Journal of Building Engineering 11 (2017) 25–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS MARK
and Estidama critical analysis
Omair Awadh1
AESG Green Building Consultant, Dubai, UAE

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: In the built environment, a green building rating system provides the project team a framework and a tool to
Sustainability help achieving a better sustainable development. The research presents how Green Building Rating Systems
Green building rating system (GBRSs) are environmental-oriented tools and should not be confused with Sustainability Assessment Systems;
the latter is defined by the sustainability three pillars; environmental, social and economic. Achieving a green
building certification does not necessarily mean that the building succeeded in achieving its environmental
targets. The financial-driven and prescriptive implementation of GBRS are reasons behind a masked
sustainability outcome.
This paper presents an objective analysis between two internationally applied GBRSs; LEED and BREEAM,
and two particularly developed for the gulf region; Estidama and GSAS. Those four systems are analyzed with
respects to them addressing and prioritizing the sustainability pillars. The study also quantitatively discusses the
credit weighting given by these systems, focusing on energy and water criteria.
Limitations: of GBRSs’ application and possible areas of improvement have been highlighted, such as climate
change adaptability and the importance of sustainable communities and cities trend. The aim is to help
designers and construction stakeholders in defining the development sustainability targets and objectives,
without compromising on the local context and regional agenda.

1. Introduction Sustainability Rating Systems (SRSs) are considered to have three

stages [6];
Environment, society, and economy are the three pillars of sustain-
ability and the majority of sustainability rating systems have been (1) Classification: Environmental change expectations determine the
developed in line with those pillars [1]. impact category based on various inputs and outputs.
According to Brundtland [2], sustainable development is a devel- (2) Characterization: Identify the impact of each input and output with
opment that meets the present needs and at the same time preserves relation to their category.
the resources for future to meet the next generations’ needs [2]. Mateus (3) Valuation: Category weighting in comparison to other categories.
and Bragança [3] defined the sustainable development as the best
trade-off between the three pillars; environmental, social, and econom- A Green Building Rating System (GBRS), as defined by Nguyen and
ical, that strive for greater compatibility [3]. Altan [7], is a tool that the building industry uses to evaluate, enhance,
The sustainable growth debate is generally related to depending on and/or promote developments’ sustainability. Those systems provide a
strategies developed over a range of time and space scales based on the tool, guidance, and/or better insights into sustainability through
current practices and predictions [4]. Sustainability assessment tools information analysis, valuations and comparisons [7]. They try to
contribute to balancing between these dimensions or pillars (environ- facilitate the following:
mental, social, and economical), and to enhancing practicality and
resiliency. Therefore, they should be able to consider constant techno- 1. Enhance buildings’ operational performance,
logical development and multi-level applications [5]. The chart in Fig. 1 2. Minimize environmental impact,
illustrates the concept of sustainability as a scale depends on time and 3. Measure buildings’ effect on the environment, and
space. 4. Objectively evaluate and judge buildings’ development.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1
Office 604, Cayan Business Centre, Barsha Heights, Dubai, UAE.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.03.010
Received 4 August 2016; Received in revised form 24 March 2017; Accepted 27 March 2017
Available online 28 March 2017
2352-7102/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Awadh Journal of Building Engineering 11 (2017) 25–29

Under the Pearl Building Rating System (PBRS), five levels of

certifications can be obtained as follow; 1 Pearl (only prerequisites),
2 Pearl (prerequisites+60 points), 3 Pearl (prerequisites+85 points), 4
Pearl (prerequisites+115 points), and 5 Pearl (prerequisites+140
points). Eight categories are available in the PBRS with 180 total
available points [14].
In the author's opinion, the green building certification should not
be the target but rather the process itself. The aim of this study is to
identify the merits and limitations of GBRSs, and to highlight the need
for setting a project-specific sustainability objectives based on the
nature of the project, with relation to its context and regional targets.

