Content uploaded by Huijuan Dong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Huijuan Dong on May 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
An Overview of Chinese Green Building Standards
Yong Geng,
1,3
Huijuan Dong,
1,2
*Bing Xue
1
and Jia Fu
3
1
Key Laboratory of Pollution Ecology and Environmental Engineering, Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, China
2
Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
3
Key Lab on Environmental Engineering, Shenyang University, Shenyang, China
ABSTRACT
With rapid urbanization and industrialization, China is now facing a great challenge in meet-
ing the soaring demand for new buildings and the corresponding energy consumption.
Under such circumstances, the setting of a national standard on green buildings would be
an effective way to respond. In fact, China has made significant progress in developing
national green building standards. But such progress is not explicitly released to the interna-
tional societies. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to introduce such progress. China’s green
building efforts are first discussed in detail with the various provisions of the national indi-
cator system. By conducting a comparison with other countries’green building standards,
a critical analysis of such a national standard is presented. The comparison indicates bene-
fits to be gained and challenges to be met, such as lack of indicators on responding climate
change, lack of region-specific indicators, lack of quantitative indicators, higher costs for
receiving certification and lack of applying innovative green technologies. So, substantive
revision is critically needed. The knowledge gained from Chinese efforts on green building
indicators are valuable to both developed and developing nations seeking to implement
sustainable development measures within their regulatory policies. Copyright © 2012 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 1 February 2011; revised 21 March 2011; accepted 21 September 2011
Keywords: Chinese standards; evaluation system and indicators; green building; policy implications
Introduction
THE BUILDING SECTOR HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT NOT ONLY ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIFE, BUT ALSO ON THE NATURAL
and built environment. For instance, on an annual basis, buildings in the USA consume 39% of the USA’s
energy and 68% of its electricity (WBDG, 2011). Furthermore, buildings emit 38% of the carbon dioxide
(the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change), 49% of the sulfur dioxide, and 25% of the
nitrogen oxides found in the air (Tatari and Kucukvar, 2011). It is therefore essential to find innovative solutions
to reduce load, increase efficiency (Li, 2008), and use renewable energy resources (Li et al., 2007) in buildings of
all types.
*Correspondence to: Ms Huijuan Dong, Circular Economy and Industrial Ecology Research Group, Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy
of Science, Shenyang, Liaoning Province (110016), China. E-mail: donghj1981@126.com; donghuijuan@iae.ac.cn
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Sustainable Development
Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.1537
Green building is such an effort because it can reduce the use of resources such as electricity, gas and water by
using energy-efficient appliances and systems and reduce waste by using long-lasting products such as recycled
carpet, natural linoleum and bamboo flooring. It also requires maximizing health, efficiency, cost-effectiveness,
and durability during construction, maintenance and cleaning (Zhang et al., 2011). Consequently, green building
has been accepted by both developed and developing countries.
China is experiencing fast economic development and urbanization. The total floor area of existing buildings is more
than 40 billion m
2
in China (Yang and Zhou, 2010; Sun, 2010). Every year the total floor areas of new buildings are up
to 2 billion m
2
, consuming 40% of the world’s cement and steel (Qiu, 2010). Besides, buildings in China have a
relatively shorter life expectancy, that is about 30 years, while such a figure in European countries is around 80 years,
and 44 years in the USA (Hu et al., 2009). According to Li and Yao (2009), the urbanization rate in China will increase
from 47% in 2008 to 50% in 2012, and 74% in 2050, indicating a significant demand for new buildings in urban areas.
Consequently, it is critical to initiate green building efforts so as to alleviate the potential impacts from the building
sector. To achieve this target, a green building standard is needed to help building stakeholders promote green building
projects.
Many countries have developed their own green building standards, such as BREEAM (Building Research
Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) in the UK, CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System
for Building Environmental Efficiency) in Japan, EcoProfile in Norway, and LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) in the USA (Ali and Al Nsairat, 2009; Li, 2010). Those initiatives brought significant energy
saving benefit. For instance, studies have shown that on average buildings with a LEED label were 25–30% more
energy efficient than conventional buildings (Kats, 2003). Social and economic benefits can also be obtained, such
as better ventilation, better working and living environment, increased working productivity, and even higher rents,
sale prices and occupancy rates (Fuerst and McAllister, 2008, 2009; Pivo and Fisher, 2009).
