Riyadh. The King Khaled International Airport was constructed (Figure.
7) and, a year later, the campus of King Saud University followed it (Figure 8). Al-Naim (2011:
134) said that all those projects made the capital city “attractive to architects”. In fact, during
the period from 1977 to 1986 there were on average 11,500 buildings permits issued each year
in Riyadh, which pushed Riyadh to being described as “the biggest construction site in human
history” by Newsweek Magazine (Al-Hathloul, 2002).
The Qasr Al-Hokm project was divided into three phases (Al-Naim, 2011). The first phase
of the project took one year to finish, from 1984 to1985 and included three buildings, Emara
(city government headquarters), The Mayoralty and Police Headquarters (Al-Naim, 2011: 134).
It is clear that these projects were considered as a cure for the conflict between tradition and
modernity in the city, and led to a new architectural method called “new traditionalism”, that
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
46
Figure 10: A view of the 1986 al-Kindi Plaza in the centre of the Diplomatic Quarter (Al-Hathloul, 2002)
Figure 9: A site layout plan for the Diplomatic Quarter project (Al-Hathloul, 2002: 7)
saved the city’s identity (Al-Naim, 2011). The second phase of the Qasr Al-Hokm project started
in 1988. This phase consisted of a number of buildings, the Justice Palace, the Grand Mosque, the
Al-Meqillyah shopping mall and a number of plazas (Al-Naim, 2011: 134). In 1992, the second
phase was ready for use having taken four years to complete. In addition, the buildings in this
phase are considered to hold the new traditional values in the Arab world (Al-Naim, 2011).
However, the period between the end of the first phase of the project (1985), and the start
of the second phase (1988) witnessed the appearance of many architectural projects that
considerably influenced the urban development of Riyadh. In 1987, the Diplomatic Quarter was
opened and consisted of a number of influential projects such as the al-Kindi Plaza that was
constructed in 1986 (Figure 9), which contains the building of Riyadh Development Authority,
the Friday Mosque and surrounding commercial facilities. Al-Naim (2011) presented two major
ideas that were first introduced to the capital through this project. The first idea is a semi-gated
community, which was unknown in Riyadh; the second is the development of the central area
and creation of the Sahat Alkindi Plaza.
Additionally, the Diplomatic Quarter has played an important role in Riyadh’s urban
development (Figure 10). It was planned as a self-contained neighbourhood by the Riyadh
Development Authority to contain foreign embassies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Al-
Hathloul, 2002). These foreign embassies were originally in Jeddah because as Al-Hathloul
(2002: 7) said from his points of view “These had been located in the city of Jeddah, which was
viewed as a socially more open environment than the conservative Riyadh”. It is believed that the
transfer of those embassies to Riyadh opened up and supported the new urban development
planning for the city as result of adding new communities, which greatly influenced the capital.
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
47
Al-Hathloul (2002) discussed the layout plan of Diplomatic Quarter because it consisted of
different facilities that were new to the community of Riyadh at that time. The project has a
commercial space, offices, some governmental services and the Friday Mosque. The brown area
presented embassy buildings, ambassadors’ residences and basic facilities. The yellow colour
represents the residential clusters in the project, which are sited away from the embassy
buildings. The public facilities include a nursery school, Mosques, schools, shopping centres and
medical centres shown in blue and central facilities shown in red. It is noticeable that the
Quarter contains most of the facilities that users and residents need, and which confirm its
design as a self-contained neighbourhood. In fact, this concept of a neighbourhood designed for
30,000 private homes and 120 embassies (Al-Hathloul, 2002) is new in Riyadh. Al-Naim (2011)
found that the central area of the Diplomatic Quarter was sending a message that even if the city
was moving steadily towards modernisation, it would still invest taking into account its cultural
identity.
Furthermore, the third phase started in 1996 with the construction of the Alta’ameer
shopping mall(Al-Naim, 2011). However, the Qasr Al-Hokm project was in reality complete with
the finish of its first two phases and the last phase was consider as the finishing touches for the
project (Al-Hathloul, 2002). Many studies have discussed the importance of the Qasr Al-Hokm
project on Riyadh’s urban development (Al-Hathloul, 2002; Al-Naim, 2011). As a result of the
development in Riyadh’s structure, and that Qasr Al-Hokm was at the core of the city, it became
necessary to develop the area to be more compatible with the new city development. Also, the
core project of Riyadh would prevent any conflict that might appear as a result of the arrival of
new cultural concepts.
“The most distinctive project is the Qasar Al-Hokm district in Riyadh. This complex
is an interesting example of the significance of culture, history and architecture in
contemporary Saudi Arabia” (Al-Naim, 2011: 137)
It can be seen that the main concept of the Qasr Al-Hokm project was to mirror the culture
and history of Riyadh. In addition, the old Riyadh has changed considerably from its old form, in
that numerous parts were destroyed and new streets appeared. The Qasr Al-Hokm project was
aimed at enhancing the urban centre of the capital and represented its old spirit, historical
image and traditions (Al-Naim, 2011). Most studies consider this project as a premium example
emphasising the characteristics of the inclusive approach in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the project
represents a traditional human and spiritual sense as an urban project achieved by applying the
ability to reproduce the individual picture within the cultural image (Al-Naim, 2011).
