Content uploaded by Usha Iyer-Raniga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Usha Iyer-Raniga on Jan 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
A Methodological Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment of Construction Projects Incorporating TBL and
Decoupling Principles
Shivam Srivastava 1, *, Usha Iyer Raniga 2, 3, * and Sudhir Misra 1, *
Citation: Srivastava, S.; Raniga, U.I.;
Misra, S. A Methodological
Framework for Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment of
Construction Projects Incorporating
TBL and Decoupling Principles.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14010197
Academic Editor: Antonio Caggiano
Received: 12 August 2021
Accepted: 3 November 2021
Published: 25 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India
2
School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
3Sustainable Buildings and Construction Programme, Co-Lead United Nations One Planet Network,
75015 Paris, France
*Correspondence: shvmsri@iitk.ac.in (S.S.); usha.iyer-raniga@rmit.edu.au (U.I.R.); sud@iitk.ac.in (S.M.);
Tel.: +91-512-259-7346 (S.S.); Fax: +91-512-259-6296 (S.S.)
Abstract:
The triple bottom line (TBL) principle encompasses the idea of continued economic and
social well-being with minimal or reduced environmental pressure. However, in construction
projects, the integration of social, economic, and environmental dimensions from the TBL perspective
remains challenging. Green building rating tools/schemes, such as Green Rating for Integrated
Habitat Assessment (GRIHA), Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED), Building
Research Establishment Environment Assessment (BREEAM), and their criteria, which serve as a
yardstick in ensuring sustainability based practices and outcomes, are also left wanting. These green
building rating tools/schemes not only fail to comprehensively evaluate the three dimensions (social,
economic, and environment) and interaction therewith, but also lack in capturing a life cycle approach
towards sustainability. Therefore, this study intends to address the aforementioned challenges. The
first part of this study presents the concept of sustainable construction as a system of well-being
decoupling and impact decoupling. Findings in the first part of this study provide a rationale for
developing a methodological framework that not only encapsulates a TBL based life cycle approach to
sustainability assessment in construction, but also evaluates interactions among social and economic
well-being, and environmental pressure. In methodological framework development, two decoupling
indices were developed, namely, the phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDI
K
) and phase impact
decoupling index (PIDI
K
). PWBDI
K
and PIDI
K
support the evaluation of interdependence among
social and economic well-being, and the environmental pressure associated with construction projects
in different life cycle phases. The calculation underpinning the proposed framework was illustrated
using three hypothetical cases by adopting criteria from GRIHA Precertification and GRIHA v.2019
schemes. The results of these cases depict how the interactions among different dimensions (social,
economic, and environment) vary as they move from one phase to another phase in a life cycle.
The methodological framework developed in this study can be tailored to suit the sustainability
assessment requirements for different phases and typologies of construction in the future.
Keywords:
triple bottom line (TBL); green building rating tools; sustainability assessment;
sustainable construction; life cycle assessment; decoupling
1. Introduction
Sustainability considerations in the building and construction (B&C) sector are be-
coming more important due to increasing international pressure to address the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a universal framework for sustainable develop-
ment that revolves around people, planet, and prosperity [
1
]. The building and construction
sector impacts all three dimensions of sustainability; namely, social, environmental, and
economic, also known as the triple bottom line (TBL). Social impact by creating spaces to
Sustainability 2022,14, 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010197 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 2 of 52
live and work in, economic impact by contributing to gross domestic product (GDP) and
creating jobs, and environmental impact due to the usage of resources and raw materials
and the generation of construction and demolition (C&D) waste during the processes of
construction [
2
–
4
]. C&D is the industry term for end of life determination of building
and construction materials, although increasingly from a circular economy perspective,
this term may considered as deconstruction instead. Buildings/constructed facilities may
last 80–100 years or more, and they need to be maintained throughout their life cycle.
The operation, maintenance, and decommissioning phases of a constructed facility also
have social impact, through the wellbeing of spaces and improvement in productivity, etc.;
economic impact through procurement costs, operational costs, job opportunities, etc.; and
environmental impact through the use of energy, water, waste generation, etc. However,
the pace of the B&C sector in adopting life cycle cum TBL based sustainability practices is
slow [5].
In delivering TBL based sustainability outcomes, the implementation of green/sustainable
building and construction assessment tools/schemes may be helpful [
3
,
6
]. Green Rating
for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA-India), Leadership in Energy and Environ-
ment Design-Indian Green Building Council (LEED-IGBC-India), Green Star-Australia,
Building and Construction Authority Green Mark (BCA Green Mark-Singapore), Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB-Germany), Comprehensive Assessment Sys-
tem for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE-Japan), Building Research Establishment
Environment Assessment (BREEAM-UK), Green Globes-Canada, Green Building Index
(GBI-Malaysia), Global Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS-Gulf countries), and oth-
ers are some of the popular assessment tools/schemes in different regions and countries
of the world. These rating tools/schemes serve as a reference guide to assess the build-
ing/constructed facility’s sustainability performance. The tools have been developed so
as to include a set of parameters that pertain to the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance phases of buildings/constructed facilities [
7
]. However, to ensure continuous
delivery of sustainability outcomes, current sustainability assessment tools/schemes need
to continuously improve to overcome their various limitations, such as lack of life cycle
assessment considerations, a holistic approach, performance orientation, effective commu-
nications, continuity, participation, a specific vision, adequate scope, a clear framework
and indicators, and others [
8
–
13
]. Most of the current assessment tools/schemes award cer-
tification to buildings/construction based on a single compiled score, in which the environ-
mental aspect of sustainability dominates the social and economic aspects of sustainability.
Within these certification tools/schemes, the life cycle approach should be consistently
considered, rather than individual measurements for evaluating the overall performance
of construction projects [
13
]. These assessment systems should be transparent, tailor made,
and flexible enough for assessing the sustainability requirements of preconstruction, con-
struction, operation and maintenance, and the decommissioning/deconstruction phases
of construction.
