A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON TURKEY’S NATIONAL GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEM UNDER ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2020.110Keywords:
B.E.S.T, CEDBIK, energy, Green Building Certification System (GBCS), sustainability dimensionAbstract
In today’s living conditions, the quality of life depends on well-managed energy. Therefore, countries produce different energy policies to manage their energy resources. Determining appropriate, feasible, and controllable energy policies becomes important especially for buildings, as being one of the most significant energy consumers. Green building certification systems (GBCSs) are one of the most common applications for energy efficiency in the building sector.
Purpose
This paper is a comparative analysis of GBCSs in developed and developing countries, in an effort to establish the similarities and differences between Turkey’s first national GBCS – B.E.S.T and other GBCSs, and to determine how the energy criteria in GBCSs contribute to each dimension of sustainability (i.e., environmental, economic, social).
Design/Methodology/Approach
The research methodology depends on the literature review and documentary review on energy-related regulations, legislation, and laws. A comparative analysis of GBCSs was conducted in the study. Not only the sub-criteria directly exist under the energy criterion, but also indirect energy criteria, which are included in the sub-criteria of all other criteria within the GBCS, were numerically evaluated with the helped of developed matrix.
Findings
The results show that energy credits were given the highest weight by LEED (~33%) in international GBCSs and by GRIHA (~42%) in national GBCSs. In B.E.S.T, this is ~29%. It was determined that B.E.S.T was structurally similar to LEED, while it was similar to BREEAM in terms of weight and importance given to the energy criteria. According to the developing country GBCSs, the biggest similarity is seen with GBI. In terms of SD, it is found that GBCSs present similar characteristics to their regional development level. Where a GBCS serves for a developing region, the main concerns of energy criteria focus on the intersection of its environmental and economic aspects. Thus, B.E.S.T has been created in a similar structure and the highest share (%80) on environmental-economic aspects.
Research Limitations
In the study, the comparison was made between selected international GBCSs like BREEAM, LEED, and DGNB and national GBCSs like GM, GBI, and GRIHA.
Practical Implications
In practice, the results can help owners or developers to focus on which energy criteria contribute economic, social or environmental advantage for them.
Social Implications
This study also provides some recommendations for further application and academic studies of B.E.S.T.
Originality/Value
Increasing the recognition of Turkey’s national GBCS in scientific researches and contributing to the development of it have made this study original and unique.
Metrics
References
Awadh, O. (2017). “Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis”, Journal of Building Engineering, 11: 25-29.
BCA (2017). ‘Tomorrow Is In Our Hands Annual Report’, in Building and Construction Authority, Singapore.
Beauregard, S., Hoque, S., Fisette, P. and Weil, B. (2014). “Is Boston building better? An analysis of the LEED certifiable standard in the Boston zoning code”, Journal of Green Building, 9(3): 131-150.
BREEAM (2020). https://www.breeam.com/ (Last Access: May 5, 2020).
Brundtland, G.H. (1987). ‘Our Common Future’, in Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Calero, M., Alameda-Hernandez, E., Fernández-Serrano, M., Ronda, A. and Martín-Lara, M.A. (2018). “Energy consumption reduction proposals for thermal systems in residential buildings”, Energy and Buildings, 175(15): 121-130.
CEDBIK (2020). https://www.cedbik.org/ (Last Access: May 8, 2020).
Darko, A. and Chan, A.P. (2016). “Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals”, Habitat International, 57: 53-63.
De A, Dias, J., Salgado, E.G., Barbosa, S., Alvarenga, A.D. and Lira, J.M.S. (2017). “Assessment of the Sustainability of Countries at Worldwide”, Journal of Management and Sustainability, 7(4): 51-64.
DGNB (2020). http://www.dgnb.de/en/(Last Access: May 5, 2020).
Diker, B. (2019). “Kentsel dönüşümde çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerine bir araştırma: Fikirtepe örneği”, idealkent, 27(10): 594-629.
DLA Piper (2014). ‘Towards A Greener Future: Market Report on Sustainable Realestate’, in DLA Piper Report, UK.
Doan, D.T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A. and Tookey, J. (2017). “A critical comparison of green building rating systems”, Building and Environment, 123: 243-260.