2. Methodology

Four GBRSs have been selected based on how they best fit the
objectives of the study and the area of the author's own experience.
Fig. 1. Sustainability as scale (time and space) dependent concepts. Source: Costanza &
Patten [4]. Two of the most commonly applied international systems (BREEAM
International 2016 and LEED NC v4) and two regulatory systems in the
Knowing that there are substantial differences between GBRSs, Gulf region (GSAS 2015 and Estidama PBRS v1.0) have been studied in
sustainability-related outcomes could differ significantly depending on terms of their whole approach of addressing the three pillars of
the system applied and the understanding and experience in sustain- sustainability.
able design approaches of the project team [8,9]. With the focus on the Quantitative analysis has been conducted as a method for categor-
Gulf region, this paper looked at the sustainability practices in line with izing each system credits under these pillars. Literature reviews are
the green building codes. The green building codes of Abu Dhabi and used as part of the discussion for support and further analysis. Taking
Qatar have been assessed and compared to two of the most-applied the case of new construction commercial buildings, weightings given by
systems worldwide. An introduction to the study-related GBRSs is these systems to energy and water categories and credits have been
presented hereafter. identified.

3. Results and discussion

1.1. BREEAM, LEED, GSAS, and Estidama
3.1. GBRSs and Sustainability
Estidama Pearl Rating System, GSAS, LEED and BREEAM, are
Total Quality Assessment (TQA) systems, whereby projects are The variety of available GBRSs can be argued to enhance sustain-
awarded points for prerequisites and optional credits that are grouped able building design, directly and indirectly [3]. Brophy [8] study
under a number of categories. confirms that these systems provide a good framework to integrate
The British Building Research Establishment Environmental sustainability measures into a development, and the enhancement is
Assessment Method (BREEAM) was first launched in UK, 1990. relatively better when the project team are unfamiliar with sustainable
International versions have been released for certifying projects world- design concepts [8]. Similar to other systems, where the rating system
wide, and BREEAM International for New Construction 2016 is the is used inappropriately it can result in a poor building performance
latest. This system's evaluation is expressed as a percentage of success with a sustainability mask. In his study, Brophy concluded that (1) only
over total available points: 30% for pass classification, 45% for Good, the design team commitment and expertise can guarantee the delivery
55% for Very Good, 70% for Excellent, and 85% for Outstanding. The of appropriate sustainable building design, and (2) that these systems
categories for new construction projects are; Management, Health & must be simple to make them useful as design tools throughout the
Wellbeing, Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Waste, Land Use & construction development [8].
Ecology, Pollution, and Innovation [10]. On the other hand, Fenner and Ryce [6] study concluded that such
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems could minimize the environmental unsustainability and fail to
system was first released in 1998 by the US Green Building Council address social and economic measures [6]. The same study also
(USGBC). LEED is the most popular and widely used green building summarized green assessment schemes critics as follow;
rating system. The last released LEED version 4 for New Construction
(NC) in 2014 has four levels of certification, depending on the point (4) No universal applicable scheme.
thresholds achieved: Certified (40–49 points), Silver (50–59 points), (5) Require regular on-going updates.
Gold (60–79 points), and Platinum (80 points and above). There are (6) Integrated approach is essential for efficient application.
seven evaluation categories to obtain up to 126 possible points [11]. (7) Assumptions are the base of environmental impact analyses.
In 2009, an integrated and performance based green building (8) Occupancy and operation profile variations are somehow ne-
assessment rating system; GSAS, was established by the Gulf glected.
Organization of Research and Development (GORD) in Qatar. The
Global Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS) was modeled on best According to Castro et al. [15] and based on the division proposed
practices from the most established global rating schemes including, by ISO/AWI 21929; Energy, Materials, Waste and Pollution categories
but not limited to, BREEAM (United Kingdom), LEED (United States), are directly related to the environmental pillar. Water category falls
GREEN GLOBES (Canada), CEPAS (Hong Kong), CASBEE (Japan), under environmental-economic, while Sustainable Sites category is
and the International SBTOOL. GSAS has 8 categories and 1–6 Stars environmental-societal related. Indoor Environmental Quality and
certification can be achieved [12]. Well-being categories are economic-societal related and transport
Looking into Estidama, it is mostly developed using LEED and category is the only one that relates to the three pillars together [15].
BREEAM elements whilst applying the system to the unique local In order to examine how GBRSs address the three pillars of sustain-
needs and environment [13]. Estidama Pearl Rating System was ability, the following four charts (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5) illustrate the
established by Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (UPC) in 2010. weighting given for environmental, social, and economic pillars. Credit