Growing acceptance of the life cycle based sustainability approach and its evaluation
requires comprehending the relationships and interactions of different dimensions of
sustainability by tactically bringing them together. Decoupling analysis is one such tool,
which evaluates the quality of economic growth by measuring the coupling between
economic growth, and environmental impact and resource use. Decoupling evaluation
is at the core of the sustainability framework [
14
]. Current sustainability assessment
frameworks for buildings/construction lacks decoupling evaluation. The majority of
previous studies for evaluating decoupling in the B&C sector were at an aggregated
industrial level, and evaluated decoupling between two dimensions of sustainability only,
i.e., between economic and environment [15–17].
At present, there is no sustainability assessment rating tool/scheme for buildings/construction
that explicitly focuses on measuring sustainability from the TBL perspective incorporating
decoupling evaluation. Hence, a conceptual sustainability assessment framework needs
to be developed, not just for the rating of the constructed facility, but also because of
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 3 of 52
the life cycle of a building. A framework that focuses on a life cycle cum TBL based
sustainability approach and, at the same time, ensuring the transition from linear (less
sustainable) to circular (more sustainable) systems is critical. Therefore, this research
focuses on developing TBL based sustainability assessment framework cutting across
different life cycle phases, simultaneously evaluating the transition of linear systems to
circular systems using scores obtained from TBL based sustainability assessment at each
phase of construction.
The objectives of the current study are as follows:
1.
To identify different TBL based sustainability, i.e., social, economic, and environ-
mental, assessment parameters and indicators for the different life cycle phases of
a construction.
2.
To propose a methodological framework and classification system by integrating TBL
based life cycle sustainability parameters and decoupling indices.
Following this introduction, Section 2critical reviews the current literature on the
interaction among different aspects of sustainability, current sustainability assessment
frameworks and presents a comparison of ten rating tools from the TBL perspective. In
Section 3, the research method is presented. This section offers analysis of the extracted
TBL based life cycle sustainability assessment parameters and presents the methodological
framework for calculating TBL scores for life cycle phases and decoupling indices.
Section 4
focuses on the hypothetical cases, taking GRIHA criteria to illustrate the calculation proce-
dure of decoupling indices developed in the framework. Section 5provides the conclusion
related to this research.
2. Building and Construction Sustainability
2.1. Rethinking Sustainability as a System of Well-Being Decoupling and Impact Decoupling
Construction is critical to the sustainable development framework, as it affects three
dimensions of sustainability: social well-being, economic well-being, and environmental
pressure [
18
–
20
]. Construction has traditionally operated as a “take, make, waste” process,
taking raw material from nature, using it in construction and then either abandoning the
facility after use or dumping the debris into a landfill. This approach to construction is
known as the linear approach to construction. Critical evaluation of current construction
processes reveals that they are high on the consumption of resources and pollution cre-
ation [
21
,
22
]. The net result of this is the increasing scarcity of construction materials and
reduction in available natural resources at an alarming rate. Growing concern for the
environment, especially in the last few decades, has resulted in several agreements and
efforts to define a framework for sustainable development, with an emphasis on concepts
such as reduce, recycle, and reuse; more use of green buildings; renewable energy; zero
waste; and other such related concepts.
Construction, especially in developing countries, is modelled on a linear approach [
23
].
The linear approach to construction is characterized by an increase in demand for ex-
tracting virgin materials for production and the subsequent construction, operation and
maintenance of a project. However, even during/after the construction, operation and
maintenance of a project, it continues to impact other aspects of sustainability, i.e., the
economic and social. On the economic side, focus is usually on the increase in production
profits. With increased production profits, further investment in the economy leads to
better job opportunities. In addition, with better job opportunities and economic activities,
the socioeconomic gap decreases.
On the contrary, this linear approach further intensifies the extraction of virgin materi-
als and, as a result, sustaining economic and social well-being in the long run is not certain.
In a linear approach, social well-being and its improvement are largely dependent on the
use of resources from nature and, with an ever increasing population, the use of resources
is bound to increase and, as a result, environmental pressure will increase. Economic well-
being and growth are also associated with the ever increasing use of resources, resulting
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 4 of 52
in environmental degradation. If continued in the same way, these impacts will lead to
disruptions in ecosystem services that are vital to social well-being [14].
To ensure sustainability in the longer run, the vision should not be only aimed at min-
imizing resource use/resource optimization as this may result in slowing down economic
growth [
24
]. The new systems that enable resource optimization, reduce environmental
impacts, and provide alternative economic returns and the social well-being of stakeholders
associated with construction, need to be developed [25].
Seeing the nature of the resource intensive construction industry, developing tools
for estimating well-being decoupling and impact decoupling and incorporating them
in sustainable assessment has become critical to realize the true picture of sustainability
(Figure 1). In other words, construction needs assessment models to ensure the decoupling
of social and economic well-being from environmental pressures created in different phases
of a construction.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 51
certain. In a linear approach, social well-being and its improvement are largely dependent
on the use of resources from nature and, with an ever increasing population, the use of
resources is bound to increase and, as a result, environmental pressure will increase. Eco-
nomic well-being and growth are also associated with the ever increasing use of resources,
resulting in environmental degradation. If continued in the same way, these impacts will
lead to disruptions in ecosystem services that are vital to social well-being [14].
To ensure sustainability in the longer run, the vision should not be only aimed at
minimizing resource use/resource optimization as this may result in slowing down eco-
nomic growth [24]. The new systems that enable resource optimization, reduce environ-
mental impacts, and provide alternative economic returns and the social well-being of
stakeholders associated with construction, need to be developed [25].
Seeing the nature of the resource intensive construction industry, developing tools
for estimating well-being decoupling and impact decoupling and incorporating them in
sustainable assessment has become critical to realize the true picture of sustainability (Fig-
ure 1). In other words, construction needs assessment models to ensure the decoupling of
social and economic well-being from environmental pressures created in different phases
of a construction.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram representing TBL cum decoupling model of sustainability in construc-
tion.