To promote green buildings in China, several Chinese standards for green building/energy efficient building assess-
ment or design codes have been issued in recent years (GOBAS-Group, 2003; MOHURD and GAQSIQ, 2006; MEP,
2007). However, these indicators from China are not yet translated into English, explained in detail, or critically evaluated.
Therefore,themainpurposeofthispaperistointroducetheseindicators and evaluate their applicability and limitations.
The benefits and challenges of applying these indicators are discussed. Then, on the basis of these, recommendations
on improving such indicators are raised by considering Chinese situations. Finally, we draw our conclusions.
Methodology
This study has a qualitative nature, rather than quantitative. The data and information used to create this paper were
derived from unpublished municipal government reports and published papers, as well as from semi-structured inter-
views with key informants. Before the interviews, a brief session and several formal workshops were hosted by the
authors so that the interviewers could probe respondents for greater clarity in answers and consistency in relation
to the objectives of the questions. The whole investigation process was administered with the endorsement and sup-
port of the Shenyang Construction Commission, which assigned a specific department to be in charge of this project.
Content analysis on existing literatures and research reports are adopted to examine the green building projects.
In addition, interviewees were promised anonymity, and so interviewee responses have been pooled and in some
cases slightly reworded to obscure interviewee identities. We observed no evidence that the leadership in the inves-
tigated units made any effort to affect the outcomes of the interview, and we explained clearly in our briefing that all
data were collected solely for academic purposes and would remain strictly confidential. We can reasonably believe
that the responses represent the true opinions of the respondents.
The Chinese Standards on Green Building
In the 1990s, the concept of green building was first introduced into China’s construction industry (Xiao and Qiao,
2009). In 1996, Research on Chinese Green Building System was listed as one Ninth Five-Year Plan key funding area by
212 Y. Geng et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Since then, a series of green building documents and regulations,
such as Residential Green Building Elements and Technical Guidelines,China’s Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook,
Assessment System for Green Buildings of Beijing Olympic Games,Green Building Technical Guidelines,Evaluation Standard
for Green Buildings,Rules for the Implementation of Green Building Evaluation Logo etc., were released.
Comparing with those developed countries, the Chinese standards on green building were initiated much later
and incorporated a lot of valuable components from foreign standards. The whole development progress can be
categorized into three stages and the quality has been gradually improved.
First Stage: Released China’s Eco-house Technical Evaluation Handbook
To improve the overall eco-efficiency of Chinese buildings, China began to design a green building evaluation sys-
tem in early 2000s. In 2001, China’s Eco-house technical evaluation handbook was prepared (Li, 2010). Later, three
upgraded editions were released in 2002, 2003 and 2007, respectively, so that the most recent progress could be
incorporated. All the four editions were edited based upon a combination of both the USs LEED standard and
the Chinese realities.
The most recent edition, namely the fourth edition of China’s Eco-house technical evaluation handbook, consists of
two chapters and four appendices (Nie et al., 2007). The first chapter is a rating system, which explains the principle
of eco-residence. This chapter can be used to guide the planning, design and construction of ecologically friendly
residential buildings. The rating system consists of five primary indicators: site and residential environment, energy
and environment, indoor environmental quality, water environment, and material and resource use. The second
chapter focuses on the assessment method and grading criteria. The assessment is based on the five indicators
and includes three kinds of assessment: prerequisite assessment, assessment for planning and design stage, and
assessment for operation and maintenance stage. Qualifying residential buildings have to meet all the criteria within
three stages. This is China’sfirst green building assessment guideline, however, it was designed only for residential
buildings, not for commercial and other buildings (Xing, 2008).
Second Stage: Released Green Building Assessment System for Beijing Olympic (GBASBO)
To host a ‘Green Olympics’in Beijing, a special research project on developing GBASBO was initiated in November
2002 (Zhu, 2005). It was mainly developed by reference to the Japanese CASBEE standard. For the sake of meeting
with the special requests of a ‘Green Olympic Games’, the Chinese realities were considered, especially the Beijing
local conditions.