Durak, Ş. and Ayyıldız, S. (2018). “ÇEDBİK konut sertifikası kapsamında konutların gün ışığından yararlanma performanslarının konfor ve sağlık açısından değerlendirilmesi: İstanbul Pendik örneği”, Uluslararası Marmara Fen ve Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi, 23-25 November, pp. 1351-1362, Kocaeli, Turkey.
EC (2018). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en (Last Access: August 25, 2019).
Eggoh, J.C., Bangake, C. and Rault, C. (2011). “Energy consumption and economic growth revisited in African countries”, Energy Policy, 39: 7408-7421.
EIA (2018). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/
Elkington, J. (2013). ‘Enter the Triple Bottom Line’. In: The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up, Ed: Adrian Henriques, Julie Richardson, Routledge.
Erdede, S.B. and Bektaş, S. (2018a). “Türkiye için yeşil bina sertifika sistemi gerekliliği”, 2nd International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Scientific Studies, November 30 – December 2, pp. 138-143, Samsun, Turkey.
Erdede, S.B. and Bektaş, S. (2018b). “Ulusal bir yeşil bina sertifika sistemi için arazi yönetimi kriter önerisi”, 2nd International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Scientific Studies, November 30 – December 2, pp. 182-187, Samsun, Turkey.
Geçimli, M. and Yamaçlı, R. (2019). ‘Sürdürülebilir Tasarım Bağlamında Değerlendirme Sistemleri: ÇEDBİK Örneği’, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Rolüyle Mimarlık, Ed: Leyla Tokman and Ruşen Yamaçlı, Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi.
Gillingham, K., Newell, R. and Palmer, K. (2006). “Energy efficiency policies: A retrospective examination”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31: 161-192.
Goldemberg, J., Johansson, T.B., Reddy, A.K.N. and Williams, R.H. (1987). ‘Energy for A Sustainable World’, in World Resources Institute, Washington, USA.
Green Globe (2020). https://greenglobe.com/ (Last Access: May 5, 2020).
Gültekin, A.B. and Bulut, B. (2015). “Yeşil bina sertifika sistemleri: Türkiye için bir sistem önerisi”, 2nd International Sustainable Building Symposium, 20-30 May, pp. 813-823, Ankara, Turkey.
Gültekin, A.B., Kaplan, G., Demircan, R.K. and Aruntaş, H.Y. (2018). “Yeşil binalarda su korunumu ölçütlerinin incelenmesi”, 3rd International Energy & Engineering Congress, 18-19 October, pp. 121-132, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Hoornweg, D., Freire, M., Lee, M.J., Bhada-Tata, P. and Yuen, B. (2011). “Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda”, The World Bank, 14-32.
Huo, X. and Yu, A.T.W. (2017). “Analytical review of green building development studies”, Journal of Green Building, 12(2): 130-148.
IEA (2016). ‘World Energy Outlook’, in IEA Report 2016, Paris, France.
Illankoon, I.M.C.S., Tam, V.W.Y., Le, K.N. and Shen, L. (2017). “Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 164: 209-220.
Jensen, K.G. and Birgisdottir, H. (2018). ‘Guide to sustainable building certifications’, in SBi and GXN Report, Denmark.
Johansson, T.B. and Goldemberg, J. (2002). ‘Energy For Sustainable Development: A Policy Agenda’, in United Nations Development Programme Report, USA.
Khoshbakht, M., Gou, Z., Lu, Y., Xie, X. and Zhang, J. (2018). “Are green buildings more satisfactory? A review of global evidence”, Habitat International, 74: 57-65.
Kibert, C.J. (2016). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Kim, Y. and Sun, C. (2017). “The energy-efficient adaptation scheme for residential buildings in Kazakhstan”, Energy Procedia, 118: 28-34.
Kubba, S. (2010). Green Construction Project Management and Cost Oversight, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kubba, S. (2012). Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Lee, W.L. (2013). “A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental assessment schemes”, Energy and Buildings, 62: 403-413.
LEED (2020). https://www.usgbc.org (Last Access: May 5, 2020).
