ArticlePDF Available

Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption between Green Building Certified and Non-Certified Buildings in Korea

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Although interest in and the importance of green building certification have increased, it is difficult to determine how much less energy the buildings actually consume after obtaining sustainability related certification, such as LEED in the USA, and G-SEED in Korea. Focusing on building energy evaluation, we compared and analyzed the energy evaluation items of LEED and G-SEED. In addition, from the Korean public data portal site, this study investigated the annual site energy consumption (electricity and gas) per floor area of non-residential buildings that obtained G-SEED certification in Korea. The energy consumption of non-certified general buildings was compared with the energy consumption of certified buildings. As a result of examining 84 samples of this study, non-residential buildings with G-SEED certification showed energy use intensity that was at least (35.5 to 48.9)% lower than that of uncertified buildings.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Energies2020,13,1049;doi:10.3390/en13051049www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Article
ComparativeAnalysisofEnergyConsumption
betweenGreenBuildingCertifiedandNonCertified
BuildingsinKorea
SangtaeNo
1
andChungyeonWon
2,
*
1
SchoolofArchitecture,KoreaNationalUniversityofTransportation,50Daehakro,Chungjusi,
Chungcheongbukdo27469,Korea;stno@ut.ac.kr
2
DepartmentofArchitecture,SchoolofEngineering,KoreaUniversity,145Anamro,Seongbukgu,
Seoul02841,Korea
*Correspondence:chung_won@korea.ac.kr
Received:1February2020;Accepted:24February2020;Published:26February2020
Abstract:Althoughinterestinandtheimportanceofgreenbuildingcertificationhaveincreased,it
isdifficulttodeterminehowmuchlessenergythebuildingsactuallyconsumeafterobtaining
sustainabilityrelatedcertification,suchasLEEDintheUSA,andGSEEDinKorea.Focusingon
buildingenergyevaluation,wecomparedandanalyzedtheenergyevaluationitemsofLEEDand
GSEED.Inaddition,fromtheKoreanpublicdataportalsite,thisstudyinvestigatedtheannualsite
energyconsumption(electricityandgas)perfloorareaofnonresidentialbuildingsthatobtained
GSEEDcertificationinKorea.Theenergyconsumptionofnoncertifiedgeneralbuildingswas
comparedwiththeenergyconsumptionofcertifiedbuildings.Asaresultofexamining84samples
ofthisstudy,nonresidentialbuildingswithGSEEDcertificationshowedenergyuseintensitythat
wasatleast(35.5to48.9)%lowerthanthatofuncertifiedbuildings.
Keywords:greenbuildingcertification;LEED;GSEED;siteenergyuseintensity
1.Introduction
Globally,thereisincreasingdemandformitigationofclimatechangeissues.InKorea,asactive
constructionandreconstructionofbuildingsistakingplaceduetotheovercrowdingoflargecities
andthedevelopmentofnewcities,thenecessityofevaluatingtheenvironmentalperformanceof
buildingsisincreasing.Buildingsaccountfor1/3ofnationalenergyconsumption,40%ofresource
consumption,50%ofcarbondioxideemissions,and(20–50)%ofwasteemissions,andbuilding
materials,suchassteel,waterandsewage,andinsulationmaterials,machinery,andlandscaping
contributetofurtherenvironmentalimpact.Therippleeffectontheindustryislarge.InMarch2012,
theKoreanMinistryofLand,Infrastructure,andTransportestablishedtheGreenBuildingDivision,
andintroducedtheGreenBuildingCreationSupportAct,BuildingEnergyIntegratedManagement
System,GreenBuildingCertificationSystem,andEnergyEfficiencyRatingCertificationSystem,to
promotegreenbuildingpolicies.InDecember2014,abasicplanwasestablishedandimplemented
topromotetheconstructionofgreenbuildingsstepbystep,andmadeitmandatorytoobtaingreen
buildingcertificationforbuildingswithatotalfloorareaofmorethan3000m
2
orderedbypublic
institutions.ThenumberofgreenbuildingcertifiedbuildingsinKorea,whichstartedinJanuary2002,
hasbeenincreasingrapidlyyearbyyear[1].Althoughtheinterestinandimportanceofgreen
buildingcertificationhaveincreased,ithasbeendifficulttodeterminehowmuchlessenergy
consumptionisactuallyusedinbuildingsafterobtainingcertification[2].
Energies2020,13,10492of16
Therefore,themaingoalofthisstudyistoquantitativelyidentifythebuildingenergysavings
ofapplyingthegreenbuildingcertificationofKorea.Toachievethisgoal,Korea’sgreenbuilding
certificationenergyitemsshouldbeanalyzed.Therefore,theenergyitemsofLEED[3],whichare
widelyappliedaroundtheworld,werecomparedwithGSEED[4].Andthisstudyinvestigatedthe
annualenergyconsumptionperfloorareaofnonresidentialbuildingsthatobtainedGSEED
certificationinKorea.Theenergyconsumptionofnoncertifiedgeneralbuildingswascomparedwith
theenergyconsumptionofcertifiedbuildings.Specifically,thesurveyedEUI(energyuseintensity)
ofnonresidentialbuildingswasclassifiedbybuildinguse,totalfloorarea,energyconsumption,
certificationgrade,andrenewableenergy,andcomparedwiththoseofgeneralbuildings.Theuseof
buildingscanbelargelydividedintoresidentialandnonresidentialbuildings.
Inthecaseofnonresidentialbuildings,theenergyconsumptionperunitareaissignificantly
higherthanthatofresidentialbuildings.So,thisstudyfocusedontheenergyconsumptionofnon
residentialbuildings.Also,gasandelectricityusageprovidedbythegovernmentdatabasewere
surveyedduringtheannualenergyusagesurvey,whilewater,anddistrictheatingandcooling,were
notconsidered.
2.ReviewoftheExistingLiteratureandStandards
2.1.AnalysisoftheExistingLiterature
Inrecentyears,researchershavebeenabletoperformbenchmarkstudiesbyobtainingdataon
buildingsʹactualenergyusagefromafewdatabasesaroundtheworld.Wonetal.[5]presenteda
comprehensiveanalysisoflargescaleofficebuildingslocatedinNewYorkandChicago,withrespect
totheirenergyuseintensity(EUI).InNewYorkCity,thesmallestEUImedianwasfoundinthe
buildingswith20to30floors,andinChicago,thebuildingswith60floorsormore.Thisresearch
concludedthatahighersourcetositeratiogenerallyhadloweroverallEUIinbothcities.
Kimetal.[6]suggestedthenecessityofsystemizingbuildinglifecyclemanagementbygrasping
thepostmanagementstatusofmultiunithousesthatreceivedincentivesthroughGSEEDand
energyefficiencyratingcertification.Inparticular,theenergyperformanceofgreenbuildingswith
highratingsandincentiveswasidentified.NineoutoftwelvecomplexesreceivedGSEED,butonly
oneofthemshowedsignificantlyhigherefficiencythanaverageenergyuse.Theanalysisconfirmed
thatthecontentsofGSEEDandenergyefficiencyratingcertificationwerenotproperlymanagedin
theactualusestage,andcertifiedbuildingwasoperatedattheuser’sconvenience,becausetherewas
noobligationtodiscloseinformationontheenergyefficiencyratingsystem.Therefore,itwasurgent
tograspthestatusofthepostmanagementofenergyconsumption.
Lee[7]comparedtheenergyconsumptionofGSEEDcertifiedandnonacquiredpublic
libraries.Whenthesameconditionswereenteredintheenergyanalysisprogram,theresultsshowed
thatlibrarieswithgreenbuildingcertificationusemoreenergythandononcertifiedlibraries.G
SEEDhasenergyrelateditems,butthisisbecauseactiveitems,suchasHVAC,arenotrelatedto
passiveelements.Theareasoffacilityevaluationfordifferentusesofenergy,suchaslibraries,
hospitals,andresearchinstitutes,needtobefurtherrefined.
Jeong[8]conductedasurveyonenergyconsumptionandenergycostcenteringonlarge
buildings(10certifiedand10uncertified)thathavehighenergyconsumptionamongofficebuildings.