2.2. Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Construction
To assess the extent of sustainability compliance, a framework encapsulating sustain-
ability assessment principles and sustainability procedures is required. According to Sala
et al., (2015) [8], a framework for sustainability assessment should be based on certain
principles, such as: guiding vision (progress towards the goal of delivering well-being
should be within planetary limits and ensured for current as well as future generations),
essential considerations (incorporating social, economic and environment components
and their interactions), adequate scope (progress towards sustainable development
should adopt certain timeline, to address both short and long term effects, and it should
also capture local as well as global effects), framework and indicators (based on a certain
conceptual framework that is to be linked with identified core indicators and reliable
data), transparency (the transparency of data and data sources for indicators should be
considered), effective communication (clearly communicating with a wide audience and
the proper dissemination of results), continuity and capacity (should be continuously
monitored and scored), and broad participation (it should encourage legitimacy and
Figure 1.
Schematic diagram representing TBL cum decoupling model of sustainability
in construction.
2.2. Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Construction
To assess the extent of sustainability compliance, a framework encapsulating sus-
tainability assessment principles and sustainability procedures is required. According to
Sala et al., (2015) [
8
], a framework for sustainability assessment should be based on certain
principles, such as: guiding vision (progress towards the goal of delivering well-being
should be within planetary limits and ensured for current as well as future generations),
essential considerations (incorporating social, economic and environment components
and their interactions), adequate scope (progress towards sustainable development should
adopt certain timeline, to address both short and long term effects, and it should also cap-
ture local as well as global effects), framework and indicators (based on a certain conceptual
framework that is to be linked with identified core indicators and reliable data), trans-
parency (the transparency of data and data sources for indicators should be considered),
effective communication (clearly communicating with a wide audience and the proper
dissemination of results), continuity and capacity (should be continuously monitored and
scored), and broad participation (it should encourage legitimacy and relevance by the way
of interaction among stakeholders right from the initial stages of the project).
The construction industry, too, has a long history of developing and using such
sustainability assessment frameworks [
26
,
27
]. Green building councils of different coun-
tries are actively involved in developing such frameworks for sustainability assessment
schemes. Typically, assessment schemes have been devised using a yardstick for delivering
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 5 of 52
sustainability outcomes through constructed facilities. GRIHA (India), LEED-IGBC (India),
Green Star (Australia), BCA Green Mark (Singapore), DGNB (Germany), CASBEE (Japan),
BREEAM (UK), Green Globes (Canada), GBI (Malaysia), GSAS (Gulf countries), and others
are some of the prevalent assessment tools/schemes. As already mentioned, green rating
tools/schemes include a set of parameters and indicators to assess the level of sustainabil-
ity [
7
]. Illankoon et al. (2017) [
28
], after reviewing and comparing eight international green
building tools, established seven key criteria in these rating tools as follows: site, energy,
water, indoor environment quality, materials, waste and pollution, and management. Other
than these key criteria, criteria such as triple bottom line (TBL) reporting, education and
awareness, the economic aspects of various costs, sustainable design and planning, and
stakeholder engagement can be used to develop new rating tools in the future, as these are
missing from the rating tools but illustrated in literature [28].
2.2.1. Critique of Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Construction
Often, the terms green and sustainable construction are used synonymously, but they
do have slightly different meanings. As per the US EPA, green building is also referred
to as green construction, a structure with an application of processes that are environ-
mentally friendly and resource efficient throughout their life cycle, i.e., during planning,
construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and end of life phases. However, a
sustainable building or construction is not only about environmental protection and pro-
moting resource optimization, but should also encompass social well-being factors—such
as: (1) security, safety, satisfaction, comfort, and human contributions such as skills, health,
knowledge, and motivation [
29
,
30
]; (2) people’s social–cultural spiritual needs [
31
]; and
(3) education and skill development, equality, health and safety, community engagement
and benefits [
32
]—and economic sustainability parameters, such as: (1) monetary gains to
the stakeholders from the project [33]; (2) growth, efficiency and stability [34]; and (3) em-
ployment and economic opportunities [
35
]. A sustainability framework in construction
should be based on the fact that construction activities should be socially, economically,
and environmentally safe [28].
Critical evaluation of ten rating tools/schemes reveals that most of them deliver a
single rating to construction projects after evaluating them against a predetermined set of
sustainability parameters that are mostly dominated by environmental parameters. Most
of these rating tools/schemes are biased towards evaluating environmental sustainability,
whereas economic and social aspects are partially neglected [
28
]. Though most of the rating
tools/schemes consider social dimensions by allocating 25% of the credit points on average,
economic sustainability is rarely evaluated. The DGNB (Germany) rating system gives
substantial weightage to economic sustainability by allocating 30% of the credit points, in
comparison to other tools (Table 1).
Table 1.
Weights of TBL (social, economic, and environment) credits in different rating tools/schemes.
Building Assessment Tools Social Economic Environment
GRIHA (India) 24 5 71
LEED-IGBC (India) 18 — 82
Green Star (Australia) 31 — 69
Green Mark (Singapore) 18.8 — 81.2
DGNB (Germany) 30 30 40
* CASBEE (Japan) 28.8 6.2 65
BREEAM (UK) 26 12 62
Green Globes (Canada) 22 — 78
GBI (Malaysia) 28 1 71
GSAS (Gulf) 28 3 69
* Refer to Appendix Afor methodology and detailed division of credits from TBL considerations in different
rating tools/schemes. * CASBEE (Japan): It does not allocate any credit points; it calculates built environment
efficiency (BEE) as the ratio of environmental quality of a building to an environmental load of a building.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 6 of 52
The rationale for focusing more on environmental sustainability is that once environ-
mental sustainability criteria are satisfied then social and economic aspects will be taken
care of [
36
]. Moreover, some of the researchers claim that most rating tools/schemes fail
to capture a TBL based perspective on sustainability [
10
]. The lack of consideration of
social and economic dimensions in building performance during its life cycle leads to
a deviation from the true meaning of sustainability. Most of the assessment tools and
respective criteria (credits) are concerned with the design, construction, and operation and
maintenance phases of a project; conception and demolition/decommissioning are not
explicitly considered [37].