2.1.4. Riyadh and the emergence of the contemporary It is clear from all mentioned above that Saudi Arabia has moved to modernization
through studying steps that have saved its culture identity. It could be said that culture plays an
important role in Saudi urban development. However, in the last decade, the concept of identity
was seen as no longer being required (Al-Naim, 2011). A number of wide and long streets have
been built in the city, linking the capital’s areas with each other, such as King Fahad Road and
King Abdullaziz Road. In addition, many high-rise towers have appeared with steel and glass
façades.
It would appear, therefore, that Riyadh was moving towards globalisation before the
twenty-first century. The capital has been trying to become an Arab metropolis. Two important
projects have appeared in Riyadh located in Al’Ullaya Road and King Fahad Road; Al-Faisaliah
Tower, which was finished in the 2000s (Figure 10) and the Kingdom Tower, which was
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
48
Figure 10: A view of AL-Faisaliah Tower (Salmi, 2008)
Figure 11: A view of the Kingdom Tower in Riyadh (Gulf News, 2010)
finished in 2003 (Figure 11) (Al-Naim, 2011). Al-Faisaliah Tower was considered as the highest
building in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the time of its completion (2000s). The project
contains a five star hotel, offices and a shopping mall with a total of 30 floors and is 266 metres
high (Al-Hathloul, 2002). However, the Kingdom Tower came later, at 300 metres more than Al-
Faisaliah to record the highest construction in Saudi Arabia. It consists of a five-star hotel,
offices, department stores and a shopping centre (Al-Hathloul, 2002). It is believed that these
projects helped the capital to be considered as a global city; the effect of globalisation being
apparent in the city with these types of projects.
It is clear that Riyadh today is completely different from the Riyadh of yesterday. The
urban environment over the last five decades has changed and developed significantly. In
addition, people’s attitudes have changed from those who were fanatic for tradition to those
who are interested in the global outlook. The capital has opened up for all people who came
looking for job opportunities and became a target for those who want to improve their financial
situation.
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
49
Table 1: The population of Riyadh from 1952 to 2006 (Riyadh Municipality, 2006)
Figure. 12: Increase in the population of Riyadh
Further, through the development of the city the population has increased significantly.
According to the Riyadh Municipality the population of the capital has increased year by year as
shown in table 1.
It is clear from table 1 that Riyadh has witnessed an incredible increase in its population
as it has expanded through the years. The large growth started in 1987 when the numbers
reached 1,389,000 but this number jumped to 3,100,000 within the next 10 years the difference
being 1,711,000. It could be said that different aspects have affected urban growth, such as land
development and a new build environment in the capital of Saudi Arabia. Planning new
neighbourhoods in several places in the city became urgent for the Saudi government to contain
such increased numbers of people.
Moreover, it could be seen that Riyadh is a good example of the phenomenon of
urbanisation. The continuous movement of people from the whole kingdom to the capital for
work opportunities has forced the government to consider growth management as one of their
priorities to avoid overpopulation issues. According to the Central Department of Statistics and
Information the population of Riyadh rose to 5,188,286 in 2010. The increase in the population
is important evidence that the city has expanded and improved dramatically (Figure 12).
It is clear from the chart that the increase in the population of Riyadh has been
considerable since the 1950s. In addition, the increase in population has been a common feature
in the other major cities in Saudi Arabia - Jeddah and Makkah. However, Riyadh is the biggest as
result of its political location as the capital of the kingdom. Moreover, the increase in Riyadh’s
population is one of the reasons that has limited the conflict between tradition and
No The period The population
1 1952 80,000
2 1960 160,000
3 1968 300,000
4 1974 662,000
5 1987 1,389,000
6 1997 3,100,000
7 2004 4,260,000
8 2006 4,600,000
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
50
Figure 13: General view of the King Abdullah Financial Center (Larsen, 2011)
modernisation and helped the city to open the door to globalisation.
It can be inferred from all mentioned above that Riyadh has experienced very fast growth
in the last five decades. The development in the city as well as in people’s lifestyle is important
evidence that the capital became thirsty for new urban development that has improved the
quality of the life. However, in the next lines more evidence will illustrate that Saudi Arabia will
be a suitable environment to embrace the concepts of intelligent cities.
2.1.5. Riyadh in the new form The twentieth-century witnessed massive development in the Riyadh urban area. The city
began to be global with the Al-Faisaliah Tower (2000) and then the Kingdom Tower (2003) as
discussed above. However, further projects have since appeared which have greatly contributed
to the spreading of the term ‘globalisation’. Al-Naim (2011) mentioned that one of the most
importance projects started in Riyadh is the King Abdullah Financial District (KAFD) (Figure.
13). Modern Riyadh has become strongly identifiable through the fact that a number of projects
support many concepts such as sustainability. The concept of sustainability has become one of
the Saudi government’s requirements for most of their new projects in recent times. Phase 1 of
the KAFD master plan was initiated by an international competition to award the design of the
financial district in 2006, to finish in 2011 (Kurek, 2007).