Theenergyconsumptionofthetargetbuildingwasidentified,andtheappropriatenessandeffectsof
thegreenbuildingcertificationevaluationfactorwereexamined.Accordingtotheanalysisofelectric
energycostandwatercostperunitarea,ecofriendlycertifiedbuildingsrealizeabout13%cost
reductioncomparedtononcertifiedbuildings,andtheaverageannualenergycostperresident
populationisabout18%.
Theresearchliteratureontheenergyconsumptionofgreenbuildingcertifiedbuildingsisas
follows.Scofield[9]indicatedthatLEEDofficesused,onaverage,17%lowersiteenergythanCBECS
(CommercialBuildingsEnergyConsumptionSurvey)offices,butnolesssourceenergy.Butreference
[9]explainedthatlargebuildingsdominatetheenergyconsumptionofasetofcommercialbuildings.
DespitethefactthatmanyofthesmallerLEEDbuildingsoutperformtheirconventionalcounterparts,
Energies2020,13,10493of16
itmatterslittle,becausetheydonotcontributetothetotalenergynearlyasmuchasahandfulof
largerbuildings.Inaddition,Scofield’ssubsequentstudyof2011[10]examinedtheenergy
consumption,greenhousegas(GHG)emissions,andENERGYSTARenergyperformancerating
(EPR)data.TwentyoneofthemareLEEDcertifiedbuildings,allowingtheirenergyperformance
datatobedirectlycomparedwithnoncertifiedbuildings.ThestudyconcludedthatLEEDcertified
buildingsdidnotgenerallyreducecostswhencomparedtononcertifiedbuildingsintermsofenergy
consumptionandgreenhousegasemissions.SomegoldcertifiedLEEDbuildingsperformed20
percentbetterthanothercommercialbuildingsinNewYork,whilesilverandcertifiedbuildingsdid
notperformaswellasregularbuildings.AnotherScofieldetal.’sfollowupstudies[11]analyzedthe
energyconsumptionforapartmenthouses.Forallthreebuildingtypes,thisstudyindicatedthat
LEEDcertifiedbuildingsusenolesssourceenergythansimilarbuildingsthatarenotLEEDcertified.
Therehasalsobeenresearchonthemethodologyofcomparingenergyusagebetweencertified
anduncertifiedbuildings.Chokeretal.[12,13]introducedanassessmentmethodologythatcompares
LEEDbuildingstoabenchmarkdevelopedfromsimilarnonLEEDbuildingcounterparts,whilealso
accountingforvariablessuchasthemainweather,buildingcharacteristic(s),andschedule(s).
Therearemanynegativeandpositivestudiesonenergysavingingreenbuildingcertified
buildings.Arecentliteratureanalysisanalyzesandsummarizesstudiesonthissubject.Amirietal.
[2]’ssearchlocated164researchpapersthatcoveredenergyefficiencytopicsinLEEDcertified
buildings.Ofthese,Fortyfourpeerreviewedpaperswereselectedandanalyzed.Whencomparing
LEEDcertifiedbuildingswithnonLEEDcertifiedbuildings,thereliabilityoftheresultsisanissue,
andfactorssuchastheageandsizeofthebuilding,itsuse,climatezone,andresidentawareness
shouldbeconsidered.Wealsoconcludedthatifonlytheenergyconsumptionofthebuildingsthat
thebuildingownerhasallowedforcomparisonisconsidered,theresultsmayvary,sothebuildings
tobecomparedhadtoberandomlyselected.Tenoutofthe44papersreportedthattheenergy
efficiencyofLEEDcertifiedbuildingswashigh,whileeightpapersconcludedthattheefficiencywas
poor.Theremaining26papersindicatedthattheenergyefficiencywasneithergoodnorbad.
Analysisbycertifiedgradesshowsthatwhileenergyconsumptionislowerforbuildingswithhigher
grades,suchasGoldorPlatinum,energyconsumptionforlowcertifiedbuildingsisalmostthesame
asfornoncertifiedbuildings.However,duetothelackofvariousenergydatainvariouspartsofthe
world,otherthantheUnitedStates,itisimpossibletoclarifytheactualenergyefficiencyofLEED
certifiedbuildings.ThestudyalsosuggestedthatLEED’sstandardsforEnergyandAtmosphere
standardsneedtoberevised,toimprovethebuilding’sactualenergyperformance.
Theaboveexistingstudieshavebeenperformedbasedonvariouskindsofactualdata(EUI).
However,moststudiesbasedonactualEUIdatawereforLEEDcertifiedbuildings.Inaddition,
studiesinKoreaincluded12residentialcomplexesor12GSEEDcertifiedpublicbuildings.Inthis
study,weobtainedmorenumber(84)ofEUIdataforcertifiednonresidentialbuildingsthanthe
previousstudy.Inaddition,thisstudywillbethefirstpapertoanalyzetheenergyconsumptionof
certifiedbuildingsusingKoreaʹsbuildingstatisticalinformationDBsystem.Therefore,throughthis
study,weexpecttobeabletopresentquantitativeresultsonenergyefficiencyofcertifiedbuildings
inKorea,whichwerenotcarriedoutbefore.
2.2.ComparisonofLEEDandGSEED
Korea’sGSEEDisdividedintopreliminarycertificationthatisappliedinthebuildingdesign
stage,andmaincertificationthatisappliedintheuseapprovalstage.Toobtainincentives,theG
SEEDisratedatorabovetheGSEEDgreen2grade,andatleastsecondgradeintheenergyefficiency
gradeevaluationoftheKoreaenergyagency,orEnergyPerformanceIndex(EPI)scoresof80or
higher.UnlikeLEED,buildingswithatotalfloorareaof3000squaremetersormoreorderedby
publicinstitutionsarerequiredbylawtoobtainGSEEDcertification.Theincentivesallow
constructionprojectownerstobenefitfromthereductionofbuildingstandards(volumeratios,
maximumfloorheights,andlandscapingareareductions),whiletheownerscanbenefitfrom
reductionsinemploymentandregistrationtaxes,propertytaxes,andenvironmentalburdens.No
legalregulationsmandateLEEDcertificationintheUnitedStates,butincentives,suchasrisingrent
Energies2020,13,10494of16
income,premiums,andtaxbenefits,areknownandrecognized.WhilethelatestversionofLEEDis
v4.1,whichwasavailablefromJuly25,2019,thisstudyusedv4.
Table1showsGSEEDandLEEDstandards.GSEEDstandardsaredividedintoapartments
andnonresidentialbuildings[3,4].BothGSEEDandLEEDarebrokendownintofourgrades,based
onscores.Table2showsacomparisonofthescoresofthestandarditems[3,4,14].TheGSEEDitem
scoresarelargelydividedintoeightcategoriesexcludingessentialitems,andthetotalscoreis115
points.TheLEEDconsistsofninecategorieswithatotalscoreof110.GSEEDandLEEDbothscore
thehighestinenergyandenvironmentalpollution(atmospheric),accountingfor(25.2and33.3)%of
thetotalscores,respectively.Intermsofthetotalscores,theinnovativedesign(technical)itemscores
accountedfor16.5%ofthetotalscoreforGSEED,and5.5%fortheLEED.Table3showsthe
evaluationtargetforeachGSEEDandLEEDcriterion[3,4,15].WhileGSEEDclassifiesthe
evaluationtargetsaccordingtothedetaileduseofthebuilding,LEEDclassifiesthetargetsby
constructionstageandsizefirst,andtheevaluationtargetsbydetailedbuildinguse.
Table1.CertificationlevelandGSEEDandLEEDscores.
GSEED(NewlyConstructed,
NonResidentialBuilding)LEED
GradeTotalScoreGradeTotalScore
Green1Over80scorePlatinumOver80score
Green2Over70scoreGoldOver60score
Green3Over60scoreSilverOver50score
Green4Over50scoreCertifiedOver40score
Table2.GSEEDandLEEDEvaluationsectionscores.