One feature of this assessment system is that the concept of green building was first officially raised in China.
The whole assessment progress contains four stages, namely, planning stage, design stage, construction and final
inspection stage, and operation and management stage (GOBAS-Group, 2003). Different from other green building
standards, this assessment system requires that each stage needs to be evaluated separately and the whole process
should also be evaluated.
Figure 1 presents how this system functions, where the x-axis represents both resource consumption and envi-
ronmental loads for constructing one building, while the y-axis represents overall quality of one building. When
applying this system, a higher x-value means more resource consumption and environmental impacts for one build-
ing, while a higher y-value means better performance of one building. The total value of xis an aggregated score
from resource consumption and environmental impact in each stage. As such, the total value of yis an aggregated
score from its quality performance in each stage. Table 1 presents the detailed scoring weight for each stage of one
building project so that the practitioners can better use such a rating system. Consequently, if the final rate of one
building is in zone A, then this building has a much greener performance and lower resource consumption and less
environmental impact and should be listed as one green building. Similarly, if the final rate is in zone B or even in
zone C, such a building is still listed as one good building and can be constructed. However, if the final rate locates
in zone D or zone E, such a building will have higher resource consumption and more environmental impact and
should not be constructed.
GBASBO is China’sfirst local green building evaluation and certification system; however, it is specially tailored
only for Beijing Olympic venue construction and not fit for other regions or other types of buildings.
213Chinese Green Building Standards
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
5
5
2
3
4
2
1
0
01 34
A
E
D
C
B
L: energy, resource and environment devoted
Q: quality and service
*
*
*
*
*
Figure 1. Green building rating system for Beijing Olympic Games (Source: Jiang and Lin, 2004)
Stages Q/L Primary indexes Weight
1. Planning stage Q Location quality 0.15
Service and function 0.45
Outdoor physical environment 0.40
L Impact on surrounding environment 0.35
Energy consumption 0.35
Materials and energy 0.10
Water resources 0.20
2. Detailed design stage Q Outdoor environmental quality 0.10
Indoor physical environment 0.30
Indoor air quality 0.35
Service and function 0.25
L Impact on surrounding environment 0.05
Air pollution 0.10
Energy consumption 0.40
Materials and energy 0.30
Water resources 0.15
3. Construction stage Q Safety and health 0.70
Construction quality 0.30
L Impact on surrounding environment 0.55
Energy consumption 0.15
Materials and energy 0.20
Water resources 0.10
4. Test, commissioning and operation stage Q Outdoor environment quality 0.10
Indoor physical environment 0.20
Indoor air quality 0.15
Service and function 0.20
Green management (greening, service, waste management) 0.35
L Impact on surrounding environment 0.10
Energy consumption 0.30
Water resource 0.15
Green management (energy and water saving management) 0.45
Table 1. Detailed weights of GBASBO rating system
214 Y. Geng et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Third Stage: Released National Green Buildings Evaluation Standard (GB/T 50378–2006)
To further promote the development of green buildings, the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development
(MOHURD, former Ministry of Construction) released a national green building evaluation standard on 16 March
2006 (GB/T 50378–2006). This standard, nicknamed as ‘three star standard’, is the first national standard on green
building and became effective on 1 June 2006. It considers all the stages of one building’s life cycle and covers both
residential and public buildings (including office buildings, mall buildings and hotel buildings). The aim is to
reduce total resource, water, energy and land use for one building and address the following six aspects, namely,
land saving and outdoor environment, energy saving and utilization, water saving and utilization, material saving
and utilization, indoor environment, operation and management. Detailed indicators for each aspect can be further
categorized into mandatory items, regular items and premium items. In total, there are 76 options for residential
buildings, including 27 mandatory options, 40 regular options and nine premium options. For public buildings,
there are 83 options, including 26 mandatory options, 43 regular options and 14 premium options. Detailed option
descriptions for these six aspects are given in the Supplementary material (Appendix A).
As for the rating system, the three-star standard does not use scoring methods, but focuses on the number of
options to achieve and satisfy. The numbers of options required for the level assessment of residential buildings
and public buildings are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. For both residential and public buildings,
controlling options are mandatory conditions. All the mandatory options should be first completed if one building
is going to be evaluated. General options and previous options are optional conditions for classifying green build-
ings into three levels. The total amount of various regular and premium options applied within one building is the
final result that this building can obtain. Based upon this, one building can be evaluated as a one-star, two-star or
three-star green building. The star level is decided by the minimum number of each component, not the total
numbers satisfied.