The project’s aim is to transform the area of Arabian wadi Hanifa (Hanifa Valley) in
Riyadh into an active and attractive urban facility covering most investors’ needs, such as
financial organisations, residential and entertainment areas, shops, restaurants, hotels, and
conference and sports facilities (KAFD, 2006). The site is located in the north of Riyadh with
space of 1.6 million square metres to implement the scheme and 3.5 million square metres of
floor space for the development works (Kurek, 2007).
“We are blessed with a robust economy, a stable currency and a strong financial
sector with equally strong supervision” (King Abdullah bin Abdullaziz, 2006)
(KAFD, 2006: 1)
It is clear that Saudi Arabia can support its place in the world economy through this
kind of project. Kurek (2007) mentioned that such projects could help to develop Riyadh
into an icon of the modern financial world. Indeed one of the main purposes underpinning
the construction of the KAFD is for Riyadh to be developed as such an icon and to become
the leading financial centre in the Middle East through applying the vision of the project,
which is to join business activity to a rich recreational environment. It is intended that this
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
51
aim will be achieved through applying different concepts such as sustainability and
intelligent cities. It has been seen that the scheme vision has already been applied in the
master plan design by the provision of “a high degree of flexibility to adapt and respond to
future needs as expansion and long-term growth of the financial district (takes place)”
(Kurek, 2007: 4). It is clear that the definition of sustainability matches with such
provision. It could be said that the concepts of sustainability are evident in the projects
from their initial stages, a further aim of which is to present a world-class example of
sustainability development (Kurek, 2007).
One of the common features highlighted in the KAFD is the consideration of the Saudi
identity in its design. In addition, Kurek’s paper mentions that the aim of the KAFD is provide
the area a considerable sense of identity besides an appealing atmosphere for the financial
district and for the citizens of Riyadh (Kurek, 2007). Al-Naim (2011) found that it is erroneous
to argue that this project and others could reduce the idea of identity and traditionalism. It
could be said that the Saudi identity is not found just in the city’s architecture but it is in
people’s life style as well. For example, Kurek (2007) describes the KAFD design as old Arabian
cities surrounded by a city wall. This feature supports the idea that Saudi urban development is
following global development but through Saudi methods.
From the project, it could be inferred that the Saudi government is planning to create a
‘mini city’ within the city of Riyadh. For instance, the project offers most of what people need for
their lives, such as a varied mix of offices, together with residential, educational, sports and
cultural facilities. Kurek (2007) in his paper has mentioned that the district will be a reflection
of the kingdom in general, and of the capital city in particular, through a number of benefits
some of which are listed as follows:
Provide economical balance in the Kingdom;
Raise employment opportunities, in both the construction and operation stages of the
project;
Ameliorate the public transport system in Riyadh;
Supply a number of facilities for the Riyadh public, such as restaurants, fitness clubs and
other entertainment.
It could be said that the KAFD will change the capital city by significantly enhancing the quality
of life. However, the influence of the KAFD will reflect on the environment as well as the city, as
result of applying concepts of sustainability to the project as whole.
In addition, Riyadh will also embrace one of the effective projects that will significantly
change the features of the capital. The King Abdullah International Gardens (KAIG) located in
the South West of Riyadh is one of those projects which will be considered as an international
case study for the use of sustainable development techniques with a total area about 160
hectares (Welch and Lomholt, 2007) (Figure 14). As an example, the project depends on natural
resources to provide energy such as solar energy, wind energy and combined heat. It is also
planned that the KAIG will benefit from the rain by collected and stored in underground
reservoirs for the purpose of irrigation and recycling use (Welch and Lomholt, 2007). The
project has been designed to lead the world to a greater understanding of the procedure and
significance of climate change and to examine associated problems (Riyadh Municipality, 2011).
KAIG is a botanic garden that will be a part of a number of similar projects around the
world such as Jardin des Plantes in Paris, Kew Gardens in London and the Singapore Botanic
Gardens (Riyadh Municipality, 2011). In fact, the KAIG consists of a number of gardens, the
Paleobotanic Garden, Scientific Garden, Wadi Garden and Water Garden. Each garden has a
number of facilities such as the Devonian Garden, Carboniferous Garden and Jurassic Garden in
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
52
Figure 14: General view of the King Abdullah International Gardens (Riyadh Municipality, 2011)
Figure 15: Different gardens view in KAIG (Riyadh Municipality, 2011)
the Paleobotanic Garden, and the Discovery Garden, Physic Garden and Butterfly Garden in the
Scientific Garden (Riyadh Municipality, 2011)(Figure 15).