GSEEDPointsLEEDv4Points
Landuseandtraffic
EnergyandEnvironmentalPollution
Materialsandresources
Watercirculationmanagement
Maintenance
Ecologicalenvironment
Indoorenvironment
Innovativedesign
14
29
15
14
8
17
20
19
IntegrativeProcess(IP)
LocationandTransportation(LT)
StrategiesunderSustainableSites(SS)
WaterEfficiency(WE)
EnergyandAtmosphere(EA)
MaterialsandResources(MR)
Indoorenvironmentalquality(IEQ)
PurposeoftheInnovation(IN)
RegionalPriority(RP)
1
16
10
11
33
13
16
6
4
NecessaryCriteria21
TotalScore(ExemptedofNecessary
Criteria)115TotalScore110
Table3.ComparisonofGSEEDandLEEDEvaluationTargets.
Certification
StandardsGSEEDLEED
Evaluation
Targets
Apartment
Residentialcomplex
Businessfacility
Schoolfacilities
Salesfacility
Accommodation
Smallhouse
ExistingApartment
Existingbusiness
building
Otherarchitecture
BD+C(BuildingDesignand
Construction)
ID+C(InteriorDesignandConstruction)
EB:O+M(ExistingBuilding:
OperatingandMaintenance)
ND(NeighborhoodDevelopment)
Energies2020,13,10495of16
Table4comparestheenergyevaluationitemsofGSEEDandLEEDindetailamongthevarious
itemsofTable2[14,16].ThecompositionofenergyevaluationitemsforGSEEDissimilartothatof
LEED.Inthecommissioningsector,LEEDalsoincludescontentthatisnotcloselyrelatedtoenergy,
suchastheOwner’sProjectRequirements(OPR),orBasisofDesign(BOD).Commissioningforwater
managementornoiseisonlycarriedoutunderOPR,whileHVAC,lighting,localwatersystem,and
renewableenergyaremandatorycommissioningitems.However,GSEEDconsistsofallitemsthat
meettheTesting,Adjusting,Balancing(TAB)andcommissioningstandards.LEEDcanreceive
creditsaccordingtothetrainingofoperatingpersonnelandtenantsafterprovidingthemaintenance
manual,butthereisnocorrespondingiteminGSEED.Intheenergyperformancecategory,theLEED
energyperformancecanbejudgedbytheamountofsavingsthatthebuildinghassavedonenergy
costs.However,GSEEDusestheEnergyPerformanceIndex(EPI)review.
Table4.ComparisonofLEEDandGSEEDenergyevaluationcategories.
Standard
Classification
LEEDv4GSEED
CategoriesPointsCategoriesPoints
Commissioning
FundamentalCommissioning
andVerificationrequired
FeasibilityofProviding
Operation/Maintenance
DocumentsandGuidelines
2
required
Enhancedcommissioning6TABandcommissioning
Execution2
Energy
Performance
Minimumenergyperformance
Demandresponse
required
2EnergyefficiencyIncrease12
required
Optimizeenergyperformance18Lightingenergysaving4
GHGCFC
reduction
Fundamentalrefrigerant
ManagementrequiredCO2emissionreduction3
Enhancedrefrigerant
Management1
Prohibituseofcertain
substancestoprotectthe
ozonelayer
3
Sustainableenergy
source
Renewableenergyproduction3
RenewableEnergy3
Greenpowerand
carbonoffsets2
Measurement
BuildingLevel
EnergyMeteringrequiredWhetherMeter
installedornot2
Advancedenergymetering1
Inmanycases,itisdifficulttoidentifyenergysavingsbasedonEPIscoresalone.Intheglobal
warmingsector,LEEDincorporatestheequipmentlifecycle,ozonedepletionindex,andglobal
warmingindex.Incomparison,GSEEDissimple,butitconsidersnotonlyrefrigerants,butalso
insulation,andcanbescoredwhenusingcarbondioxidereductionsystems.Inthesustainableenergy
sourcesector,LEEDisdividedintotwosubcategories,withatotalof5points,with3pointsand2
points.Ontheotherhand,GSEEDhasonlythreepoints,buttheGSEEDscoreissimilar,because
thereareseparaterenewableenergyitemsintheEPIandCO2emissionreduction.Inthefieldof
measurement,thepreviousversionofLEEDcouldachieveuptothreepointsbyimplementing
Volume3oftheInternationalPerformanceMeasurementandVerification(IPMVP)foroneyearafter
enteringthebuilding,andresolvinganyproblemsfound.Iftheusersharestheirusagedatawitha
USGBCaccount,theycouldearnonepoint.Inthev4version,thisisrequired,andanadvanced
energymeteringsystemhasbeenestablishedtocollectthehourlyusage,energyconsumption,and
demandofbuildings.InGSEED,scorescanbeobtaineddependingontheuseofenergymeter.Two
pointsareawardedforweighingairconditioning,heating,hotwater,lighting,electricaloutlets,air
conditioningfanpower,etc.Inthelatestversion,LEEDv4.1,twoitemsofrenewableenergyare
integratedintooneofRenewableEnergy.Also,toincreaseparticipationindemandresponse
technologiesandprogramsthatmakeenergygenerationanddistributionsystemsmoreefficient,
Energies2020,13,10496of16
increasegridreliability,andreducegreenhousegasemissions,energyandatmospheric,grid
harmonizationreplaceddemandresponse.
Figure1isagraphbasedontheDBbasedonthegreenbuildingcertificationstatusdistributed
fromtheGSEEDwebsite[17].Thehighbarindicatesthenumberofprecertifications,whilethelow
barindicatesthemaincertificationcaseamount(number).Thetrendlineinthegraphrepresentsthe
cumulativesumofthenumberofcertifications.Thenumberofcertificationsisincreasingeveryyear.
Inaddition,astherateincreases,theslopeofthetrendlineincreasesfromyeartoyear,startingwith
threecasesin2002whenthegreenbuildingcertificationwasintroduced;anditshowsanexponential
increaseinJanuary2019,withatotalof11,907cases.Throughthis,itcanbeseenthatboththeinterest
in,andimportanceof,greenbuildingconstructioncertificationhaveincreasedinKorea.Figure2
showsthepercentageofthetotalstatusofcertificationgradesforbuildingsthatobtainedthis
certificationby2019.Among4,406ofmaincertificationacquiredcases,Green1–4gradesare(6,43,
13,and38)%,respectively.Green1,themostdifficulttoobtaincertification,wastheleast,whilegreen
2and4accountedformorethan80%.
Figure1.CumulativestatusofgreenbuildingcertificationacquisitionbyyearinKorea.
Figure2.CertificationstatusbyGSEEDgrade.
Energies2020,13,10497of16
2.3.SurveyonEnergyConsumption(EUI)perBuildingFloorArea
Afterinvestigatingtheaddressinthebuildingdatabasethathadobtainedgreenbuilding
certification,variouscodes,suchascityanddistrictcodesandcourtcodes,weresecured.Figure3is
anationalpublicdataportalsitethatprovidesinformationonelectricityandgasenergyusagefor
buildingsthroughtheOpenAPI[18].Figure4[19]isasubwebpageofFigure3showingthe
electricityandgasenergyusagerequestvariablespage.Ifthebuilding’sstatutorybuildingcodeis
enteredontherequestvariableinputwebpageofFigure3,theelectricityorgasenergyconsumption
value(inkWh)oftheyearandmonthisobtained.Figure4showsanexampleoftheJanuary2015gas
consumptionrequestforabuildingcorrespondingtoinformationofinputvalues(11680,10300,0012,
and0000)(city,east,town,district).Throughthismethod,thisstudycollectedmonthlyelectricity
andgasenergyusagedataofgreenbuildingcertifiedbuildingsforthreeyearsin2016,2017and2018.
Figure3.Publicdataportalsite(OPENAPI).
Figure4.Buildingenergyusagerequestvariableinputwebpage.