Regular options (40 options) Premium options
(9 options)
Level
Land saving
and outdoor
environment
(8 options)
Energy saving
and utilization
(6 options)
Water saving
and utilization
(6 options)
Materials saving
and utilization
(7 options)
Indoor
environmental
quality
(6 options)
Operation and
management
(7 options)
★4233240
★★ 5344353
★★★ 6455465
Table 2. Evaluation threshold for residential buildings
Level Regular options (43 options) Premium options
(14 options)
Land saving
and outdoor
environment
(6 options)
Energy saving
and utilization
(10 options)
Water saving
and utilization
(6 options)
Material saving
and utilization
(8 options)
Indoor
environmental
quality
(6 options)
Operation and
management
(7 options)
★34353 4 –
★★ 46464 5 6
★★★ 58575 610
Table 3. Evaluation threshold for public buildings
215Chinese Green Building Standards
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Perspectives on Applying this Three-Star Standard
The Chinese three-star standard was developed based upon the USA’s LEED standard because the LEED does not have
quantitative indicators and a weighting system, but sets up various options for building developers to adopt so that total
points can be received for a final evaluation. Such a method is easy to be applied and evaluated. Another reason is that
the LEED standard is globally recognized and is reliable. However, unlike the LEED standard, the Chinese standard
has three levels, whereas the LEED standard has four, namely Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Neither of them
consider the life cycle of one building, whereas other similar standards, such as CASBEE and BREEAM, do. Such a
simplified measure can facilitate the certification process, but it does not reflect the different contributions of different
options without appropriate weighting of these options, and so fails to address project-specific features. Developers
may simply seek those low-hanging fruits, rather than adopting more expensive but more efficient options.
There are some differences between Chinese and foreign standards, especially in the evaluation objects and
evaluation components. Comprehensive analysis of these standards in Table 4 shows that each standard emphasizes
Standards Year Country/Region Evaluation objects Evaluation contents
BREEAM 1990 UK New construction, existing
buildings (commercial,
industrial, residential, shopping
malls, supermarkets)
Management; Health and comfort;
Energy consumption; Traffic; Water
consumption; Materials; Land use;
Ecological value of the location; Pollution
LEED 1995 USA New construction, existing
commercial buildings
Sustainable sites; Water efficiency;
Energy and atmosphere; Material and
resource; Indoor environmental quality;
Innovation and design process.
Eco profile 1995 Norway Existing office buildings,
commercial buildings,
residential buildings
Outdoor environment; Resources; Indoor
environment.
HK-BEAM 1996 Hong Kong New construction and existing
office buildings and residential
buildings
Site; Materials; Energy; Water resources;
Indoor environment quality; Innovation.
GBC 1998 Canada New construction and renovation
buildings
Resource consumption; Environment
load; Management; Indoor environment;
Service facility quality; Economic; Traffic.
Taiwan Green
Building
Manual
2001 Taiwan All kinds of buildings Greening; Water retention; Water
resource; Daily energy saving; CO
2
reduction; Waste reduction; Wastewater
reduction.
CASBEE 2002 Japan New construction, existing
buildings, renovation buildings,
short-term use buildings
Q building quality(Q1 indoor quality,
Q2 service facility quality, Q3 indoor
environment); L environment
load(L1 energy, L2 resources and
materials, L3 environment outside
of the area);
Q/L Building Environmental Efficiency.
Evaluation
standards
of green
building
(GB/T50378-
2006)
2006 China New, extended and renovation
buildings.
Land saving and outdoor environment;
Energy saving and energy utilization;
Water saving and water utilization;
Materials-saving and materials resources
utilization; Indoor environment quality;
Operation management (including
residence and public buildings).