It could be said that this project is the first of its kind in the Arabian Gulf countries which
could positively influence the region’s environment. It is estimated that the gardens will bring
several environmental and economic benefits to Riyadh. On one hand, the science sector in the
KAIG is developing the study of environmental issues to find conclusive solutions which will
Tra
nsf
orm
atio
n o
f Sa
ud
i Ara
bia
n c
itie
s fr
om
tra
dit
ion
al
urb
an t
o c
on
tem
po
rary
urb
an
53
Figure 16: A view of Makkah Holy Mosque (Ministry of Hajj, 2011)
benefit human life. Further, the KAIG will contribute significantly to the issue of climate change
in the area. On the other hand, it is no doubt that tourism is an important source of income for
this country and this kind of project will refresh this industry, especially in the capital, which
could help to improve the quality of life considerably and also contribute to the Saudi economy.
It can be inferred that the capital of Saudi Arabia has passed through different phases of
development. The common feature in all these development phases is saving the Arabian
identity of the city. However, in the last decade the quality of the projects has been changed
considerably. The Saudi government is planning to transform Riyadh to be the Arab
metropolitan area in the Gulf region. It has been suggested that the development of Riyadh
urban area was unique and had its own features. Thus, such a development has encouraged the
capital to find suitable methods of delivering the environmental needs of the people and as a
result has found a variety of solutions in recent times.
Furthermore, the development of Saudi’s capital city has become synchronised with the
country’s revival; in other words the development in Riyadh is reflected in the development that
we can see in other cities in the Kingdom. However, the most important city not just for Saudi
Arabia but, for all Muslims is Makkah. It is one of the oldest cities to have its special identity and
unique events, which combine to create a huge amount of pressure on the Saudi government to
deliver residents’ and visitors’ needs. In the next lines the chapter will present the urban
development phases in the Holy City since the 1950s.
2.2. Case of the Holy city (Makkah) and Western Region in Saudi Arabia It could be suggested that development in Saudi Arabia is growing sharply. In addition to
oil, other reasons that are contributing to the development of Saudi Arabia are the Holy
mosques in Makkah (Figure 16) and Madinah (Figure 17). The locations of these mosques,
which are considered as the greatest buildings in the world for all Muslims and the soul of Islam,
influence the Saudi Arabian development process from several different aspects. For example, it
is difficult for Saudi people to invite development plans from other countries without paying
due respect to those Holy mosques. Nevertheless, this reason has encouraged the Saudi
government to present development plans that are adapted to the needs of the people of the
region. However, here in the case of Makkah, the Holy Mosque has significantly influenced the
architecture and the urban development.
Sau
di
Ara
bia
So
urc
es
54
Figure 17: General view of the Madinah Holy Mosque (Ministry of Hajj, 2011)
3. Saudi Arabia Sources
3.1. Energy Saudi Arabia is one of countries that exporting energy for the world (i.e. Oil). According to
the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Saudi Arabia has 22.2% of the
world oil reserves which consider the second large reserve in the world (OPEC, 2012). In
addition, it is important to point that Saudi Arabia depends on the oil exportation significantly
as main incoming source. However, the largest exporter of oil is consuming great amount of
energy inside the country. The demand for oil and gas in Saudi Arabia is growing 7% per year
(Lahn and Stevens, 2011). Thus, the national consumption will be twice in the next ten years
with this rate of growth.
‘’One indicator of the problem has been the rise in the burning of heavy fuel oil
and crude oil to generate electricity when gas cannot meet the surge in demand
for cooling during the summer months’’ (Lahn and Stevens, 2011: 1)
Those information have presented in Lahn and Stevens (2011) report who outline the expected
crisis of energy in Saudi Arabia. A critical review for the issue of energy has produced with a
number of recommendations for tackling this issue. This pushes the author to use this report to
support the research arguments.
Saudi Arabia consumes 2.8 million barrels per day which means 25% from the total national oil
production. Therefore, it is expecting that the country will be net oil importer by 2038 (Lahn
and Stevens, 2011) (Figure 18).
It can see that the exportation of oil will start decreased by 2020 which threatens the
Saudi economic significantly. On the contrary, the natural gas liquids will become steady by
2020. Also, the total oil consumption has been recovered speedily as result of the speed growth
in the country. Further, while the energy demand in Saudi Arabia has increased dramatically,
the percentage of oil supplies as share of total primary energy consumption decreased steeply
(Figure 19).
Sau
di
Ara
bia
So
urc
es
55
The amount of energy used in Saudi Arabia consider as extreme when compared with other
countries have more population and biggest area. Figure 20 illustrated the energy consumption
for selected countries.
It is clear that the consumption of energy slightly more than the United States and almost
double the consumption of Japan. In fact, Lahn and Stevens (2011) found that Saudi Arabia is an
outlier by world standards on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. For example, in 2007 the
energy intensity of Saudi Arabia was almost double that of Malaysia in comparable population
Figure 18. Saudi Arabia’s oil balance on a business-as-usual trajectory (Lahn and Stevens, 2011: 2)
NGL= natural gas liquids
Figure 19. Saudi Arabia’s historical energy consumption pattern (Lahn and Stevens, 2011: 4)
Figure 20. Energy consumption per capital in selected countries (Lahn and Stevens, 2011: 5)
Sau
di
Ara
bia
So
urc
es
56
0
50
100
150
200
1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009
mill
ion
to
nn
es o
f o
il eq
uiv
alen
t
1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009
Saudi Arabia 59.8 87.5 101.3 145.5 144.1 154.1 157.9
Kuwait 9.1 14.9 18.8 26.4 26.4 27.9 30.2
United Arab Emirates 20.4 27.6 34.4 43.2 51.7 58.4 59.6
Qatar 6.2 8 10.7 16.9 22.7 23.1 23.8
Oman 4.2 6.5 8.3 10.9 14.8 16.4 15.1
Bahrain 4.4 4.9 5.9 7.5 8.8 9.2 9.5
size and level of development between both countries (Lahn and Stevens, 2011). However,
generating electricity is one of the main factors that eat energy in Saudi Arabia. In addition, as
result of high temperature in the country, air-conditions demand have increased during the
summer significantly which accounted for almost 52% of the total consumption of energy (Lahn
and Stevens, 2011).