3.ComparisonofBuildingEnergyConsumption
3.1.EstimationofGeneralBuildingEnergyConsumption
Inordertograspthelevelofenergyconsumptionofgreenbuildingcertifiedbuildings,itis
necessarytoestimatetheenergyconsumptionofnoncertifiedgeneralbuildings.Tograspthelevel
ofenergyconsumptionofgreenbuildingcertifiedbuildings,theaverageenergyconsumptionby
eachbuildinguseinKoreawasinvestigated.Table5presentsthedatathatcanbeusedtounderstand
theenergyconsumptionoftypicalKoreanbuildings.Thistableisusedtocalculatetheinstallation
capacityofrenewableenergythatismandatoryfornewpublicbuildings.Theenergyconsumption
Energies2020,13,10498of16
ofgeneralbuildingsinKoreacanbeestimated.Thedatainthistableistheaverageenergy
consumptiondataforeachbuildingused,asshowninthecalculationcriteriaandmethodoftheratio
ofrenewableenergysupplyobligationinAnnex2oftheRegulationontheSupportofRenewable
EnergyFacilities[20].Forotherdatathatcanbeusedtograsptheenergyconsumptionbyuseof
Koreangeneralbuildings,Table6showstheenergyconsumptionstatusbybuildinguseandenergy
sourcein2012[21].The2012datasurveyedthroughtheintegratedbuildingenergymanagement
system,andenergyconsumptiondatainTable6isforthebuildingsinSeoulcity,Korea.Thedatain
thetwotables(Tables5and6)aresimilarforthework,sales,andlodgingfacilitiesthatoccupya
largeproportionofthebuildings,whichareconsideredtobesuitableascomparativevaluesofenergy
consumptionforgeneralnonresidentialbuildings.
Table5.AverageEnergyuseintensity(EUI)bybuildinguseinKoreanregulations.
BuildingUseDivisionEUI
(kWh/m2a)
Public
Prison/Militaryfacilities392.07
Broadcast/Communication490.18
Office371.66
Educational
andSocial
Culture/Assembly412.03
Religiousfacilities257.49
Medicalfacilities643.52
Education/Research231.33
Nursinghome/Kindergarten175.58
Trainingfacilities231.33
Sportsfacilities235.42
Cemeteryfacilities234.99
Tour/restfacilities437.08
Funeralfacilities234.99
Commercial
Salesfacilities408.45
Transportationfacilities374.47
Office374.47
Accommodation526.55
Amusementfacilities400.33
Table6.2012EnergyConsumptionbyBuildingUseandEnergySourcesofSeoul,Korea.
BuildingUse
TotalFloorAreaConsumptionPerunitArea(kgOE/m2)
EUI
(kWh/m2a)
(×1000m2)Total
ConsumptionElectricityGasDistrict
Education/Research187,25610.4977.2983.199122.06
Religiousfacilities24,77012.6328.5784.055146.88
Apartments977,32215.0876.2518.837175.43
Culture/Assembly19,31916.2912.8523.438189.42
Publichousing37,17020.1969.46110.735234.84
Nursinghome/
Kindergarten21,98922.98112.86510.115267.22
Energies2020,13,10499of16
Multifamilyhouse(big)98,56424.0911.16412.926280.12
Other90,02726.33811.55514.783306.26
Office98,33527.15621.1346.022315.77
Multifamilyhouse(small)137,77129.31314.1815.133340.85
House330,95631.22916.61214.618363.13
Medicalfacilities22,75731.72718.47213.256368.92
Salesfacilities50,79735.86128.7597.102416.99
Residentialneighborhood
facilities(class2)224,51438.26829.8948.373444.98
Residentialneighborhood
facilities(class2)206,45841.4731.33610.135482.21
Accommodation42,50643.47127.30916.161505.48
3.2.SurveyontheEnergyConsumptionofGreenBuildingCertifiedBuildings
Inthisstudy,monthlygasandelectricityenergyconsumption(kWh)forthreeyearsfrom2016
to2018wasinvestigatedfornonresidentialbuildings,whoseEUIisconsideredtobehigherthan
residentialbuildings,usingthepublicopendatasystem[18].AsofJuly2019,161nonresidential
buildingshavereceivedgreenbuildingmaincertification.Ofthese,inatleastoneyear,84buildings
wereabletoobtaincompletemonthlyelectricityandgasenergyusagedataformorethan12months.
Unitsofsurveyedenergyusagedataneedtobeunifiedforcomparisonbetweenbuildings.Therefore,
monthlyelectricityandgasenergywassummedupannually,anddividedbythetotalfloorarea,to
calculatetheannualaverageenergyconsumption(SiteEUI:EnergyUseIntensity(kWh/m2a)).The
usageofbuildingswasclassifiedintothreecategories:public,commercial,andreligiousfacility.
Figure5isagraphshowingtheaveragebuildingenergyconsumptionbyyearof84buildings.
Thelineargraphrepresentstheaveragebuildingenergyconsumption(EUI)perfloorareaofthe
certifiedbuildingfortheyear,whilethebargraphrepresentsthenumberofsampledbuildingsfor
thecertificationyear.In2009,itreachedahighvalueof240kWh/m2.a,decreaseduntil2013,but
increasedto2015,andwaslowestin2017.Theslopeofthetrendlineindicatesthattheaverageenergy
consumptionofcertifiedbuildingsdecreasesasthecertificationyearelapses,butthenumberof
samplesissmallinaparticularyear,andtheR2valueis0.1146.
Figure5.AverageEUIof84buildingsbyGSEEDcertificationyear.
Energies2020,13,104910of16
Figure6showstheaverageandnumberofenergyusagebythetotalfloorarea.Thebargraph
showsthenumberofsamplebuildingsbytotalfloorarearange,whilethelinegraphshowsthe
averageEUIvalueofthecorrespondingtotalareabuildings.Thenumberofsamplesofbuildings
withatotalfloorareaoflessthan50,000m2waslarge.Theenergyconsumptiontrendlineseemsto
increaseasthetotalfloorareaisgraduallyincreased,butthecorrelationbetweenthetotalfloorarea
andtheenergyconsumptionislow,duetothelowR2valueof0.0164.InFigure6,theaveragenumber
ofbuildingsintheareaof(55,000–60,000)m2is2,whiletheaverageEUIvalueseemstobethelargest
singularvalue.BecausetheKoreanparliamentbuilding,oneofthesetwo,consumesalotofenergy,
theresultsinFigure6aresomewhatdifferentfromthoseofthepreviousstudy[11],whichfoundthat
certifiedbuildingswithlargefloorareasconsumemoreenergy.Sincetherearenotmanysamplesof
largebuildings,itwillbenecessarytoobtainrelevantdatalater.
Figure6.EUIaverageandnumberofsamplesbytotalfloorarea.
Figure7showstherangeinwhichtheEUIofacertifiedbuildingismostconcentrated.Thebars
representthenumberofbuildingscorrespondingtotherangedaverageEUI.Thehighestnumberof
buildingsinthe(150–200)kWh/m2arangewas24,followedby20buildingsinthe(100–150)kWh/m2a
range;82%ofthetotal84buildingsareconcentratedintherange(50–250)kWh/m2a.Fromtheabove
result,buildingsthathaveobtainedGSEEDcertificationinKoreaareconsideredtohavelowenergy
consumption.
Energies2020,13,104911of16
Figure7.NumberofsamplesbyEUIdistribution.
Table7waspreparedtodeterminetheEUIaccordingtotheGSEEDcertificationgradeand
averagetotalfloorarea.Thehigherthecertificationlevel,thehighertheenergyefficiency.Therefore,
theenergyconsumptionisconsideredbelow.However,theaverageEUIoftheGreen1classis201.30
kWh/m2a,andthelowerthegrade,thelowertheEUI.Itisnoteworthythattheaveragetotalfloor
areaaccordingtotheGSEEDcertificationgradeinTable7showsthattheaveragetotalfloorareais
significantlyhigherforbuildingswithhighergrades.Thisisreminiscentofthepreviousstudies
[6,12],whichshowedthatenergyratedbuildingswithhigherLEEDcertificationaremoreenergy
efficientthangeneralbuildings.Thephenomenonof‘thehighertheGSEEDcertificationlevel,the
highertheaverageEUI’mayberelatedtothetotalfloorareaofthebuilding.IfKorea’sbuilding
energydatabaseisactivatedinthefuture,itwillbepossibletoclarifyEUIaccordingtothetotalfloor
areabetweencertifiedbuildingsandgeneralbuildingsusingbigdata.