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is defined as the evaluation of environ-
mental, social, and economic negative impacts and benefits that occur through decision-
making processes, towards more sustainable projects/products throughout the life cycle of
projects/products [38] (Equation (1)).
LCSA =f(Soc −LCA +Eco −LCA +Env −LCA)(1)
where,
Soc-LCA = f (social assessment parameters, conceptual planning and feasibility study,
design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life);
Eco-LCA = f (economic assessment parameters, conceptual planning and feasibility study,
design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life); and
Env-LCA = f (environment assessment parameters, conceptual planning and feasibility
study, design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life)
Life cycle sustainability assessment/management is missing from such tools/schemes.
In a review paper, Wulf et al. (2019) [
39
] found that, in recent years, with respect to LCSA,
the focus has been more on case studies and less on developing methodological frameworks.
Sala et al. (2013) [
40
], in their study, advocate the development of a methodology that
adopts a holistic approach and has the capacity to address general or complex system theory.
Critical topics that need to be addressed in developing an LCSA based methodological
framework should include the development of quantitative and practical indicators for
Soc-LCA, approaches to assess the scenarios from a life cycle perspective, standardizing
methods to include uncertainties, synergies, and tradeoffs between different dimensions of
sustainability [
41
,
42
]. Although the literature shows TBL perspectives have been gradually
adopted, in-depth investigation of environmental, economic, and social holistically is still
missing [4].
Any kind of sustainable assessment and management of construction requires close
coordination and interactions among internal and external stakeholders that are associated
with the construction project life cycle phases, otherwise, the assessment becomes too
theoretical [43–45].
Another aspect that is critical for LCSA is decoupling analysis. “Decoupling” as
a term was first advanced by the OECD in 2001; it highlights the concept of continued
socio-economic growth with diminishing environmental impacts. Decoupling and its
evaluation, which is at the core of the sustainability framework [
14
], is missing from
such rating tools/schemes, though the underlining principles of sustainability assessment
overlap with decoupling. Central to the UN SDGs/Agenda 2030, decoupling serves as
a foundation for materializing the overarching framework of sustainable development;
without decoupling the UN SDGs will not be achievable [46].
Current research challenging existing LCSA frameworks call for (1) adopting a holistic
approach towards understanding the dynamic interactions between different dimensions
of sustainability, (2) shifting from multidisciplinary to transdisciplinary approaches, (3) ca-
pability of moving forward through visions and goals, (4) continuous social learning for
the stakeholders, and (5) probabilistic approach for dealing with uncertainties [8].
Based on the above critiques, at present, the current rating tools/schemes for support-
ing sustainability outcomes are left wanting, as they do not deal with all the aspects of
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 7 of 52
TBL and interactions thereof. Moreover, real world, i.e., industry practices, have also not
presented as a way forward in supporting TBL based sustainability outcomes. Hence, the
current study puts forward a methodological LCSA framework that focuses on TBL based
sustainability outcomes and, at the same time, ensures the transition from less sustainable
(coupled) systems to more sustainable (decoupled) systems.
3. Research Method
This research is designed in three parts, as shown in Figure 2. In part 1, the study
commences with a review of the current green/sustainability rating tools/schemes from
the TBL perspective by examining each of the assessment parameters of these rating
tools/schemes and classifying them under environment, social or economic categories. It
presents a critique of current sustainability assessment frameworks in construction and
then establishes the need for the present study.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 51
Figure 2. Research methodology flowchart.
3.1. Extraction of Life Cycle Based TBL Sustainability Assessment Parameters
TBL based sustainability parameters and their potential indicators were extracted
from previous works. Sustainability parameters and their indicators are prerequisites for
any sustainability assessment, as they are critical for setting/translating into sustainability
targets [8] (Sala et al., 2015). Based on this argument, the sustainability assessment param-
eters for different construction phases, along with their description and potential indica-
tors, were identified through a sequential literature review (SLR). A similar approach was
used by Stanitsas et al. (2020) [47], to identify the sustainability indicators for the manage-
ment of construction projects. These identified parameters are knowingly put at a higher
level with fewer details about their indicators, as there can be numerous potential indica-
tors under each of the sustainability assessment parameters. The selection of indicators
depends on various factors based on regional context, and may not be globally accepted.
Tables 2–4 present the holistic view of TBL based sustainability assessment parameters
that are relevant to different phases of a construction project. This set of identified param-
eters form the rationale for developing an integrated framework and classification system
for sustainable construction, incorporating TBL and decoupling principles.
Figure 2. Research methodology flowchart.
In part 2, the extraction, integration, and identification of potential TBL based sus-
tainability assessment parameters from different sources, cutting across different life cycle
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 8 of 52
phases (conceptual planning and feasibility, design and engineering, construction, oper-
ation and maintenance, end of life) of a construction project, are presented. In addition,
a new methodological framework for the LCSA of construction, incorporating TBL and
decoupling principles, is presented in this part. This part also presents the key steps
involved in computing TBL scores and decoupling indices for different phases, and a
classification system for mapping construction projects using computed TBL scores and
decoupling indices.
In part 3, the application of the proposed methodological framework using the sus-
tainability assessment criteria of GRIHA Precertification and GRIHA v.2019 schemes are
presented, and calculations are shown for computing decoupling indices (well-being and
impact decoupling indices) using three hypothetical cases, followed by conclusions and
limitations of this research.
3.1. Extraction of Life Cycle Based TBL Sustainability Assessment Parameters
TBL based sustainability parameters and their potential indicators were extracted
from previous works. Sustainability parameters and their indicators are prerequisites for
any sustainability assessment, as they are critical for setting/translating into sustainability
targets [
8
] (Sala et al., 2015). Based on this argument, the sustainability assessment parame-
ters for different construction phases, along with their description and potential indicators,
were identified through a sequential literature review (SLR). A similar approach was used
by Stanitsas et al. (2020) [
47
], to identify the sustainability indicators for the management of
construction projects. These identified parameters are knowingly put at a higher level with
fewer details about their indicators, as there can be numerous potential indicators under
each of the sustainability assessment parameters. The selection of indicators depends on
various factors based on regional context, and may not be globally accepted.