3.2. Emission It could be said that constructions in Saudi Arabia consuming significant amount of
energy. In contrast, the percentage of CO2 emission has been increased as well (Figure 22). It is
clear that since 1990s the volume of CO2 emission from construction sector in Saudi Arabia has
increased considerably. In addition, this rise has been continual which could affect the
environment in Saudi Arabia significantly. Therefore, high energy consumption in Saudi Arabia
not just affects the economy of the country, but also environment and human health will be
effected as well.
Figure 21. Total primary energy supply for selected GCC countries (Van der Hoeven, 2011)
Sau
di
Ara
bia
So
urc
es
57
According to Living Planet Report 2012 the carbon emission from the Arabian Gulf
countries is the highest in the world (WWF, 2012: 44). Saudi Arabia has the lowest ecological
carbon footprint per person in comparison with other countries in GCC (Figure 23) (Figure 24).
Figure 22. CO2 emissions from residential and commercial and public services buildings in Saudi Arabia (million metric tons) (Barrientos and Soria, 2012)
Figure 23. Ecological footprint per countries per person for selected GCC countries (WWF, 2012: 44)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Qatar
Kuwait
United Arab Emurits
Oman
Saudi Arabia
8.9
7.69
5.96
3.27
2.43
Qatar KuwaitUnitedArab
EmuritsOman
SaudiArabia
CO2 emission 8.9 7.69 5.96 3.27 2.43
CO2 emission
*Global hectare (gha): A productivity weighted area used to report both the bio-capacity of the Earth, and the demand on bio-capacity (the Ecological Footprint), where 1 gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity.
*gha
Sau
di
Ara
bia
So
urc
es
58
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Kuwait
Oman
Bahrain
kg CO2/ capita
Saudi ArabiaUnited Arab
EmiratesQatar Kuwait Oman Bahrain
CO2 emissions 16,166 31,973 40,117 28,881 13,690 28,856
From the aforementioned, it is clear that the problem of Saudi Arabia is not emissions but
is high energy consumption what is drive to high natural source consumption. Indeed, reducing the energy use in Saudi Arabia will reflect on different sectors in the country on the economic and environmental level.
Figure 24. Total CO2 emissions from fuel combustion per capita for selected GCC countries in 2009 (Van der Hoeven, 2011)
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
59
APPENDIX 3
Summarising Different Key Papers Table of Environmental Rating Tools
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
60
Study Tools Aim Units of comparison Result
Reijnders and van Roekel (1999)
ATHENA(CA), BREEAM(UK), EcoProfile(N0), ECOPT-ECOPRO-/ECOREAL(DE) and ECO-QUANTUM(NL)
evaluated the comprehensiveness of selected methods on the basis of their coverage of the indoor environment and the major determinants of the environmental impact on the genera
Indoor environment, Design, Siting, Orientation, Building materials, User behaviour, Energy input during use, Water input during use and Demolition/ deconstruction.
BREEAM and EcoProfile suggested improvements were needed for a more solid basis to allow accurate estimates of the environmental impacts of such improvements to be made. -LAC-based methods include in-depth coverage of environmental impacts associated with design and building materials. However, LCA-based methods do not cover the total range of relations between buildings and the environment such as the indoor environment, siting and user behaviour.
Cole (2000)
BREEAM, BEPAC(CA), LEED(USA), GBC and HK-BEAM(HK)
reviews, addresses and discusses different environmental issues associated with the building construction process and the way in which they are currently represented in building environmental assessment methods
- Resource use, ecological loadings and health issues should be included and organised into clearly defined subcategories within the structure of the assessment methods.
Jönsson (2000)
LCA, Eco-labelling, EPM(NL), The Folksam(SE), EDSBP (SE) and the Natural Step(SE)
analyse and compare the selected approaches to the environmental assessment of building products to help users interpret the information provided and select the most appropriate approach for a specific situation
Using a framework distinguishes between generic aspects, contextual aspects and methodological aspects.
-The relationships between the groups of actors involved in the creation and use of a tool and the stakeholders they represent affect the design of a tool. These approaches are all concerned with enhancing the external credibility of their results. -The concern for high transparency limits the applicability of an approach and so has implications for the use of the tools. -An approach using a standardised procedure or model has high credibility, but may suffer from low flexibility. -A less standardised approach is more flexible, but the results may have lower formal status. -No one approach can be optimised to meet the demands of all possible users at the same time and hence the same stakeholder may need different tools for external communication, external decision support and internal product development. -The differences in scope between the approaches are regarded as useful linked with recommending high transparency in a tool.