Table7.AverageEUIandaveragetotalfloorareabyGSEEDcertificationclass.
Certification
Grade
AverageEUI
(kWh/m2a)NumberSumofTotalFloorArea
(m2)
AverageTotalFloor
Area(m2)
Green1201.30 241,352,761.57 56,365.07
Green2189.19 462,202,972.72 47,890.71
Green3162.98 9207,112.20 23,012.47
Green4110.82 599,836.56 19,967.31
Total185.18 843,862,683.05 45,984.32
Table8waspreparedtounderstandtheeffectoftheinstallationofrenewableenergyontheEUI
ofGSEEDcertifiedbuildings.Atotalof84GSEEDcertifiednonresidentialbuildingsweresurveyed
throughanInternetsearchandtelephoneinquiriesfortheapplicationofphotovoltaic,geothermal,
andsolarthermalenergy,whicharemainlyappliedtobuildings.Buildingsusingrenewableenergy
consumed20.2%lessenergythanbuildingstowhichrenewableenergywasnotapplied,andthe
energyconsumptionofbuildingswithbothphotovoltaicandgeothermalenergywasthelowest
amongrenewableenergy.Amongthebuildingstowhichrenewableenergywasapplied,theenergy
Energies2020,13,104912of16
consumptionofthebuildingstowhichphotovoltaic,solar,andgeothermalwereappliedishigh.As
mentionedabove,Korearequiresthemandatoryinstallationofrenewableenergyinthecaseofpublic
buildingsof1000squaremetersormorethatarenewlybuiltintheregulationsonthesupportof
renewableenergyfacilities[20].Intheearlydaysoftheenforcementofregulations(from2004to
2010),thepublicwasinterestedinrenewableenergy,somanynewlyconstructedpublicbuildings
appliedphotovoltaic,solar,andgeothermalenergy.Sinceacertainpercentageofthetotal
constructioncostwascalculatedasthecostofinstallingrenewableenergyuntilthelawwas
amended,photovoltaic,whichisrelativelyeasytoinstall,wasmainlyapplied.Sincethislawwas
revisedasapercentage(2011:over10%,2019:over27%,after2020:over30%)oftheenergy
consumptionexpectedintheoperationofbuildingsin2011,theapplicationofgeothermalenergy
andphotovoltaic,whichcanbeinstalledathighcapacity,hasincreased.
Table8.AverageEUIofGSEEDCertifiedBuildingsaccordingtoRenewableEnergyInstallation.
Renewable
Energy
AverageEUI
(kWh/m2a)
Sample
Number
SumofTotalFloorArea
(m2)
AverageTotalFloorArea
(m2)
PV151.06 14455,462.62 32,533.04
GT177.37 257,066.64 28,533.32
PV+GT110.85 5329,084.80 65,816.96
PV+ST123.92 122,340.85 22,340.85
GT+ST223.74 121,030.78 21,030.78
PV+GT+ST188.64 16768,556.51 48,034.78
RenewableSub
Total162.60 391,653,542.20 42,398.52
nonapplied203.67 452,209,140.85 49,092.02
Total185.18 843,862,683.05 45,984.32
PV:Photovoltaic,GT:Geothermal,ST:SolarThermal
TocompareEUIbybuildinguse,Table9comparestheaverageEUIbyuseofGSEEDcertified
buildingandgeneralbuildingEUI.Inthetable,theEUIofageneralbuildingisavaluereferringto
Tables5and6.InTable9,thetwopercentagevaluesinparenthesesontherightendarerelative
comparisonvaluesforcomparingtheenergyperformanceofGSEEDcertifiedbuildingstothoseof
generalbuildingsandequationofrelativedifferenceis{(generalbuildingEUI–certifiedbuilding
EUI)/generalbuildingEUI×100}.Withtheexceptionoflibraries(3cases)andmemorials(1case),
certifiedbuildingsforalmostallusesshowedlowervaluesthantheenergyconsumptionofgeneral
buildings.
Energies2020,13,104914of16
InTable9,themostcommonuseswerepublicadministrativebuildings(21)andofficebuildings
(20)forcommerciallease.Thesetwousesintheofficeshowsthatthecertifiedbuildingsforpublic
administrationworkhaveupto48.2%betterenergyperformancethantheuncertifiedbuildings.In
addition,certifiedcommercialleasingofficebuildingsalsoshowupto45.5%betterenergy
performancethannoncertifiedbusinessbuildings.ThesiteEUIforcertifiedpublicadministrative
andcommercialleasingofficebuildingswas(192.49and203.94)kWh/m2a,respectively.TheNew
YorkCitysurveyof953officebuildings[9]in2011foundthattheEUIforLEEDcertifiedandnon
certifiedofficebuildingswas307.8and308.3kWh/m2a.ThesiteEUImaydifferbetweenNewYork
andKoreabuildingsduetothedifferenceinclimatebetweenNewYorkandKorea,andthe
compositionandcertificationcriteriaofthebuilding.However,theresultsofEUI(308.3kWh/m2a)of
thegeneralofficebuildingofNewYorkandtheEUI((315.77–371.66)kWh/m2a)ofKoreangeneral
officebuildingsaresimilar.AsintheUSenergybenchmarkingsystem,detailedcomparisonsneed
tobemadeinthefuturebasedonlargesamplesofKoreanbuildingenergyusagedata.However,
aftersurveying84samplesofthisstudy,theEUIofnonresidentialbuildingswithGSEED
certificationisatleast35.5%,andupto48.9%,lowerthanthatofnoncertifiedbuildings.
4.DiscussionandConclusions
Toquantitativelyidentifythebuildingenergysavingsofapplyingthegreenbuilding
certificationofKorea,thisstudycomparedKoreanGSEEDandUnitedStatesLEEDenergy
certificationcriteria.Inaddition,annualmonthlyelectricityandgasenergyconsumptiondataofG
SEEDcertifiedbuildingsinactualoperationwerecollectedandanalyzed,andcomparedtonon
certifiedgeneralbuildings.Theresultsanddiscussionsaresummarizedasfollows.
TheuseofbuildingstargetedbyGSEEDandLEEDissimilar,butLEEDclassifiesobjectsfirst
byconstructionstageandscale.InthecaseofGSEED,itisrequiredtoobtainmandatorycertification
dependingonthepurposeandsizeofthebuilding.Inaddition,thecertificationprocessand
incentivesareregulatedbylaw.ThisissomewhatdifferentfromLEEDconductedintheprivate
sector.Intermsofenergyperformanceevaluation,itiseasytodeterminetheamountofenergycost
savingswhenevaluatingLEEDenergyperformance;butforGSEED,itisdifficulttoidentifythe
levelofenergysavingsusingtheEPI(EnergyPerformanceIndex)review.Itisnecessarytoapplya
detailedprocessofenergysimulationtoGSEED.
Inordertograspthelevelofenergyconsumptionofgreenbuildingcertifiedbuildings,itis
necessarytoestimatetheenergyconsumptionofnoncertifiedgeneralbuildings.Inthisstudy,we
appliedtheenergyconsumptiondataofgeneralbuildingsproposedbyKoreanlawandtheenergy
consumptionstatusdataofeachbuildinguseandenergysourceforSeoulcityin2012,whichwas
investigatedbytheMinistryofLand,Infrastructure,andTransportofKoreathroughtheintegrated
buildingenergymanagementsystem.Theannualandmonthlygasandelectricenergyconsumption
(kWh)of161buildingswithgreenbuildingmaincertificationwereinvestigatedusinganopen
buildingdatasystemoperatedbytheKoreangovernment.Amongthem,84buildingswithcomplete
datawereselectedforanalysis.ThechangeinsiteEUIaccordingtotheyearofgreenbuilding
certificationwaslow.Thecorrelationbetweenthetotalfloorareaofthecertifiedbuildingandthesite
EUIwasalsolow.Ofthe84certifiedbuildings,thesiteEUIof57buildingswaslessthan200
kWh/m2a,indicatingthattheenergyefficiencyperformanceoftheGSEEDcertifiednonresidential
buildingwashigh.