Tables 2–4
present the holistic view of TBL based sustainability assessment parameters that are rele-
vant to different phases of a construction project. This set of identified parameters form the
rationale for developing an integrated framework and classification system for sustainable
construction, incorporating TBL and decoupling principles.
Table 2.
Pool of relevant social based sustainability assessment parameters for different phases of
construction.
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 1. Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Stakeholders’ consultation
and engagement
Consultation and engagement with
stakeholders/affected communities
to identify and monitor their
concerns and opportunities in
different phases of construction
Consultation/engagement report
based on parameters such as:
expectations, project constraints,
partnership, safety, employment,
training, accessibility, and others *
[48–58]
Health and safety
considerations
Planning for health and safety
issues related to workers (including
female workers), users, and other
stakeholders
Considerations of guidelines
related to health and safety of the
stakeholders, which can be
documented in the form of Health
Impact Assessment (HIA) *
[52,53,57,59–61]
Ethical considerations
Planning to promote and ensure
professional ethics, avoiding ethical
dilemmas, dealing with conflicts of
interest, and others
Adopting a framework for
monitoring and ensuring
compliance to ethical practices *
[62–67]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 9 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 2. Design and Engineering)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Decent work and economic
growth
Incorporate policies for creating job
opportunities in neighborhood
communities, maintaining social
and demographic equity in the
design team, construction workers,
and others involved in different life
cycle phases
Adopting/implementing
framework for assessing the trends
in the stocks of natural resources,
emissions, and discharges in the
environment resulting from
economic activities; accounting of
environmental preservation cost
and conservation cost
[1,68,69]
Health, well-being, and the
environment
Design for better health,
outdoor/indoor environments that
promotes better lifestyle practices,
nutrition, social connectivity,
minimized infectious disease
transmission, and others
Adopting design considerations
such as: universal accessibility and
sustainable transportation,
resilient buildings and
infrastructure,
high quality public and green
spaces, good mental health, and
others *
[68–70]
Design with socioeconomic
consideration
Design for promoting culture of
occupational health (physical and
mental), safety, social inclusion of
workers, and include labor
provisions in tendering process and
supplier contracts
Adopting design considerations
such as: design for safety and
sanitation for construction workers,
design for dedicated facilities for
service staff, design for the positive
social impact, which include
provisions for promoting gender
equality, protecting labour rights,
and others
[68,71]
Long term value to the society
and enhancing local quality of
life
Designs considering physical and
environmental impacts on the local
area, taking community input for
improving community’s health
Adopting a framework for
evaluating social value to the
society
[68,69]
Prioritizing occupant’s
comfort
Designs with considerations for
environment that is comfortable to
occupant
Adopting guidelines of ASHRAE
standards for the design of high
performance green buildings,
which include:
thermal comfort, natural and
energy efficient lighting, acoustic
comfort, olafactory, ergonomics,
and visual comforts in designs
[68,72]
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 3. Construction)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Socioeconomic strategies for
workers
Avoidance of unsafe
acts/conditions, promoting gender
equality, labor rights, habitable
living conditions, grievance
redressal mechanism, sustainability
awareness, training, skills, and
others for workers during
construction
Adopting a framework for defining
and delivering socioeconomic
benefits to the construction
workforce *
[68,73–77]
Long term value to the society
and local quality of life
Environmental practices at
construction sites
Adopting guidelines for mitigation
of air pollution, noise pollution,
traffic, congestion, waste, and other
pollution created on site and in
surrounding areas
[68,78,79]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 10 of 52
Table 2. Cont.
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 4. Operation and Maintenance)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Prioritizing occupant’s
comfort
Creating an environment that
enhances occupant’s comfort
during operational phase
Adopting a framework for
measuring and enhancing
occupant’s comfort *
[68,80–83]
Operations for protecting and
improving health
Support and enhancement of
physical/mental health,
minimization of infectious disease
transmission, accessibility to public
transport, space for physical
activities, healthy food options,
access to clean water, and others
Conducting postoccupancy
evaluation survey results and
adopting mitigation measures for
infectious disease and improving
health in a built environment
[68,84–86]
Socioeconomic strategies
during the operational phase
Creating wider social and economic
benefits to relevant stakeholders
Adopting a framework for
assessing and promoting diversity,
equity, and inclusions among
stakeholders
[68,87,88]
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 5. End of life)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Effective project
communication
Disclosure/digital dissemination of
information to the public about
dismantling process, and other
related issues
Evaluate the level of
communication among
stakeholders *
[89,90]
Security
Work and safety plan for the
contaminated/noncontaminated
area, and other related issues
Considerations of guidelines
related to health, safety, and
security of the stakeholders *
[90–92]
1* For further explanation refer to Appendix B.
Table 3.
Pool of relevant economic based sustainability assessment parameters for different phases of
construction.
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 1. Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study)
Parameters Description Indicators References
System of
environmental–economic
accounting
Integrating economic and
environmental data for analysing
the interrelationship between
economy and environmental stock
changes
Adopting/implementing
framework for assessing the trends
in the stocks of natural resources,
emissions, and discharges in the
environment resulting from
economic activities; accounting of
environmental preservation cost
and conservation cost
[93,94]
Financial and economic
feasibility
Estimating the return on
investment, creditworthiness,
viability, and cash flow during the
entire life cycle of a project
Financial and economic feasibility
assessment report of construction
projects
[76,95,96]
Cost management plan
Concerning different processes and
planning for controlling the cost of
resources and other costs of the
construction
Adopting framework to avoid time
and cost overrun during different
phases of a construction
[96–99]
Human resource planning
Concerning the capacities and
capabilities of an individual worker
in contributing towards
sustainability
Adopting a framework for human
resource management (HRM),
focusing on aspects such as defined
task domain of an employee,
recruitment, remuneration, working
conditions, training of the
workforce, etc.