26
O. Awadh Journal of Building Engineering 11 (2017) 25–29

points have been counted for the most related pillar, regardless to the
category it belongs to. A few credits are categorized as procedural;
these are related to commissioning and integrative process credits in
LEED, GSAS and Estidama, and responsible construction and com-
missioning credits in BREEAM. Procedural credits could have an
indirect influence on one or more sustainability pillar.
BREEAM International 2016 for New Construction rating system
deemed to address the environmental, social, and economic pillars with
the least unbalanced weighting. However, all four rating systems give
the environmental pillar the most importance and the economic pillar
the least. Based on this, the four GBRSs assess the environmental
impact of developments rather than their sustainability. Cole [16]
argued that although GBRSs are environmental assessment methods,
Fig. 2. BREEAM International 2016 credits weighting of Environmental, Social and they can certainly provide a useful framework for guiding project
Economic Pillars. decisions towards a sustainable design outcome [16].
When it comes to the economic pillar of sustainability, LEED has
not attributed any weighting for it; which is one element that gets the
most resistance. As design is most likely driven by cost, the economic
viability of a building is thoroughly covered automatically in project
decisions. However, and in most cases, operational and maintenance
costs are not considered. In the developing countries, where construc-
tion is continuously increasing, sustainability practices are more or less
driven by the ‘green certification’ with less attention given to the
operation stage. Estidama operational system has been developed but
still in the piloting stage. In addition, operation and maintenance
rating systems for existing developments are available under LEED and
BREEAM which help in assessing and improving buildings’ environ-
mental practices during operation.
It must be noted that life cycle costing is an optional credit and is
being given more attention recently in the Middle East. Most of GBRSs
Fig. 3. LEED NC V4 credits weighting of Environmental, Social and Economic Pillars. encourage considering the whole building life cycle assessment (LCA),
while the bar is being brought up to consider the life cycle design within
the integrative sustainable design approach. However, the design for
climate change impacts and future adaptability is a new trend in
buildings sustainable design which can be introduced through compu-
ter simulations and assessment tools.
In terms of the social pillar, it is at risk of not being adequately
covered in projects’ decision processes and not given significant
weighting in GBRSs. BREEAM gives the social aspect the second
priority after the environmental aspect, around 19% of the system
available points. GSAS gives it around 13%, while Estidama and LEED
social related credits’ weighting does not exceed 10%. According to
Berardi [17], addressing the social aspect of sustainable development
requires contextual design and relating the building to its neighbor-
hood [17]. LEED and BREEAM have looked into this through the
neighborhood rating systems rather than building systems. The same is
Fig. 4. GSAS 2015 credits weighting of Environmental, Social and Economic Pillars. applied to Estidama Pearl Community Rating System (PCRS). Based on
this, it is assumed that buildings are socially connected to their
community/ neighborhood only if they are part of a rated/certified
community. But in the case of building in a non-rated community, the
social shortfall in the GBRS is much valid yet.
USGBC is piloting LEED of Communities and LEED for Cities new
rating systems. The objectives of those newly introduced systems are
[18];

1. Improving quality of life through cities’ benchmarking, and

educating residents, visitors and business owners.
2. Verifying leadership through tracking and reporting progress
towards city's emissions targets and countries’ climate action goals.
In addition, consistently communicating the city's sustainability
performance and goals around the world.
3. Improving sustainability performance by adopting policies
Fig. 5. Estidama PBRS V1.0 credits weighting of Environmental, Social and Economic that help to reduce energy, water, waste, pollution and CO2 at the
Pillars. city scale, and in turn improve air and water quality.