Table 4. Comparison between Chinese green building standards and foreign standards
Source: Sun et al. (2008)
216 Y. Geng et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
different aspects because of its unique features. For example, in terms of water perspectives, both European and
American countries place emphasis on water conservation planning, wastewater recycling and water resource conser-
vation, whereas the Chinese standards particularly encourage consumption of rainwater, reclaimed wastewater, and
even sea water because China lacks freshwater resources. Also, the Chinese standards require a reduction of the total
land used for building construction, whereas many other foreign standards do not have such a requirement because
the population density in these countries is much lower than in China (Zheng, 2010). Moreover, because of energy
shortages and dependence on fossil fuels (especially coal) in China, the Chinese standards have rigid requirements
for energy saving and energy structure optimization (increasing the use of renewable/cleaner energy) for building sec-
tors (Cai et al., 2009), but without consideration of reducing total CO
2
emissions, whereas other foreign standards pay
more attention to reducing total CO
2
emissions and set up a specific indicator for controlling CO
2
emission. Further,
the Chinese standards require an increase in total green area (trees or grass), namely, total greening rate should be
higher than 30% of the total project floor area and per capita green area should be more than 1 m
2
.Noneofthe
non-Chinese standards has such a stipulation although reducing the heat island effect is addressed. Finally, Chinese
building occupants have to conduct interior design and decoration themselves after purchasing their property from
developers, thus, resulting in secondary indoor pollution and a great loss of material consumption. To respond to this
issue, the Chinese standards require that the performance of interior decoration should be evaluated, whereas in other
countries such a matter is not an issue because interior design and decoration are usually conducted by developers.
This national standard is a voluntary standard. Developers of one building project need to submit their application
to the appropriate governmental agency if they seek to receive an official certification. The LEED Core and Shell system
allows developers to submit their design and achieve ‘pre-certification’, which they can then market to prospective
tenants before the building is built. This allows developers to capture some of the benefits of going green by obtaining
higher rents and faster lease up and ultimately drives more developers to build green. However, unlike the LEED
standard, the application for China’s three-star standard has to be submitted at least after 1 year’s operation of the
new building. This post-facto certification process could slow the market transformation that LEED has driven.
The national Chinese Institute for Building Sciences is the only agency authorized to grant three-star status to
buildings, whereas provincial-level Institutes for Building Sciences are authorized to certify one-star and two-star
buildings. Generally, the three-star standard offers provincial flexibility. When certain items in the standard are
not compatible with the geographic or climate conditions of the local area, local assessment and certification author-
ities can choose to eliminate those items in the evaluation process. As a result, practices for green building certifi-
cation vary across provinces. In addition, the rigidity in measurement differs from province to province. As a result,
variations in the operational definition are significant enough to make green buildings in one locality unable to qual-
ify in another. For instance, the Shenyang municipality requires that all public buildings seeking certification should
first consider using a ground-source heat pump for winter heating (Guo, 2011). But such a policy may not be suitable
for other regions where a ground-heat source is not available or where a reliable service or a heating service is not
necessary (such as tropical regions in south China).
Generally, this three-star standard can provide comprehensive economic, ecological and societal benefits. For
instance, it encourages more efficient materials and energy use, so cost savings can be achieved through potentially
lower insurance costs, avoidance of regulatory penalties, as well as reduced environmental responsibilities. In
addition, since green building can provide cleaner indoor air and better lighting, both sale price and renting price
may be higher than in regular buildings. Ecological benefits include conservation of natural resources and a
reduction of the environmental impact of both the construction and operation stages, achieved through more
efficient material and energy use, reduced waste discharge and energy/water consumption. Also, some societal
benefits of applying this standard could be achieved, such as improved public awareness through capacity building
programs, greener public image and improved public health.
Challenges and Recommendations
Although certain benefits can be received through the development of green building standards, there are still some
challenges that need to be discussed.
217Chinese Green Building Standards
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Lack of Indicators on Responding to Climate Change
As a result of the worldwide increasing concern on global warming, more attention should be placed on developing
new indicators on responding to climate change. However, current indicators do not address this perspective.
Hence, there is a need to add new indicators on climate change, such as total CO
2
emission reduction, proportion
of renewable/cleaner energy use, carbon footprint of one building, etc. The appropriate application of these indica-
tors can increase both building designers’and developers’low carbon development awareness and apply advanced
energy-saving and energy-efficient technologies and equipment.
