Yıl:2018   Cilt: 4   Sayı: 2   Alan: Mimarlık, Planlama ve Tasarım Temel Alanı

  1. Anasayfa
  2. Makale Listesi
  3. ID: 51

Duygu ERTEN

A Roadmap for Localizing and Harmonising Existing Green Building Rating Tools

The implementation of “green” and sustainable design and construction strategies proposed by green building rating tools have been instrumental for the market transformation of the building industry. This paper discusses the history of adapting global rating tools for commercal buildings to local context in order to make prioritization for initiating these tools in countries where green building movement is relatively new. Leading global green building rating tools have been examined along with recently created national (local) tools to analyze the demand for local tools vs adapting global green building tools to local context. A literature search on possibility of practical implementation of a framework containing core indicators to create a common assessment methodology has been revisited to help the conclusions. The research process aiming to give a big picture view of global green building rating tools and local rating tools resulted in the following key conclusions which are further discussed and elaborated in the paper: Global green building certification tools will have more impact if they are adapted locally with clear and harmonized indicators sensitive to the realities of designing and building in the specific country and inclusive of local standards, construction processes and property ownership and management structures. Even in the countries which created their own rating tool, the industry players continue to use the global green building rating tools. However, green building rating tools which do align with a common framework would be very helpful for creating an assessment method/process capable of allowing comparison and benchmarking of buildings internationally.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Green Building Rating Tools, Quality Assurance, Adaptation, Adoptation, Common Metrics


A Roadmap for Localizing and Harmonising Existing Green Building Rating Tools

The implementation of “green” and sustainable design and construction strategies proposed by green building rating tools have been instrumental for the market transformation of the building industry. This paper discusses the history of adapting global rating tools for commercal buildings to local context in order to make prioritization for initiating these tools in countries where green building movement is relatively new. Leading global green building rating tools have been examined along with recently created national (local) tools to analyze the demand for local tools vs adapting global green building tools to local context. A literature search on possibility of practical implementation of a framework containing core indicators to create a common assessment methodology has been revisited to help the conclusions. The research process aiming to give a big picture view of global green building rating tools and local rating tools resulted in the following key conclusions which are further discussed and elaborated in the paper: Global green building certification tools will have more impact if they are adapted locally with clear and harmonized indicators sensitive to the realities of designing and building in the specific country and inclusive of local standards, construction processes and property ownership and management structures. Even in the countries which created their own rating tool, the industry players continue to use the global green building rating tools. However, green building rating tools which do align with a common framework would be very helpful for creating an assessment method/process capable of allowing comparison and benchmarking of buildings internationally.

Keywords: Green Building Rating Tools, Quality Assurance, Adaptation, Adoptation, Common Metrics


Atıf İçin

Erten, D.(2018). A Roadmap for Localizing and Harmonising Existing Green Building Rating Tools. Journal of Current Researches on Engineering, Science and Technology, 4 (2), 179-194.


134