27
O. Awadh Journal of Building Engineering 11 (2017) 25–29

3.2. Comparison between GBRSs Table 2

Water credits of BREEAM, LEED, GSAS, and Estidama.
Comparing the Energy category points’ weighting to the overall
Credit BREEAM LEED v4 Estidama GSAS
available points within the same system, Energy category points
contribute the most in LEED, 26%, while it is around 23–24% in Baseline water consumption √ √ √ √
BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama. The second most contributing category Indoor water use reduction √ √ √
Outdoor water use reduction √ √ √
differs between the four. BREEAM gives Health & Wellbeing category
Leak detection system √ √ √
the second highest weighting, 16%. This category is related to Indoor Water metering √ √ √
Environmental Quality and Occupants comfort. LEED gives the second Flood risk √
highest weighting to Location & Transportation category, 25%. Even Water runoff √ √ √ √
though LEED and BREEAM are the most internationally applied Heat rejection - cooling tower √ √ √
water
systems, the difference is clear on giving the second highest weighting
Water modelling during design √
to out-of-building related category in LEED while it is indoor related Rainwater/ graywater reuse √ √ √
category in BREEAM.
The Water and Indoor Environment categories in GSAS have the
same weighting of 15% each; whereas the Water and Energy categories reduction below energy baseline). LEED v4 provides more points with
also weigh the same at 24% in the Estidama rating system for less energy reduction requirement; 50% reduction entitles for 18
buildings. The scarcity of oil reserves’ resiliency and water shortage points. It is worth mentioning that LEED v4 energy baseline is
in the Gulf region is mainly the reason of prioritizing Energy and Water following ASHRAE 90.1: 2010, which is more stringent than the
categories. Estidama baseline of ASHRAE 90.1: 2007.
An in-depth comparison between the systems in relation to energy
and water efficiency has been conducted to further present variations 3.4. Water category comparison
between GBRSs. As the rating systems do not perfectly overlap, the
following comparison cannot be parallel presented. BREEAM is more focused on water monitoring, flooding and
stormwater, which are significant concerns where the system is
developed in, the UK. LEED, Estidama and GSAS prioritize water use
3.3. Energy category comparison reduction in addition to waste water reuse. The flood risk aspect is only
considered in BREEAM while design water modelling is mentioned
When it comes to the Energy category; energy efficiency, carbon under LEED v4 only. Water metering is not addressed within the GSAS
emissions reduction, and renewable energy credits are the first to be system only. Table 2 provides breakdown for water credits available
accounted for in most GBRSs. In addition, commissioning, measure- under each system.
ment and verification are highlighted in the four systems emphasizing Because of water scarcity in the gulf region, Estidama encourages
the importance of performance monitoring and testing. Lighting indoor water efficiency the most. In offices, 15 points can be earned
systems impact has been addressed in all. Demand-based control and where no more than 10.8 l/person/day of water is being consumed. In
the automation aspect are considered in LEED, Estidama and GSAS BREEAM and LEED, the points available are 6 for offices project. No
through different approaches. Table 1 shows energy credits considered more than 15 l/person/day of water shall be consumed in order to
in those GBRSs. achieve all 6 points. Water consumption prerequisite in BREEAM is
Renewable energy generation is highly encouraged in Estidama easy to comply with; 37 l/person/day or less. LEED and Estidama are
through the allowance of 8 points under renewable energy generation. more stringent as interior water consumption baseline should not
Where 20% of annual energy demand is provided through renewable exceed 25 and 27 l/person/day, respectively.
energy, 8 points can be secured. BREEAM seems to be more demand- The differences between GBRSs are related but not limited to; (1)
ing when it comes to renewable energy weighting; maximum of 3 considering various and interrelated categories, (2) emphasizing the
points for 30% contribution. Up to 3 points can be earned under LEED need for communication or not, (3) prioritizing and weighting con-
for 10% renewable energy generation, while the same 10% entitles the cerns. Moreover, the structure of each system is not always accessible
project for 1 point only under BREEAM. This variation could be related and criteria do not perfectly overlap. The same study also indicated the
to the local environment challenges, smart grid provisions, and necessity of improving the communicability of the assessment systems
government subsidies. [19]. Lack of communicability could hinder the take-up rate of the
As for energy efficiency for new construction commercial projects, green building rating tools and also be a barrier to increasing the
BREEAM is the most stringent system to earn points under this credit knowledge about sustainability in the built environment [20]. Moktar
(maximum of 15 points that require 90% reduction below baseline is [21] research confirmed the impact variation as a result of adopting
achieved), keeping in mind that the energy baseline differs from system different GBRSs, but all systems showed positive impact on the
to another. Estidama provides the same number of points (up to 15 environment, building operational performance and occupants’ well-
points) under this credit with less energy reduction requirement (60% being [21].
According to Reed et al., each country or region should have its own
Table 1 sustainability standard but at the same time, standardizing a rating
Energy related credits of BREEAM, LEED, GSAS, and Estidama.
system should not consider the local environment as the highest
Credit BREEAM LEED V4 Estidama GSAS priority over global needs [20]. Voinov and Farle [22] study also
supports a case that global solutions should drive local level action
Energy Efficiency √ √ √ √ [22]. This will prioritize different subsystems’ sustainability based on
CO2 Emissions √ √ √ √
its place within the system hierarchy. Kibert [23] study stated that the
Sub-Metering/ Measurement √ √ √ √
Commissioning √ √ √ √ following parameters are the main contributors toward achieving
Lighting √ √ √ √ sustainable development [23];
Renewable Energy √ √ √ √
Demand Response √ 1. Regulation and public policy integration
Automated Control √
Peak Load Reduction √
2. Finance and insurance industries
3. Education and construction stakeholders