[100–104]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 11 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 1. Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Supply chain collaboration
Strategies for collaborative
practices, ensuring selection of
order winners for improved
business case
Measuring level of collaboration in
the supply chain, i.e., collaboration
index
[105–110]
Targeted incentives
Strategies for incentivizing to
increase worker’s motivation and
improving work productivity
Adopting a framework for targeted
incentive schemes during different
project phases
[111–113]
Ability to pay and
affordability
Cost bearing ability of users during
construction, operation, and
maintenance of a project
Adopting framework to
evaluate/facilitate the cost reduction
of the constructed facility
[47,114]
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 2. Design and Engineering)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Design for quality of service
Design with considerations and
promoting resource efficiency by
adopting principle shift from
linearity to circularity in
construction
Adopting design principles such as:
functionality and usability, durability
and reliability, design for
maintenance consideration, flexibility
and adaptability for future changes,
design for assembly and disassembly
(DfD), design for extended life, and
reuse/remanufacturing/recycling,
specifying reclaimed/recycled
materials, and others
[6,23,115]
Life cycle costing for
alternative designs
Estimate the costing of the entire
life cycle of the construction project,
which includes acquisition cost,
facility management (operational)
cost, and disposal cost
Adopting framework that assists in
different design/specifications
alternatives with different cash flows
over life cycle of construction project
[70,116,117]
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 3. Construction)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Cost, quality, and schedule
management
Ensure reduction in the cost of poor
quality work and avoid time–cost
overruns in building/construction
projects
Adopting a framework for
performance management in
construction projects
[118–122]
Innovation and productivity
Enhance growth through
innovation and productivity in
building/construction projects
Adopting a framework for promoting
innovation and productivity in
construction processes
[123–125]
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 4. Operation and Maintenance)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Operational costs
Estimating operational and
maintenance cost of built
nvironment
Adopting models for predicting life
cycle costing that includes the cost for
periodic inspections, facility’s
operational cost, preventive
maintenance cost, replacement and
repairs cost, and reactive
maintenance cost
[126–128]
Risk management and long
term asset value
Ensure resilience of the built assets
by managing risks proactively
Adopting a framework for built asset
management with indicators such as
responsible building operations,
maintenance of built assets,
managing environmental risks,
analysing potential risks, and
preparation for climate action
[128,129]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 12 of 52
Table 3. Cont.
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 4. Operation and Maintenance)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Sustainable operations and
procurement
Ensure sustainable conscious
operations and procurement with
acknowledged social and
environmental standards
Adopting guidelines for sustainable
building operations, selecting
suppliers and service providers,
technical monitoring, maintenance,
and construction measures
[128,130,131]
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 5. End-of-life)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Risk assessment and cost
security
To assess and mitigate the
economic/financial risks associated
with decommissioning of project
Adopting a framework for risk
management, which includes:
estimating cost of the dismantling
process, assessing the uncertainties
and financial risks with the
estimates of dismantling cost
[90,132,133]
Values of expandable
resources
Devise strategies for estimating the
flow of building stocks
Maintaining account of building
stocks that are potential expandable
components *
[90,134]
Separation, recycling, and
disposal
Prudent and circular use of
materials and products
Adopting framework for circular
use of C&D waste * [90,135–137]
Tendering Process
Contract award based on
parameters such as separate
collection rate, sorting rate,
recycling rate, hazardous substance
plan, site equipment plan, and
others
Adopting a conceptual framework
for assessing the contractor’s
eligibility and performance
[90,138]
* For further explanation refer to Appendix B.
Table 4.
Pool of relevant environmental based sustainability assessment parameters for different
phases of construction.
Environmental Sustainability Parameters (Phase 1. Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study)
Parameters Description Indicators References
System of
environmental–economic
accounting
Integrating economic and
environmental data for analysing
the interrelationship between
economy and environmental stock
changes
Adopting/implementing
framework for assessing the trends
in the stocks of natural resources,
emissions, and discharges in the
environment resulting from
economic activities; accounting of
environmental preservation cost
and conservation cost
[93,94]
Environmental feasibility
report/environmental impact
assessment
Potentials benefits and ecological
risks associated with the proposed
project
Evaluating air, water, noise, land,
and other pollution monitoring,
prevention, and control strategies
[76,139–141]
Environmental management
plan
Plan for controlling the
environmental cost associated with
the life cycle phases of a
construction
Adopting a framework for
environmental cost management
accounting
[47,142]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 13 of 52
Table 4. Cont.
Environmental Sustainability Parameters (Phase 2. Design and Engineering)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Design with safe, healthy, and
circular building materials
Promoting the use of materials that
can be salvaged and reused aimed
at sustainable consumption and
production
Adopting/implementing
framework for assessing the trends
in the stocks of natural resources,
emissions, and discharges in the
environment resulting from
economic activities; accounting of
environmental preservation cost
and conservation cost
[37,68,70,143–145]
Design for harmony between
nature and the built
environment
Design with considerations such as
access to nature, biophilic benefit to
people, occupants’ access to nature
outdoors, and encouraging
biodiversity within site footprints
and surroundings
Adopting assessment framework
for assessing the value of habitat
that includes estimating the
quantity and quality of biodiversity
gained or lost, comparing pre- and
postconstruction phases
[68,146–148]
Design for protecting and
improving health
Design for maintaining/improving
indoor air quality, water quality in
order to minimize health risks
Adopting WHO Air Quality
Guidelines, ASHRAE set
benchmarks and WHO Guidelines
for drinking water quality
[68,149–152]
Design for tackling climate
change
Design with a commitment to water
efficiency, net zero life cycle
emissions, resilience against climate
change and extreme weather events
across all life cycle phases
Adopting guidelines for net zero
emissions and climate resilience
with design strategies aimed at
mitigation and adaptation
[153,154]
Environmental Sustainability Parameters (Phase 3. Construction)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Water use efficiency and
managing local shortage crisis
Commitment towards water
reduction in material production
and different construction phases
Adopting a strategic framework for
adopting and promoting water
saving across life cycle phases of a
construction
[68,155–159]
Safe, healthy, and circular use
of building materials
Avoid usage of hazardous building
materials, promote recycling and
circular use of building materials
Adopting monitoring framework
towards material loop closing in
construction processes with focus
on: designing out the waste, using
circular building products
preferring refurbished, recycle, and
remanufactured products
[160–164]
Environmental Sustainability Parameters (Phase 4. Operation and Maintenance)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Water use efficiency and
managing local shortage crisis
Ensure commitment towards water
demand reduction, wastewater
treatment, rainwater management,
and preserving water qualities for
minimizing health risks
Adopting a strategic framework for
promoting water saving across life
cycle phases of a construction
[68,165–167]
Solid waste management
Ensure waste management systems
are in place aimed at waste
elimination, waste minimization,
and material reuse
Adopting decision support
framework for solid waste
management postoccupancy
[68,70,168–170]
Air quality management
Ensure ambient air quality indoors
and outdoors by real time
monitoring
Adopting a framework for
integrating air quality impacts in
life cycle assessment
[68,171,172]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 14 of 52
Table 4. Cont.