Lemma, A., Massa, I., Scott, A. and Willem te Velde, D. (2016). ‘Development impact evaluation: What are the links between power, economic growth and job creation?’, in CDC and Overseas Development Institute Report, UK.
Li, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., Xu, Y. and Chen, P.H. (2017). “A review of studies on green building assessment methods by comparative analysis”, Energy and Buildings, 146: 152-159.
Mattoni, B., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Bisegna, F., Gori, P. and Asdrubali, F. (2018). “Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82: 950-960.
Mollaoglu, S., Chergia, C., Ergen, E. and Syal, M. (2016), "Diffusion of green building guidelines as innovation in developing countries", Construction Innovation, 16(1): 11-29.
Murphy, L. (2014). “The influence of the energy performance certificate: the Dutch case”, Energy Policy, 67: 664-672.
Naylor, S., Gillott, M. and Lau, T. (2018). “A review of occupant-centric building control strategies to reduce building energy use”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 96: 1-10.
Nikolaou, T., Stavrakaki, G., Kolokotsa, D., Munteanu and C., Apostolou, A. (2015). Managing Indoor Environments and Energy in Buildings with Integrated Intelligent Systems, Switzerland: Springer.
Oberthür, S. and Ott, H.E. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for 21st Century, New York, USA: Springer.
Pearce, A.R., DuBose, J.R. and Bosch, S.J. (2007). “Green building policy options for the public sector”, Journal of Green Building, 2(1): 156-174.
Potbhare, V., Syal, M. and Korkmaz, S., (2009). “Adoption of green building guidelines in developing countries based on U.S. and India experiences”, Journal of Green Building, 4(2): 158-174.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte, K.W. (2010). “International comparison of sustainable rating tools”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1):1–22.
Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C. and Alonso, C. (2009). “Comparison of energy performance assessment between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star”, 11th International IBPSA Conference, 27-30 July, pp. 27-30, Glasgow, Scotland.
Rosen, M.A. (2009). “Energy sustainability: A pragmatic approach and illustrations”, Sustainability, 1: 55-80.
Rosenow, J. and Galvin, R. (2013). “Evaluating the evaluations: evidence from energy efficiency programmes in Germany and the UK”, Energy and Buildings, 62: 450-458.
Said, F.S., and Harputlugil, T. (2019). “A research on selecting the green building certification system suitable for Turkey”, Grid, 2(1): 25-53.
Scheuer, C.W. and Keoleian, G.A. (2002). ‘Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods’, in National Institute of Standards and Technology, Michigan, USA.
Sev, A. (2009). “How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework”, Journal of Sustainable Development, 17: 161-173.
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.
Shan, M. and Hwang, B.G. (2018). “Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research efforts”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 39: 172-180.
Suzer, O.A. (2015). “A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs other major certification systems”, Journal of Environmental Management, 154: 266-283.
Tan, H., Lei, Y. and Chen, Y. (2016). “Renewable energy development for buildings”, Energy Procedia, 103: 88-93.
Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S, De Silva, M.L. and Rameezdeen, R. (2013). “Comparative study of green building rating systems: In terms of water efficiency and conservation”, International Conference on Socio-Economic Sustainability in Construction: Practice, Policy and Research, 14-15 June, pp. 108-117, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Worden, K., Hazer, M., Pyke, C. and Trowbridge, M. (2020). “Using LEED green rating systems to promote population health”, Building and Environment, 172: 106550.
Wu, Z., Shen, L., Ann, T.W. and Zhang, X. (2016). “A comparative analysis of waste management requirements between five green building rating systems for new residential buildings”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 895-902.
Yaman, Ö., Şengül, Ö., Selçuk, H., Çalıkuş, O., Kara, İ., Erdem, Ş. and Özgür, D. (2015). “Thermal insulation in buildings and insulation materials”, Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri Dergisi, 487: 62-75.
Yu, S., Tan, Q., Evans, M., Kyle, P., Vu, L. and Patel, P.L. (2017). “Improving building energy efficiency in India: State-level analysis of building energy efficiency policies”, Energy Policy, 110: 331-341.
Yüksel, I. and Kaygusuz, K. (2011). “Renewable energy sources for clean and sustainable energy policies in Turkey”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15: 4134-4144.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 