28
O. Awadh Journal of Building Engineering 11 (2017) 25–29

It can be argued that those systems that are policed more Acknowledgements
stringently, through detailed reviews and construction site audits, can
offer higher substantiation of sustainability claims. Estidama is a very This research was supported by AESG Green Building Consultant.
good example supporting this statement where it is mandated for all
new projects within the emirate of Abu Dhabi, UAE. Masdar City is References
another good example of setting a city sustainability targets and based
on those establishing the sustainability key performance indicators [1] United Nations, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 60/1, Agenda items
(KPIs) on both, building and infrastructure levels. Masdar City, within 46 and 120. 2005 World Summit Outcome, 2005.
[2] United Nations World, Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
its context, plays a main role in supporting the country agenda and Our Common Future; Brundtland Report. Oxford University Press, 1987.
educating its residents. [3] R. Mateus, L. Bragança, Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings:
developing the methodology SBToolPT-H, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 1962–1971.
[4] R. Costanza, B.C. Patten, Defining and predicting sustainability, Ecol. Econ. 15
4. Conclusion (1995) 193–196.
[5] L. Bragança, R. Mateus, H. Koukkari, Building sustainability assessment,
BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama systems give the highest weighting Sustainability 2 (2010) 2010–2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su2072010.
[6] R.A. Fenner, T. Ryce, A comparative analysis of two building rating systems. Part 1:
to the Energy category while LEED prioritizes the Indoor evaluation, Eng. Sustain. 161 (2007) 55–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
Environmental Quality category. Because of the energy aspect impor- ensu.2008.161.1.55.
tance, enhanced energy performance credit is given the highest [7] B.K. Nguyen, H. Altan, Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems, Porc.
Eng. 21 (2011) 376–386.
weighting in the four systems. Achieving enhanced energy performance
[8] V. Brophy, Building EnvironmentalAssessment – a useful tool in the future delivery
and renewable energy related points under BREEAM is the most of holistic sustainability? in: Proceedings of the 2014 World Sustainable Building
rigorous. LEED is the most lenient in energy performance credits while Conference, Barcelona: Paper 119, 2014.
Estidama is lenient for renewable energy generation. On the other [9] R.C. Retzlaff, Green building assessment systems: a framework and comparison for
planners, J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 74 (4) (2008) 505–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
hand, Estidama is the easiest to earn high number of points for water 01944360802380290.
reduction while LEED and BREEAM follow. Estidama and LEED [10] BRE Global, BREEAM International New Construction 2016, Technical Manual
interior water minimum reduction requirement is more stringent than SD233 – Issue: 1.0, 2016.
[11] U.S. Green Building Council. 2013. LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and
BREEAM's. This constructive comparison shows the need to focus on Construction, updated V4 October 1, 2014.
the process toward sustainable design rather than targeting the [12] Gulf Organisation for Research and Development, GSAS Technical Guide 2015,