IncontrasttopreviousstudiesonLEED,thelowertheGSEEDgrade,thelowertheEUI.In
contrast,theaveragetotalfloorareaofhighgradebuildingswashigh.InKorea,largerandmore
expensivebuildingsstrivetoachievehighercertificationlevelsatthedesignstage.However,inactual
operation,energysavingsdonotappeartobepossible.Therefore,itisnecessarytoreviewthepost
operationevaluationitemsafterthecompletionofthebuildingunderGSEEDstandards.
Theinstallationofrenewableenergyhasbeenshowntohelpimprovetheenergyefficiencyof
GSEEDcertifiedbuildings.Buildingswithrenewableenergyshowedanaverage20%lowersiteEUI
thanuninstalledbuildings.InKorea,alawrequiringmandatoryapplicationofrenewableenergyto
Energies2020,13,104915of16
newpublicbuildingsalongwithGSEEDcertificationseemstobecontributingtothereductionof
buildingenergy.
GSEEDcertifiedpublicadministrativeandcommercialleasedofficebuildingsshowedupto
(48.2and45.5)%higherenergyperformancethangeneraloffices,respectively.ThesiteEUIofthese
twobuildinguseis192.49and203.94kWh/m2a,respectively,whichismuchlowerthanprevious
studiesbasedonNewYork(307.8and308.3kWh/m2a).Althoughtherearemanydifferencesbetween
NewYorkandKoreaintermsofclimaticcharacteristics,itisnoteworthythattheEUIvaluesofnon
certifiedofficebuildings,whicharethebasisofcomparison,aresimilarbetweenNewYorkand
Korea.
Asaresultofexamining84samplesofthisstudy,nonresidentialbuildingswithGSEED
certificationshowedEUIthatwasatleast(35.5to48.9)%lowerthangeneralbuildings.Fromthese
results,itisconsideredthattheenergysavingeffectofthebuildingaccordingtotheimplementation
ofGSEEDcertificationisquitehigh.However,socialandeconomicfactorsthatarenotconsidered
inthisstudy,suchaseconomicdevelopment,legalregulations,improvedconstructionclientand
tenantdemands,andenvironmentalchanges,mayaffectbuildingenergyefficiency.
IfKorea’sbuildingenergyusedatabaseisfullyactivatedinthefuture,suchastheUSenergy
benchmarkingsystem,itwillbepossibletocompareandanalyzethepreciseenergyusagelevelof
greenbuildingcertifiedbuildings,andtoimproveanddevelopthestandard.
AuthorContributions:Conceptualization,S.N.andC.W.;methodology,S.N.;validation,S.N.andC.W.;formal
analysis,S.N.andC.W.;investigation,S.N.;resources,S.N.;datacuration,S.N.andC.W.;writing—originaldraft
preparation,S.N.andC.W.;writing—reviewandediting,C.W.;visualization,S.N.;supervision,S.N.;project
administration,S.N.;fundingacquisition,S.N.”
Funding:ThisworkwassupportedbyaNationalResearchFoundationofKorea(NRF)grant,fundedbythe
Koreagovernment(MSIT)(No.NRF2019R1A2C1006099).
Acknowledgments:ThiswassupportedbytheKoreaNationalUniversityofTransportationin2019.
ConflictsofInterest:“Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.”
References
1. TheNecessityofGreenConstruction—HousingHerald.Availableonline:
http://www.housingherald.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=36224(accessedon12November2019).
2. Amiri,A.;Ottelin,J.;Sorvari,J.AreLEEDcertifiedbuildingsenergyefficientinpractice?Sustainability
2019,11,1672,doi:10.3390/su11061672.
3. LEEDGreenBuildingCertification.Availableonline:https://new.usgbc.org/leed(accessedon12
November2019).
4. GreenBuildingCertification.Availableonline:https://www.gbc.re.kr/index.do(accessedon12November
2019).
5. Won,C.Y.;No,S.T.;Alhadidi,Q.Factorsaffectingenergyperformanceoflargescaleofficebuildings:
AnalysisofbenchmarkingdatafromNewYorkCityandChicago.Energies2019,12,4783,
doi:10.3390/en12244783.
6. Kim,H.M.;Park,W.J.Astudyoftheenergyefficiencymanagementingreenstandardforenergyand
environmentaldesign(GSEED)—CertifiedapartmentsinSouthKorea.Sustainability2018,10,3402,
doi:10.3390/su10103402.
7. Lee,G.Y.AStudyontheofPassiveDesignElementsandEnergyUseontheArchitecturalPlanningofthe
PublicLibraries—FocusingontheComparisonbetweenGSEEDcertifiedandNoncertifiedlibrary.
Master’sThesis,SeoulNationUniversityofTechnology,Seoul,Korea,2016.
8. Jeong,J.H.AStudyontheComparisonandAnalysisoftheEnergyConsumptionandEconomicsforGreen
BuildingCertification:FocusingontheofficeBuilding.Master’sThesis,JoongAngUniversity,Seoul,Korea,
2013.
9. Scofield,J.H.DoLEEDcertifiedbuildingssaveenergy?Notreally.EnergyBuild.2009,41,1386–1390.
10. Scofield,J.H.EfficacyofLEEDcertificationinreducingenergyconsumptionandgreenhousegasemission
forlargeNewYorkCityofficebuildings.EnergyBuild.2013,67,517–524.
Energies2020,13,104916of16
11. Scofield,J.H.;Doane,J.EnergyperformanceofLEEDcertifiedbuildingsfrom2015Chicagobenchmarking
data.EnergyBuild.2018,174,402–413.
12. Chokor,A.EvaluatingthePerformanceofLeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign(LEED)
CertifiedFacilitiesUsingDataDrivenPredictiveModelsforEnergyandOccupantSatisfactionwithIndoor
EnvironmentalQuality(IEQ).Master’sThesis,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe,AZ,USA,2015.
13. Chokor,A.;ElAsmar,M.AnovelmodelingapproachtoassesstheelectricityconsumptionofLEED
certifiedresearchbuildingsusingbigdatapredictivemethods.OldandNewConstructionTechnologies
ConvergeinHistoricSanJuan.InProceedingsofthe2016ConstructionResearchCongress,American
SocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE),SanJuan,PuertoRico,31May–2June2016;Volume105,pp.1040–1049,
doi:10.1061/9780784479827.
14. LEEDV4.EnergyandAtmosphere.Availableonline:https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new
construction/v4/energy%26atmosphere(accessedon12November2019).
15. Kim,J.K.;Goh,K.H.;Bang,M.S.AstudyoncompatibilitythroughcomparisonanalysisbetweenGSEED
andLEED—Focusonhousing.J.KoreanInst.Cult.Archit.2017,57,260–268.
16. Lee,H.J.;Kim,J.T.AcomparisonofGSEEDwithLEEDforenergyevaluationinanofficebuilding.In
ProceedingsoftheKoreaInstituteofEcologicalArchitectureandEnvironmentConference2013,Seoul,
Korea,21–22November2013;pp.76–77.
17. GSEEDCertificationStatus.Availableonline:https://www.gbc.re.kr/app/authStatus/list.do(accessedon
12November2019).
18. PublicDataPortal—OPENAPI.Availableonline:https://www.data.go.kr(accessedon12November2019).
19. ConstructionDataPrivateOpenSystem.Availableonline:http://open.eais.go.kr/(accessedon12
November2019).
20. MinistryofTrade,IndustryandEnergy.RegulationontheSupportofRenewableEnergyFacilities;Ministryof
Trade,IndustryandEnergy:Sejong,Korea,2019.
21. MinistryofLand,InfrastructureandTransport.BasicGreenBuildingPlan,1sted.;MinistryofLand,
InfrastructureandTransport:Sejong,Korea,2014.