Environmental Sustainability Parameters (Phase 5. End of life)
Parameters Description Indicators References
Material flow balance
C&D waste generated during
demolition/decommissioning
phase
Adopting a framework for
acounting of masses arising in
demolition/dismantling process,
maintaining inventory of massess
incurred, estimationg the distance,
and others
[90,173,174]
Life cycle assessment of
material flows
Environmental impacts/risks
because of output flows, waste
generated, emissions, and others
Adopting a framework for
estimating/preventinng
environmental impact
arising from demolition of the
constructed facility
[90,175]
Hazardous substance
remediation
Hazardous substances generated
during
demolition/decommissioning
phase
Adopting hazardous substance
remediation guidelines and
accounting of hazardous substances
separately
[90,176]
3.2. A Methodological Framework for Calculating TBL Scores and Decoupling Indices for Life
Cycle Phases
Methodological frameworks provide the structure to guide users by using stages or a
step by step approach. They help in improving the consistency, robustness, and reporting of
the activity, the quality of the research, the standardization of approaches, and maximizing
the trustworthiness of the results [
177
]. Figure 3illustrates the proposed LCSA framework
in six steps.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 51
Parameters
Description
Indicators
References
Material flow balance
C&D waste generated during
demolition/decommissioning phase
Adopting a framework for acounting of
masses arising in demolition/dismantling
process, maintaining inventory of massess
incurred, estimationg the distance, and
others
[90,173,174]
Life cycle assessment of
material flows
Environmental impacts/risks
because of output flows, waste
generated, emissions, and others
Adopting a framework for
estimating/preventinng environmental
impact
arising from demolition of the constructed
facility
[90,175]
Hazardous substance
remediation
Hazardous substances generated
during
demolition/decommissioning phase
Adopting hazardous substance
remediation guidelines and accounting of
hazardous substances separately
[90,176]
3.2. A Methodological Framework for Calculating TBL Scores and Decoupling Indices for Life
Cycle Phases
Methodological frameworks provide the structure to guide users by using stages or
a step by step approach. They help in improving the consistency, robustness, and report-
ing of the activity, the quality of the research, the standardization of approaches, and max-
imizing the trustworthiness of the results [177]. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed LCSA
framework in six steps.
Figure 3. Steps for LCSA framework.
3.2.1. Identification of Potential Sustainability Parameters/Indicators for Life Cycle
Phases of Construction and Weight Determination for Assessment Phases, Categories,
and Parameters
Based on common consensus, the assessment parameters and corresponding indica-
tors for construction phases are to be identified using suitable multicriteria decision anal-
ysis (MCDA) techniques. After finalizing assessment parameters and corresponding indi-
cators (Tables 2–4), the weights that are to be allocated for project phases (Wk, k = 1 i.e.,
Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study, k = 2 i.e., Design and Engineering, k = 3 i.e.,
Construction, k = 4 i.e., Operation and Maintenance, and k = 5 i.e., End of life), assessment
categories (Wl, l = 1 i.e., social, l = 2 i.e., economic, l = 3 i.e., environment), and assessment
parameters (Wm, m = 1…. n, where n is a number of assessment parameters). Yu et al.
(2018) [13] follow a similar approach in their study.
3.2.2. Benchmark/Baseline Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
Setting a benchmark score or target score under each of the sustainability assessment
parameters (Table 1) is a key feature in most sustainability assessment rating
tools/schemes. A benchmark/baseline score is a product of the phase weight (Wk), category
weight (Wl) and parameter weight (Wm) (Equation (2)).
Selecting
assesment
parameters and
indicators for
different phases
Weight
determination for
assessment
phases, categories
and parametes
Normalization of
weights
Aggregation of
weights
Chain number
calculation
Index
constrcution/
classification
system
Figure 3. Steps for LCSA framework.
3.2.1. Identification of Potential Sustainability Parameters/Indicators for Life Cycle Phases
of Construction and Weight Determination for Assessment Phases, Categories,
and Parameters
Based on common consensus, the assessment parameters and corresponding indi-
cators for construction phases are to be identified using suitable multicriteria decision
analysis (MCDA) techniques. After finalizing assessment parameters and corresponding
indicators (Tables 2–4), the weights that are to be allocated for project phases (W
k
,k= 1 i.e.,
Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study, k= 2 i.e., Design and Engineering, k= 3 i.e.,
Construction, k= 4 i.e., Operation and Maintenance, and k= 5 i.e., End of life), assessment
categories (W
l
,l= 1 i.e., social, l = 2 i.e., economic, l = 3 i.e., environment), and assessment
parameters (W
m
,m= 1
. . .
. n, where n is a number of assessment parameters). Yu et al.
(2018) [13] follow a similar approach in their study.
3.2.2. Benchmark/Baseline Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
Setting a benchmark score or target score under each of the sustainability assessment
parameters (Table 1) is a key feature in most sustainability assessment rating tools/schemes.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 15 of 52
A benchmark/baseline score is a product of the phase weight (W
k
), category weight (W
l
)
and parameter weight (Wm) (Equation (2)).