certification or higher rating, as the last is subjective. Issue 2, 2015.
[13] K. Elgendy, Comparing Estidama’s Pearls Rating System to LEED and BREEAM.
In terms of addressing the environmental, economic and social 〈http://www.carboun.com/sustainable-urbanism/comparing-estidama%
pillars of sustainability, all four rating systems are focused on the E2%80%99s-pearls-rating-method-to-leed-and-breeam/〉 (02 May 2016), 2010.
environmental pillar while giving the social pillar the least importance. [14] Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council, Pearl Building Rating System: Design &
Construction, Version 1.0, April 2010, 2010.
Despite the arguments of GBRSs ability of structuring environmental [15] Md Castro, R. Mateus, L. Bragança, A critical analysis of building sustainability
criteria, they tend to help to include sustainability as part of the assessment methods for healthcare buildings, Environ. Dev. Sustain 17 (1381)
decision-making more commonly, integral and consistently, in addition (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9611-0 (2015).
[16] R.J. Cole, Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions, in:
to setting out a sustainability-focused design team.
Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 2005, pp.
It should be noted that this study does not consider the rigor of 1934–1939.
application of a GBRS. The author would argue that GBRS is a useful [17] U. Berardi, Beyond sustainability assessment systems: upgrading topics by enlar-
framework for guiding the environmental sustainability of a project but ging the scale of assessment, SUSB 2 (4) (2011) 276–282. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.4.276.
it is also important to consider the sustainability targets of the project [18] M. Sparks, New certification now available: LEED for Cities and LEED for
with respect to overall social and economic perspectives. Nevertheless, Communities. 〈http://www.usgbc.org/articles/new-certification-now-available-
integrative approach, systematic analysis and innovative thinking need leed-cities-and-leed-communities〉 (15 March 2017), 2016.
[19] U. Berardi, Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems and
to be adopted in conjunction with the assessment tools throughout the rated buildings, Sustain. Dev. (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.532.
project development. Life cycle design, climate change adaptability, [20] R. Reed, A. Bilos, S. Wilkinson, K. Schulte, International comparison of sustainable
along with computer modelling and tools are the new trend in rating tools, JOSRE 1 (1) (2009).
[21] A.E. Moktar, Comparative Study of Building Environmental Assessment Systems:
sustainable buildings’ design. Pearl Rating System, LEED and BREEAM. Dissertations for Sustainable Design of
The presented analysis highlights the importance of identifying a Built Environment (SDBE). The British University in Dubai. 〈http://bspace.buid.
project-specific sustainability targets in line with the contextual ac.ae/handle/1234/127〉 (1 April 2016), 2012.
[22] A. Voinov, J. Farley, Reconciling sustainability, systems theory and discounting,
objectives. Green Buildings can support their surroundings sustainable
Ecol. Econ. 63 (2006) 104–113.
growth but might not be able to address the social and economic [23] C.J. Kibert, The next generation of sustainable construction, Build. Res. Inf. 35 (6)
aspects. On the other hand, they can better serve a community or city (2007) 595–601.
sustainability targets and collaborate toward a holistic approach.

29