Lack of Region-specific Indicators
Because of China’s vast territory and differentiated climatic zones, it is difficult to apply one national standard with-
out considering local situations (Yin and Dong, 2009). More region-specific indicators should be supplemented. For
example, in northern China heating is needed in winter, therefore, specific indicators on encouraging the use of
renewable/clean energy should be established so that solar power, wind power and geothermal enrgy can be applied,
whereas southern China needs a significant cooling service in the summer so indicators encouraging the use of
renewable/cleaner energy for cooling purposes should be set up. Similarly, water shortage is a big issue in northern
China so indicators encouraging water reuse and recycling should be highlighted, but water pollution is a big issue
in southern China, where indicators encouraging wastewater emission reduction should be highlighted.
Lack of Quantitative Indicators
The Chinese three-star standard has too much qualitative indicators and too little quantitative indicators (Yang et al.,
2009; Zhou, 2008), so it fails to reflect the real green nature. For instance, there is one option related to the use of
water-saving utensils. If one building is equipped even with only one water-saving utensil (such as water-saving
toilets), then one point can be achieved. So a developer may simply install one to obtain a point. However, if a
quantitative indicator is set up, such as over 50% of toilets should be water-saving and functional, then the whole
building can make significant savings in water use. Also, this standard does not set up any weighting systems for
different options and so discourages practitioners from pursuing green behaviors. Consequently, there is a need
to set up more quantitative indicators to evaluate the green level of different options.
Higher Costs for Receiving Certification
Although significant benefits can be gained through green building certification, the higher costs have become a barrier
for developers to pursue such a certification. According to MOHURD (2011) and CGBELO (2011), only 42 projects had
been certified as three-star green buildings between 2008 and 2010. Figure 2 shows the total amount of such projects
during 2008–2010.
434
22
6
47
10
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
2008 2009 2010
3 star
2 star
1 star
Figure 2. Number of certified three-star projects during 2008–2010
218 Y. Geng et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
However, all of them are public buildings and most are government-funded demonstration projects, indi-
cating that the private sector does not have enough incentives to pursue such a certification. Compared with
traditional buildings, the additional costs include thehigherpurchasecostofgreenelements(suchas
ground-source heat pump, wall insulation, solar heating appliance, etc.), costs related to acquisition of green
technologies, cost of installation to the design specifications including any change in the planning and design
stage and construction stage, and higher labor costs. Also, the pay-back period is often excessive and not
attractive to those property developers, who wish to see investment realized in much shorter periods. for
these reasons it is difficult to persuade many property developers and financial institutions in China to pursue
such an effort.
To respond to such a challenge, government should adopt economic instruments, such as lower tax rate, lower
bank interests, and financial subsidies, so that the total costs can be reduced. Also, appropriate policies should be
raised so as to encourage developers to pay more attention on receiving such a certification. For instance, to
ensure higher quality and extend the total life cycle of various public buildings, governmental agencies can stip-
ulate that public buildings should receive at least one-star certification, otherwise construction permission will not
be released. For residential buildings, government should improve the general public’s awareness through
capacity-building programs (including TV promotions, newsletters and regional symposia and workshops) so that
the public consumers can understand that green building will bring a healthy indoor environment and reduce
long-term operation costs.
Lack of Applying Innovative Green Technologies
Although the Chinese three-star standard encourages the application of green technologies, the option-based rating
system does not provide enough incentives to developers for adopting innovative green technologies. For instance,
while the adoption of one option can bring more points for a developer’s certification application, the costs of dif-
ferent options are significantly different. Developers may simply pursue those that are cheap without applying
the innovative green technologies option, not paying enough attention to the expensive and sophisticated, but more
energy/water efficient, options.