©2020bytheauthors.LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.Thisarticleisanopenaccess
articledistributedunderthetermsandconditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution
(CCBY)license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... In addition, the energy consumption of green public buildings has been evaluated, and G-SEED certified and G-SEED non-certified public buildings have been analyzed using comparative analysis based on data from an open public portal, and the results revealed that the energy consumption intensity of G-SEED certified public buildings was 35.5-48.9% lower than that of the non-certified counterparts [37]. ...
... The evaluation items and criteria of G-SEED are similar to that of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification of the United States [37,39]. The G-SEED certificate grades the energy efficiency of buildings into Green 1 to Green 4 based on derived scores. ...
Article
Full-text available
As Korea has declared to realize a net-zero emission by 2050 in the Paris Agreement, the country has begun to implement national energy efficiency policies through the Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-SEED) certification and revision of building insulation thickness standard. However, some studies have reported the ineffectiveness of G-SEED certification and insulation thickness standard in reducing the energy consumption in certain buildings. Therefore, this study investigated the effectiveness of G-SEED certification and the revision of buildings’ insulation thickness standard, and evaluated the energy consumption of courthouse buildings. In addition, this study investigated the total annual energy consumption (electricity, gas, and heating energy) per gross floor area of courthouse buildings located in the central and southern regions of South Korea. Although many studies about the energy consumption analysis of non-residential buildings have been performed previously, a study evaluating the effectiveness of green certification and building insulation thickness standard on the energy consumption of courthouse buildings was performed for the first time. The results revealed that the revision of building insulation thickness standard and G-SEED certification resulted in an energy consumption efficiency of 34.61 and 31.14%, respectively. These results indicated the effectiveness of G-SEED certification and the revision of the building insulation thickness standard for enhancing energy efficiency in Korean courthouse buildings. However, some negative results were observed in the southern area, indicating that it is essential to increase the effectiveness of the building insulation thickness standard and G-SEED certification implementation.
... It can be found from this data that the construction industry has become one of the industries with the largest carbon emissions and energy consumption in the world, and the promotion of green buildings should be put on the agenda. Sangtae No et al. [2] green buildings in China, and the quantitative research using geographic information technology and spatial statistical methods is insufficient. ...
... The area of the standard deviation ellipse showed a volatile growth trend, which increased from 17.411 million km 2 In 2013-2018, the rotation angle decreased from 75.59 • to 48.98 • . In recent years, the corner has stabilized, and the spatial pattern of northeast-southwest has been strengthened. ...
Article
Full-text available
With the development of the world economy and the rapid increase in population, the carbon dioxide produced by large energy consumption has made environmental issues increasingly prominent, which has brought severe challenges to the survival and development of human society. The construction industry, as a major energy consumer and emitter, must change. Green buildings are an important way to promote the concept of sustainable development in the construction industry. In order to deepen the understanding of the spatial-temporal distribution and evolution characteristics of China’s green building development, this study collected statistical data of China’s green building label projects from 2008 to 2018, and studied the development status of China’s green buildings in three aspects: equilibrium, spatial distribution characteristics and spatial correlation. In addition, the driving factors of green buildings development were analyzed by using geological detectors. The results show that: (1) China’s green building development level has a high spatial imbalance and obvious agglomeration situation, but there is a large diffusion effect; (2) the spatial distribution characteristics, such as the distribution center, distribution range, distribution direction, and distribution shape of green buildings are constantly changing, and the changes have regularity; (3) in the early stage of green building development, there was a significant positive correlation, but most provinces were in low–low clusters; (4) economic level, technical level, and education level are the main factors influencing the development of green buildings.
... Kats [5] reviewed 60 green buildings with LEED rating in the United States, and clearly demonstrated that green buildings were on average 25% to 30% more energy efficient than conventional buildings. No and Won [6] comparatively analyzed energy consumption between a green building with Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design certification and general buildings in Korea and showed that certified buildings used at least 35.5% to 48.9% less energy than non-certified buildings. The energy-saving research on China's green residential buildings (GRBs) is mostly based on specific cases. ...
Article
Full-text available
Green residential buildings (GRBs) are an important part of the concept of green building. Although green buildings are well studied for geographic distribution and influencing factors, GRBs have not been fully explored or widely noted by parties involved in the building sectors. In this paper, we study the geographic distribution and influencing factors of 2134 GRBs that met the Green Building Evaluation Standard and obtained a green building logo in 2008–2016 in China. First, we analyze the geographic distribution and spatial correlation of GRBs with different star ratings at the provincial and municipal levels by natural break-point method and Moran’s index. Second, we study the aggregation degree of medium- and high-star GRBs in each province by development concentration index and define 42 leading cities with more favorable levels of GRB development. Third, we analyze the correlation between the GRBs’ number and 18 influencing factors covering the social economy and real estate market in the 42 leading cities. According to the analysis, this paper shows that (1) there are differences in the geographical distribution characteristics of different star green buildings in China. (2) The differences in geographical distribution and the spatial correlation of GRBs are more obvious in the study of municipal administrative division levels. (3) The local commercial residential building prices and the local residents’ economic and social statuses, education levels, and living standards are significantly positively correlated with the grade of GRBs.
Article
The traditional construction industry has a significant and far-reaching impact on the environment, economy, and society. Green-certified buildings, with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), DGNB (Deutsches Gütesiegel Nachhaltiges Bauen), or other certifications during the design stage, have great potential for increasing the effective use of resources and energy, reducing pollution, etc., and so their number has increased greatly in recent years. The post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of green buildings involves assessing whether they meet expected performance during the in-use phase and comprises four steps: (i) carrying out the research purpose/goal; (ii) determining the research objectives; (iii) conducting data collection, analysis, and visualization; and (iv) obtaining the results and drawing conclusions. However, there is a lack of reviews of POE research and analysis of reasons for actual performance gaps. In response and through a comprehensive literature review/analysis, this article summarizes the actual performance gaps of various greencertified projects, analyzes the reasons for failures, and proposes potential solutions. It is found that 74%, 12%, and 14% of the projects perform better, similar, and worse, respectively, than their non-green counterparts. Future POE green building projects can be optimized from the perspective of the building, user, and POE system. To optimize green building actual performance, it is important to ensure the sufficient education of installation and maintenance personnel and occupants’ green behavior, while interior design and decoration, the impact of user demographics, and POE performance indicators are key factors to be considered in green building design strategies and lifecycle evaluation systems.
Article
Full-text available
This study analyzed the characteristics of the environmental impacts of apartment buildings, a typical housing type in South Korea, as part of a research project supporting the streamlined life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of buildings within the G-SEED (Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design) framework. Three recently built apartment building complexes were chosen as study objects for the quantitative evaluation of the buildings in terms of their embodied environmental impacts (global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, ozone layer depletion potential, photochemical oxidant creation potential, and abiotic depletion potential), using the LCA approach. Additionally, we analyzed the emission trends according to the cut-off criteria of the six environmental impact categories by performing an S-LCA with cut-off criteria 90–99% of the cumulative weight percentile. Consequently, we were able to present the cut-off criterion best suited for S-LCA and analyze the effect of the cut-off criteria on the environmental impact analysis results. A comprehensive environmental impact analysis of the characteristics of the six environmental impact categories revealed that the error rate was below 5% when the cut-off criterion of 97.5% of the cumulative weight percentile was applied, thus verifying its validity as the optimal cut-off criterion for S-LCA.
Article
Full-text available
Buildings in high-income, industrialized cities are responsible for more than 50% of global energy consumption; consequently, many developed cities have legislated energy benchmarking and disclosure policies to understand their buildings’ energy-use dynamics better. By utilizing these benchmarking data and additional information taken from 3D models, this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of large-scale office buildings located in New York and Chicago, with respect to their energy use intensity (EUI). To identify the primary factors affecting the EUI, Spearman’s correlation analysis and multiple variate regression tests were performed on office buildings over 500,000 ft2 (46,452 m2) gross floor area. The results showed the number of floors, construction year, window-to-wall ratio (WWR), and source-to-site ratio statistically significant, while morphological factors such as the relative compactness and surface-to-volume ratio showed limited relation to EUI. In New York City, the smallest EUI median was found in the buildings with 20 to 30 floors, and in Chicago, the buildings with 60 floors or more. A higher source-to-site ratio generally had lower overall EUI in both cities. Despite the high correlation, different kinds of dependency were found for window-to-wall ratio (WWR) and construction year between NYC and Chicago. These findings highlight the relative role that each building’s characteristics play concerning the EUI, depending on the particular building’s typology, scale, and the urban context.