Todd et al. (2001)
GBC, BREEAM, LEED, EcoProfile(NO), ESCALE(FR) and EcoEffect(SE)
compare and discuss the selected tools in order to explore the contributions of GBC and its potential role in the future
Dealing with scale, scope, end use, inclusion of sustainability concepts, structure, type of criteria and specific elements.
-GBC is most useful as a reference and basis for developing a domestic assessment method. -Economic, social, cultural and historical contexts all play an important role in determining the type of barriers and opportunities that could face developing countries to develop a domestic assessment method. -GBC has played an important role in the continuing discussion of building performance assessment and could continue to play an important role in the future.
Forsberg and von Malmborg (2004)
ELP, Eco-Quantum, Bee, BEAT 200 and EcoEffect
describes and compares chosen tools for the quantitative environmental assessment of the build environment
environment incorporating contextual aspects (type of decision maker, overall purpose, specific objective/primary type of building and object analysed) and methodological aspects (investigated dimensions, type of environmental parameters investigated, basis of comparison, system boundaries, presentation of results and top level aggregation of results)
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
61
Study Tools Aim Units of comparison Result
Cole (2005)
BREEAM, LEED and GBTool(International)
Compare and analyse selecting tools to redefine and clarify the emergent role of assessment methods
The scope of performance issues, structured, scored and communicated characteristics, and organising environmental criteria in ways that facilitate the conducting of an assessment is necessary.
-The structure of assessment method criteria has profound implications for the output of the performance evaluation. -Environmental assessment systems, technical barriers and fundamental issues are significantly affected by the use of language in a system. -The relationship between an assessment method and other complementary mechanisms assumes considerable importance.
Sinou and Kyvelou (2006)
BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, CASBEE(Japan), HQE(FR) and VERDE(ES)
Review and compare the most frequently used tools
Regarding site, indoor environment, energy, materials resources, water, transport, health, social and economic issues, comfort, management, services, long term performance, design aesthetics and functionality.
-There is no single method which includes all the parameters, especially economic, social and comfort ones. -All tools focus on energy, landscape-site, resources and quality of the indoor environment.
Abbaszadeh et al. (2006)
LEED
Compare green buildings with non-green buildings by measuring the occupants’ satisfaction with IEQ in their workspace.
Focusing on office layout, office furnishings, air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, cleaning and maintenance, overall workspace and the overall building.
Great benefits have been delivered through green building but there is a need for innovative strategies that add optional spaces with quiet and privacy.
Fenner and Ryce (2008)
BREEAM and LEED Canada-NC 1.0
compare two tools in order to determine the effectiveness of commonly used building rating systems and to propose improvements to the selected methods
Taking into account performance credits, environmental aspects, scopes, intelligibility and complexity of tools’ specifications and usability
-The assessment method could affect how a construction supply chain might achieve credit and lead to the designer community consciously assessing how to improve green buildings for the population. -Including economic and social aspects will become important in future tools.
Ding (2008)
BREEAM, ABGR((AU), AccuRate(CSIRO), BASIX, BEPAC(CA), CASBEE, CEPAS(HK), CPA(UK), DQI(UK), Eco-Quantum(NL), EMGB(TW), EPGB, GBTool, GHEM(CN), Green Star(AU), HK-BEAM(HK), LEED, NABERS(AU), NatHERS(CSIRO), SBAT(ZA) and SpeAR
An overview and analysis of environmental rating tools used in different countries
Incorporating tool characteristics and limitations in assessing building sustainability.
-Applied sustainable development concepts in construction help ensure long-term ecological, social and economic growth in society. -Current environmental assessment methods do not adequately and readily consider environmental effects in a single tool; they do not assist in the overall assessment of sustainable development. -Assessment methods provide a methodological framework to measure and monitor the environmental performance of buildings, alerting the building profession to the importance of sustainable development in the building process. -Great communication, interaction and recognition between members of the design team and various sectors in the industry are required to promote the popularity of existing assessment methods. -Major obstacles to the acceptance of environmental building assessment methods are still the inflexibility, complexity and lack of consideration of a weighting system.
Lee and Burnett (2008)
HK-BEAM, BREEAM and LEED
Compare selected tools by statistical analysis of the energy assessment of the baseline buildings.
The baseline buildings, performance criteria and the credit scales.
-The ASHRAE standard 140 is the most used with simulation tools. -The certified buildings are in the top 25% of market positions. -The assessment results are not affected by the difference in energy use assessment methods, baseline buildings, simulation tools and performance criteria. -Developing a generic assessment framework to facilitate international comparisons is focusing efforts internationally.