To meet this challenge, it is critical to encourage the proactive application of green technologies by engaging most
of the stakeholders in the process. The key is to institutionalize green practices and technologies into the green reg-
ulatory framework for property development projects. An integrated team, including senior managers, planners,
engineers, financial organizations, facilities management and marketing representatives, governmental representa-
tives, etc, should be established to develop the institutionalized framework for green building practices. Such a
framework enables individuals, groups and institutions to participate in identifying and resolving green technology
application issues. The approach is based on the premise that involving stakeholders results in the production of
relevant solutions that take into account each building’s unique social, economic and environmental conditions
and values. Through a range of participatory mechanisms, all the stakeholders will have opportunities to become
engaged in the planning and application of innovative green technologies. Also, innovative green technologies
can be categorized into passive and active design strategies. A passive design strategy refers to building design that
does not require mechanical equipment for heating or cooling, which deals directly with the building envelope (air
permeability, exterior walls doors, windows and roofing), how it is oriented to optimize solar loss and gain and so
reduce energy consumption and life-time costs, the use of sustainable sources and low-carbon emission materials,
etc. In contrast, an active design strategy refers to the use of artificial, mechanical or electrical green technology to
heat, cool or light a space, which may include air conditioning, artificial lighting, elevators, escalators, pumps and
fans (Kibert, 2008). According to Zhang et al. (2011), passive design strategies are inexpensive to apply compared
with those ‘active’design strategies in developing the green property projects in the planning and design stage.
Therefore, passive design elements are more appropriate in China. Also, foreign advanced technologies, equipment
and expertise on innovative green technologies should be transferred and applied through training programs,
demonstration projects, technical missions and staff exchange. Finally, local government should invest in relevant
research and development activities through special research grant programs. By considering the local realities,
research emphasis should be placed on enhancing local green building research and development capacities to
achieve local green building development objectives.
219Chinese Green Building Standards
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Conclusions
To respond to resource depletion, climate change and environmental emissions, building sectors should support the
development of green building. With the increasing urbanization and rapid economic development, the Chinese
building market will still boom in the next several decades and a large number of new buildings will be constructed.
Under such circumstances, it is critical to conduct an in-depth study of Chinese green building standards. Our find-
ings on the Chinese standards indicate that several challenges have impeded the successful implementation of such
standards, such as a lack of indicators for responding to climate change, lack of region-specific indicators, lack of
quantitative indicators, higher costs for receiving certification and lack of applying innovative green technologies.
The development of green buildings in China is still at the initial stage. Significant improvements must be made
so that the revised standards can better facilitate developers for their innovative efforts to construct green buildings.
During this process, an integrated approach considering all the concerns of the various stakeholders and the local
realities should be adopted.
Acknowledgements
This project is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (71033004, 41101126), Ministry of Science and Technology
(2011BAJ06B01), Chinese Academy of Science’s‘one hundred talent program’(2008–318), the Shenyang Scientific Research
Foundation (F10-238-6-00), and the Liaoning Science Foundation (20092078).
References
Ali H, Al Nsairat S. 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries –case of Jordan. Building and Environment 44(5):
1053–1064.
Cai WG, Wu Y, Zhong Y, et al. 2009. China building energy consumption: Situation, challenges and corresponding measures. Energy Policy
37(6): 2054–2059.
Chinese Green Building Evaluation Label Office (CGBELO). Notice on lists of Green building evaluation label projects. Accessed in 2 January 2011 at
http://stc.chinagb.net/listzx.aspx?cid=170
Fuerst F, McAllister P. 2008. Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Price Effects of Environmental Certification in Commercial Buildings.
Real Estate & Planning Working Papers (2008–09): 39.
Fuerst F, McAllister P. 2009. An Investigation of the Effect of Eco-Labeling on Office Occupancy Rates. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 1(1):
49–63.
GOBAS-Group. 2003. Green Olympic Building Assessment System. Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China.
Guo F. 2011. Application of GSHP technology and analysis on its recharge and capability in Shenyang urban area. Agriculture Science & Technology
and Equipment 200(2): 97–99. (in Chinese).
Hu XL, Chen LY, Lei HP. 2009. China’s low carbon development pathways by 2050-Scenario analysis of energy demand and carbon emissions. Science
Press: Beijing. (in Chinese).
Jiang Y, Lin BR. 2004. Research on Evaluation System of Green Olympic Buildings. Construction Science and Technology (23): 28–29. (in Chinese).
Kats GH. 2003. Green building costs and financial benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. Available online at: http://www.nhphps.
org/docs/documents/GreenBuildingspaper.pdf
Kibert CJ. 2008. Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ.