Article
Full-text available
Depletion of natural resources and climate change are undoubtedly the biggest challenges that humankind faces today. Here, buildings have a crucial role since they consume the majority, i.e., 30% to 40% of the total energy resources. Green building certification is one of the solutions to limit the energy use in buildings. In addition, it is seen to indicate a consideration for sustainability aspects in construction. LEED is the most widely used certificate worldwide. However, recently some critics have raised doubts about LEED and whether it actually implies sustainability. Most of the criticism has been targeted to the energy aspects of LEED. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on the usefulness of LEED: is it really beneficial for the environment, and is it worth of the money and time invested on the certification process? In this study a critical analysis of the literature to find an answer to this question is presented. Altogether 44 peer reviewed articles dealing with the abovementioned issue were selected out of 164 search result. Based on the studied material, the different aspects of LEED from the viewpoint of energy-efficiency are discussed. From the 44 reviewed articles, ten articles state that LEED certificate indicates energy efficiency while eight papers end up with an opposite conclusion. The rest of the papers do not take any stand on this matter. The study showed that energy efficiency of LEED-certified buildings is questionable especially at lower levels, i.e., certified. Therefore, it is recommended to modify the Energy and Atmosphere category of LEED in order to improve the actual energy performance of buildings.
Article
Full-text available
With an increase in the number of Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-SEED)-certified apartments in South Korea, people are receiving incentives from the government to purchase them. Since 2013, many benefits for G-SEED-certified buildings have been offered, such as tax reductions and deregulation of building codes/guidelines. As beneficial incentives are granted to G-SEED-certified buildings, follow-up management of the buildings is also necessary. However, to date, there are no appropriate follow-up management systems or legal regulations for G-SEED-certified buildings. Buildings that are certified by G-SEED in Korean housing buildings account for 6.25% of Korea’s total area. In addition, G-SEED certification has been obtained for more than 20% of the total completed housing area (2014–2017). Therefore, the energy efficiency-management of G-SEED certified buildings is also very important economically for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In this study, domestic and foreign energy efficiency follow-up management systems were analyzed, and the amount of energy that is used by apartment houses with incentives was investigated. We have identified problems with the G-SEED system by analyzing evaluation methods, evaluation items, and points of G-SEED certification in related research studies. We also compared the energy consumption of an apartment building with G-SEED certification with that of adjacent complexes, thereby applying original research methods. The results show that energy use in G-SEED-certified buildings was not efficient. Accordingly, the study confirms that continuous management after G-SEED certification by establishing a follow-up management system is needed. In this study, domestic and foreign follow-up management systems were compared, problems with the apartment housing information management system run by the government were examined, and improvement measures were suggested.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper 2011 energy consumption, green house gas (GHG) emission, and ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Rating (EPR) data for 953 office buildings in New York City are examined. The data were made public as a result of New York City's local law 84. Twenty-one of these office buildings were identified as LEED-certified, providing the opportunity for direct comparison of energy performance data for LEED and non-LEED buildings of the same type, time frame, and geographical and climate region. With regard to energy consumption and GHG emission the LEED-certified buildings, collectively, showed no savings as compared with non-LEED buildings. The subset of the LEED buildings certified at the Gold level outperformed other NYC office buildings by 20%. In contrast LEED Silver and Certified office buildings underperformed other NYC office buildings. The average EPR for the LEED buildings was 78, 10 pts higher than that for all NYC office buildings, raising questions about the validity and interpretation of these EPR's. This work suggests that LEED building certification is not moving NYC toward its goal of climate neutrality. The results also suggest the need to re-examine some aspects of ENERGY STAR's benchmarking tool.
Article
The City of Chicago recently publicized energy usage data for 1521 commercial properties with floor area 50000 ft² (4650 m²) or greater for the year 2015. We have cross-referenced the Chicago benchmarking data with the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED project database to identify 132 Chicago properties that were LEED-certified in programs expected to reduce whole building energy use. The numbers of LEED-certified buildings are sufficient for Offices, K-12 Schools, and Multifamily Housing to learn whether these buildings use less energy than do similar conventional buildings in Chicago. For all three building types we find LEED-certified buildings use no less source energy than similar buildings that are not LEED-certified. Further, we find that LEED-certified schools use 17% more source energy than do other schools. For all three building types we find that LEED-certified buildings use roughly 10% less energy on site than comparable conventional buildings. This does not translate into source energy savings because LEED-certified buildings use relatively more electric energy. Finally, when LEED-certified buildings are compared with other newer buildings we find their source energy consumption to be similar. We believe this is the first such study of energy performance for LEED-certified schools.
Article
Purpose: The definition and factors of passive design being the sustainable method of building plan through the preceding research is deducted and the effect of passive design within the public library by applying the deducted factors in the case of built public libraries and further the realization plan of green library aimed to be reviewed in this research. Method: This study is to induce common elements of architecture plan for public library and passive design, and assess application level of re-classified elements of sustainable public library in order to analyze present condition of passive design applied on facilities of public library. First, related laws and planning standards of public library will be reviewed, then the definition of passive design will be considered using advanced research. Through advanced research related to planing elements and passive design for library induced from various plans for library standards, a common ground of induced passive design element will be transformed into assessment items and practices to be analyzed. Result: Libraries which are and are not preliminarily certified by G-SEED will be compared with each other in order to analyze the effects of passive design on G-SEED. Even though various passive elements such as load reduction of air conditioning and energy efficiency exist, there are no assessment tool within G-SEED. The fact that there are only standards for temporary methods such as utilization of construction material and installation of equipment highlights the challenges in quantitative evaluation.
Article
Newsham et al. have recently published a re-analysis of energy-consumption data for LEED-certified commercial buildings supplied by the New Buildings Institute (NBI) and US Green Building Council. They find that, on average, LEED buildings use 18–39% less energy per floor area than their conventional counterparts, consistent with and adding clarity to conclusions originally reached by NBI. These conclusions, however, hang on a particular definition of the mean energy intensity of a collection of buildings that is not related to the total energy used by those buildings. Furthermore, site energy considered by Newsham et al. and NBI, unlike source energy used for the EPA's building Energy Star rating, does not account for the energy consumed off-site in generating and delivering electric energy to the building, whose inclusion is crucial for understanding greenhouse gas emission associated with building operation. Here I demonstrate that both the site energy and source energy used by the set of 35 LEED office buildings and Newsham et al.’s matching CBECS office buildings are statistically equivalent. Hence Newsham et al. offer no evidence that LEED-certification has collectively lowered either site or source energy for office buildings.
A Study on the Comparison and Analysis of the Energy Consumption and Economics for Green Building Certification: Focusing on the office Building
  • J H Jeong
Jeong, J.H. A Study on the Comparison and Analysis of the Energy Consumption and Economics for Green Building Certification: Focusing on the office Building. Master's Thesis, JoongAng University, Seoul, Korea, 2013.
Evaluating the Performance of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Facilities Using Data-Driven Predictive Models for Energy and Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
  • A Chokor
Chokor, A. Evaluating the Performance of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Facilities Using Data-Driven Predictive Models for Energy and Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ). Master's Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015.
A novel modeling approach to assess the electricity consumption of LEEDcertified research buildings using big data predictive methods. Old and New Construction Technologies Converge in Historic San Juan
  • A Chokor
  • M El Asmar
Chokor, A.; El Asmar, M. A novel modeling approach to assess the electricity consumption of LEEDcertified research buildings using big data predictive methods. Old and New Construction Technologies Converge in Historic San Juan. In Proceedings of the 2016 Construction Research Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), San Juan, Puerto Rico, 31 May-2 June 2016; Volume 105, pp. 1040-1049, doi:10.1061/9780784479827.