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
62
Study Tools Aim Units of comparison Result
Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008a)
ATHENA, BEAT(DK), BeCost(FI), BEES 4.0(USA), BREEAM, EcoEffect, EcoProfile, Eco-Quantum, Envest 2(UK), Environmental Status Model(SE), EQUER(FR), ESCALE(FR), LEED, LEGEP(DE), PAPOOSE(FR) and TEAM(FR)
Review national tools in order to clarify building environmental assessment tools by analysis, and categorised these tools
Assessed buildings, users of the tools, phases of life cycle and tools database.
-It is difficult to compare the tools and their results as result of differences in building types, phases of the life cycle and the dependency on different databases and guidelines. -The economic and social aspects are neglected and which tools to use should be considered carefully for successful assessment of sustainability. -The high quality building of today will be the low quality building of the future.
Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008b)
ATHENA
Analyse different structural solutions and building materials to determine the effect of them on the result of the environmental assessment of a whole building over the building’s life cycle.
-
-Service life issues have not been thoroughly considered in the environmental assessment of buildings. -The benefits will be maximising service life when included properly into buildings’ environmental assessment. -The service life of the item is not necessarily over even if the item is obsolete. -Clarification between the relation between service life planning and environmental tools is required.
Reed et al. (2009)
BREEAM, LEED, Green Star and CASBEE
Compare global sustainability tools and examine their characteristics and differences to provide a direct comparison between tools from different countries.
Standards, issue weighting methods and tools categories.
-High levels of variation between tools rating have been found. -Greater transparency is required for the market of international assessment. -Decrease the differences between rating methods to reduce users’ confusion. -Common green materials are required for effective standards of the markets. -Each tool has its unique characteristics and focus and so using the same rating tool in each country is not possible. Such characteristics could prevent the take-up rate of tools and create a barrier to increasing the knowledge about sustainability and buildings. -Old buildings are the largest offenders of sustainability when all building types should be included. -Critically the absence of a truly international sustainable rating tool does not hinder the goal of more sustainable buildings
Mao et al. (2009)
BREEAM, LEED, SBTool, CASBEE, BCA-GM(SG) and ESGB(CN)
compare several mainstream sustainable assessment tools which highlight the similarities and differences among them, based on different regions respectively
Tools baseline, building phases, categories, labelling, providers, market consideration, flexibility and weighting system.
-Reasonable relationship among tools found and BREEAM is the foundation of the development of the others. -Similarities between tools have been found in terms of the foundation, phases, application, categories and labelling. -Differences have been found in terms of providers, market consideration, flexibility and weighting systems. -Economic and social aspects are neglected.
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
63
Study Tools Aim Units of comparison Result
Roderick et al. (2009)
BREEAM, LEED and Green Star
Review and compare three rating tools to determine the effect of energy performance that are assessed with energy credits under those tools
Standards, scope, simulation tool, performance criteria associated with Energy.
-The assessment method used strongly affects the energy performance of a building. -The HVAC system is the heavily-weighted variable in assessment methods. -The number of parameters that assess building energy performance impact the final energy rating scores considerably.
Sebake (2009) BREEAM, LEED and Green Star
Review of different tools in order to provide an overview of green building rating tools
-
-The understanding of sustainability is increasing, which requires broader comprehension of sustainability aspects in the next generation tools. -There is a noticeable improvement in adapting assessment methods with LCA to provide a more comprehensive quantitative tool. -Increased the identified need for standardisation within various industry activities in terms of environmental criteria and standardised assessment protocols to provide a basis for a common dialogue and will eventually enable the ability for comparison between different tools as a result of globalization.
Zuhairuse et al. (2009)
GBTool, LEED, CASBEE, BREEAM, HQE, VERDE, , BCA-GM and HK-BEAM
Review different tools and then compare GB Tool and the Green Market to permit different target audiences to assess their respective suitability to any given application
Characteristics and capabilities
-Adapting the process of the BCA-GM tool is possible with several adjustments to make the tool suitable for Malaysian conditions. -The GBTool was not suitable for Malaysia as a great number of adjustments would have to be made. -Most of the common environmental practices are yet to be implemented in developing countries like Malaysia, as result of lack of the required important data such as embodied energy which is relevant in the context of those particular countries.
Ali and Al Nsairat (2009)
LEED, CASBEE, BREEAM, GBTool and SABA(JO)
suggest a green building assessment tool (SABA) - a computer based program that suits the context of Jordan in terms of environmental, social and economic perspectives.
The criteria are: weighting system, tools approaches, performance, building lifecycle process.
-A green building (residential type) assessment tool suits the local context of Jordan. -Categories can be defined according to the outer boundaries of systems and they are different from region to region depending on the local context. -There are a number of similar categories shared between developing and developed countries, but they are different in each category weighting. -Each country should design their own assessment method and they can learn from other countries’ experts.