Li J. 2008. Towards a low-carbon future in China’s building sector—A review of energy and climate models forecast. Energy Policy 36: 1736–1747.
Li C. 2010. Regional Characteristics on Green Building and the Development of Assessment System in China. Advanced Materials Research 113:
598–601.
Li B, Yao R. 2009. Urbanisation and its impact on building energy consumption and efficiency in China. Renewable Energy 34: 1994–1998.
Li ZS, Zhang G Q, Li D M, et al. 2007. Application and development of solar energy in building industry and its prospects in China. Energy Policy
35(8): 4121–4127.
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP). 2007. HJ/T 351–2007 National Industrial Standard for Environment
Protection of the People’s Republic of China: Technical Requirement for Environmental Labeling Products Eco-Housing. Environmental Science
Press: Beijing, China.
Ministry of Housing and Urban–rural Department of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD), General Administration of Quality Supervisor
Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China (GAQSIQ). 2006. GB/T 50378–2006 National Standard of China: Evaluation
Standard for Green Buildings. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing. GB/T 50378–2006. (in Chinese).
220 Y. Geng et al.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Ministry of Housing and Urban–rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD). Notice on lists of Green building evaluation label
projects. Accessed in 2 January 2011 at http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gsgg/gg/jsbgg/index.htm
Nie MS, Qin YG, Jiang Y, Zhang QF, Cai F. 2007. China’s Eco-house technical evaluation handbook (fourth edition). China building industry press:
Beijing. (in Chinese).
Pivo G, Fisher J. 2009. Investment returns from responsible property investments: energy efficient, transit-oriented and urban regeneration
office properties in the US from 1998–2008. Responsible Property Investing Center, Boston College/University of Arizona/Benecki Center
for Real Estate Studies, Indiana University, Boston, MA/Tucson, AZ/Bloomington, IN, working paper.
Qiu BX. 2010. Six Fields With Highest Potential of Building Energy Saving and Their Perspectives in China. Urban Studies 17(5): 1–6. (in
Chinese).
Sun SM, Li WQ, Ma R. 2010. Analysis on present development situation and trend of green architecture in our country. Shanxi Architecture
36(14): 13–14. (in Chinese).
Sun JM, Zhang YK, Sui JL, et al. 2008. The development analysis of green building assessment system in China and other countries or districts.
Architecture Technology 39(1): 63–65. (in Chinese).
Tatari O, Kucukvar M. 2011. Cost premium prediction of certified green buildings: A neural network approach. Building and Environment 46(5):
1081–1086.
WBDG Sustainable Committee. 2011. Optimize Energy Use. Available through http://www.wbdg.org/design/minimize_consumption.php
Xiao YJ, Qiao ZC. 2009. The Problems and Countermeasures for Implementing Green Building in China. International Conference on Information
Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Xian, China, IEEE.
Xing MQ. 2008. Study on building design pattern based on “Evaluation Standard for Green Buildings”. Masters thesis. Hangzhou, Zhejiang
University. (in Chinese).
Yang GS, Zhou YP. 2010. Research on the Government Incentive of Green Buildings in China. 2010 International Conference on Management and
Service Science (MASS 2010), Wuhan, China: IEEE.
Yang M, Xu L, Jian G. 2009. The characteristics of development of Chinese green building. In The 4th International Conference of the International
Forum on Urbanism (IFoU): The New Urban Question- Urbanism Beyond Neo-Liberalism, Amsterdam/Delft.
Yin Y, Dong L. 2009. Regional factor’s impact on green building assessment systems and their development in China. Construction Conserves
Energy 37(226): 37–39. (in Chinese).
Zhang X, Platten A, Shen L. 2011. Green property development practice in China: Costs and barriers. Building and Environment 46: 2153–2160.
Zheng RS. 2010. Discussion about Green Building Evaluation System. Fujian Construction Science & Technology (1): 58–60. (in Chinese).
Zhou J. 2008. Current Situation and Development Discussion on China’s Green Building Evaluation System. Modern Business Trade Industy
20(8): 12–13. (in Chinese).
Zhu YX. 2005. Green Olympics buildings assessment and green building materials evalution. China Building Materials (7): 95–96. (in Chinese).
221Chinese Green Building Standards
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 20, 211–221 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