Poston et al. (2010)
GBTool, Green Star, LEED Canada, HQE, DGNB, CASBEE, GBI, Lider A, Green Mark, VERDE, Estidama, BREEAM, LEED, Green Globes
provides an evaluation of current SAMs practice and novel articulations of sustainable development in order to identify a set of key factors required to develop a holistic framework
incorporating: sustainable site, land-use and ecology, energy efficiency, water efficiency, materials and resources, environmental loadings, indoor environment, services quality, transportation, social aspects, economic aspects, cultural aspects, regional priority, management, innovation and design, awareness and education and life cycle assessment
-There are 3 roots behind the development of the range of currently available national tools: those based on the GBC frameworks, those based on LEED and those developed from an analysis of other tools available with culturally unique assessment criteria. -Many of criteria are still based on quantitative data and less on the responsive and developmental impacts on social, cultural and economic issues. -Variation and flexibility are still issues that are required to be considered within tools to allow for regional and local differences. -To achieve realistic sustainability learning lessons from novel articulations developed through natural and cultural practice is necessary. -The evidence of pressure on the environment and its resources and subsequently culture, communities and economies is now too overwhelming to be ignored.
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
64
Study Tools Aim Units of comparison Result
Reed et al. (2011)
BREEAM, LEED, Green Star and CASBEE
an investigation into the international evolution of sustainable rating tools for office buildings to compare evaluations of buildings in different countries.
taking into account: launch date, rating scales, information gathering, assessment, third party validation, certification and labelling, update process, governance, required qualification of assessors, assessor CPD requirements, compound annual growth rate, assessment fee, certification fee, cost of appeals, credit interpretation request costs, number of units certified, number of certificated buildings , availability of assessment information.
-High levels of variation between tools rating have been found. -More transparency is required for the market of international assessment. -Decrease the differences between rating methods to reduce users’ confusion. -Common green materials are required for effective standards markets. -Each tool has its unique characteristics and focus, so that using the same rating tool in each country is not possible. -Such characteristics could prevent the take-up rate of tools and prove to be a barrier to increasing the knowledge about sustainability and buildings. -Green Star has the same levels of sustainability compared with BREEAM, however, the challenge is to increase the proportion of 6 Star rated stock
Lee (2012)
BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, BEAM Plus(HK) and ESGB
compares energy use assessments of the selected tools to provide a common basis for benchmarking incorporating assessment methods
Criteria, default parameters, trade-offs allowed, performance scales, approved simulation tools, performance indicators and assessment results.
-Assessment issues and categories of LEED are more stringent in terms of default parameters, and in performance scale among other tools. -All assessments are based on the relative approach. -LEED was found to have the most stringent and inflexible approach. -Making reference to ASHRAE Standard in approving alternative equivalents drive LEED and BEAM Plus to have set the standard of good practice. -LEED alone adopts the energy cost budget approach which achieves a balance between energy costs and emission targets.
Al-Sallal et al. (2012)
Estidama Designed a sustainable Emirati house in Abu Dhabi based on the Estidama Fareej Competition.
-
-To design sustainable buildings and communities in a harsh environment is a complex task that requires a very high level of creative thinking and specialised knowledge. -A key issue is to integrate performance evaluation tools into the design process. -A holistic approach to design a sustainable house in the desert of Abu Dhabi has been presented. -The study achieved considerable improvement over the typical Emirati house case by a 59% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and utility bills.
Table 5. Summarising Different Key Papers Table of Environmental Rating Tools
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
65
APPENDIX 4 Assessment Methods Categories
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
66
Fig
ure
1. E
ner
gy C
ateg
ory
in p
ote
nti
al A
sses
smen
t M
eth
od
s
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
67
Fig
ure
2. W
ater
Cat
ego
ry in
po
ten
tial
Ass
essm
ent
Met
ho
ds
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
68
Fig
ure
3. W
aste
Cat
ego
ry i
n p
ote
nti
al A
sses
smen
t M
eth
od
s
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
69
F
igu
re4
. Em
issi
on
an
d P
oll
uti
on
Cat
ego
ry i
n p
ote
nti
al A
sses
smen
t M
eth
od
s
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
70
Figure5. Materials Criteria in potential Assessment Methods
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
71
F
igu
re6
. Res
ou
rces
Cat
ego
ry in
po
ten
tial
Ass
essm
ent
Met
ho
ds
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
72
F
igu
re7
. Eco
logy
Cat
ego
ry in
po
ten
tial
Ass
essm
ent
Met
ho
ds
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
73
Figure8. Indoor Environment Criteria in potential Assessment Methods
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
74
Fig
ure
9. L
and
Use
Cat
ego
ry i
n p
ote
nti
al A
sses
smen
t M
eth
od
s
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
75
Fig
ure
10
. Man
agem
ent
Cat
ego
ry i
n p
ote
nti
al A
sses
smen
t M
eth
od
s
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
76
F
igu
re1
1. E
con
om
ics
Cat
ego
ry in
po
ten
tial
Ass
essm
ent
Met
ho
ds
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
77
Fig
ure
12
. In
no
vat
ion
Cat
ego
ry in
po
ten
tial
Ass
essm
ent
Met
ho
ds
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
78
F
igu
re1
3. M
ob
ilit
y a
nd
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n C
ateg
ory
in
po
ten
tial
Ass
essm
ent
Met
ho
ds
AP
PE
ND
IX 4
79
F
igu
re1
4. C
ult
ura
l Cat
ego
ry i
n p
ote
nti
al A
sses
smen
t M
eth
od
s