Benchmark/Baseline score =Wk ∗Wl ∗
n
∑
m=1
Wm (2)
Similarly, Table 5represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words,
each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sus-
tainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Conceptual Planning and
Feasibility Study Design and Engineering Construction Operation and
Maintenance End of Life Life Cycle Benchmark TBL Score
(LCBTS)
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Sustainability Pillars
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Social W1∗W1 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W2∗W1 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W3∗W1 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W4∗W1 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W5∗W1 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W1 ∗5
∑
k=1
n
∑
m=1
Wk ∗Wm
Economic W1∗W2 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W2∗W2 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W3∗W2 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W4∗W2 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W5∗W2 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W2 ∗5
∑
k=1
n
∑
m=1
Wk ∗Wm
Environment W1∗W3 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W2∗W3 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W3∗W3 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W4∗W3 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W5∗W3 ∗n
∑
m=1
Wm W3 ∗5
∑
k=1
n
∑
m=1
Wk ∗Wm
Project Phase Benchmark
Sustainability Score (PPBSS)
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
W1 ∗3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
Wl ∗Wm W2 ∗3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
Wl ∗Wm W3 ∗3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
Wl ∗Wm W4 ∗3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
Wl ∗Wm W5 ∗3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
Wl ∗Wm
5
∑
K=1
3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
Wk ∗Wl ∗Wm
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score (CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is
to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common
unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For exam-
ple, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is
24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum
available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score/Performance benchmark score (3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell
represents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 16 of 52
Table 6. Normalized performance score matrix.
Project Phase
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Conceptual Planning and
Feasibility Study Design and Engineering Construction Operation and
Maintenance End of Life Life Cycle TBL Score (LCTS)
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Sustainability Pillars
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Social n
∑
m=1
P nor1, 1, m n
∑
m=1
P nor2, 1, m n
∑
m=1
P nor3, 1, m n
∑
m=1
P nor4, 1, m n
∑
m=1
P nor5, 1, m 5
∑
k=1
n
∑
m=1
P nork, 1, m
Economic n
∑
m=1
P nor1, 2, m n
∑
m=1
P nor2, 2, m n
∑
m=1
P nor3, 2, m n
∑
m=1
P nor4, 2, m n
∑
m=1
P nor5, 2, m 5
∑
k=1
n
∑
m=1
P nork, 2, m
Environment n
∑
m=1
P nor1, 3, m n
∑
m=1
P nor2, 3, m n
∑
m=1
P nor3, 3, m n
∑
m=1
P nor4, 3, m n
∑
m=1
P nor5, 3, m 5
∑
k=1
n
∑
m=1
P nork, 2, m
Project Phase Sustainability
Score (PPSS)
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 51
Benchmark/Baseline score =
(2)
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple
words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase
and sustainability pillar.
Table 5. Benchmark/baseline score matrix.
Project Phase
Conceptual
Planning and
Feasibility
Study
Design and
Engineering
Construction
Operation and
Maintenance
End of Life
Life Cycle Benchmark
TBL Score (LCBTS)
Sustainability
Pillars
Social
Economic
Environment
Project Phase
Benchmark
Sustainability
Score (PPBSS)
Cumulative Benchmark
Sustainability Score
(CBSS)
3.2.3. Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-
ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores
is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-
mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For
example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-
cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24
maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation
(3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score
(3)
where,
Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-
sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum
score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other
approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been
used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-
resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
P nor1, l, m 3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
P nor2, l, m 3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
P nor2, l, m 3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
P nor2, l, m 3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
P nor2, l, m
5
∑
K=1
3
∑
l=1
n
∑
m=1
P nork, l, m
Cumulative Sustainability Score
(CSS)
3.2.4. Chain Numbers of Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
The chain number method is commonly employed in econometric analysis, in which
value of any given period is related to its immediate predecessor value (values expressed
as against preceding value = 100 or 1) [
178
]. Similarly, chain numbers for social well-being,
environmental well-being, and environmental pressure (1-normalized environmental score)
(Equation (4)) can be calculated by using a simple aggregative method, representing
the sustainability performance of a particular phase of construction with respect to the
preceding phase of construction. For example, in Table 9, Case-1, if the normalized social
score in the preconstruction phase, as expressed, is 15/24 = 0.625 and the normalized
social score in the construction phase, as expressed, is (14/24 = 0.583) then the chain
index (SOPn) for the preconstruction and construction phases will be (0.625/0.625 = 1) and
(0.583/0.625 = 0.93), respectively (Equation (5)).
Environmental pressure = 1 −Normalized environment score (4)
Chain Index = Normalized performance score of current phase/Normalized performance score of base phase (5)
3.2.5. Computation of Phase Well-Being Decoupling Index and Phase Impact
Decoupling Index
Examining the importance of decoupling analysis in sustainability assessment and
based on decoupling theory, this step involves the development of two decoupling indices,
namely: (1) phase well-being decoupling index (2) phase impact decoupling index. The
phase well-being decoupling index estimates if there is an increase in social well-being
corresponding to the environmental pressure (1-normalized environmental score) for
different phases (Equation (6)). The phase impact decoupling index estimates if there
is an increase in economic performance corresponding to the environmental pressure
(1-normalized environmental score) for different phases (Equation (7)).
Phase well-being decoupling index of stage K (PWBDIK) = SOPn/ENPn (6)
Phase impact decoupling index of stage K (PIDIK) = ECPn/ENPn (7)
where,
SOPn is the chain index of the normalized social performance score of one phase to
the next phase;
ECPn is the chain index of the normalized economic performance score of one phase
to the next phase;
ENPn is the chain index of the normalized environmental pressure score of one phase
to the next phase;
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 17 of 52
PWBDI
K
is the ratio of the change in social well-being performance to the change in
environmental pressure upon moving from one phase to the next phase;
PIDI
K
is the ratio of the change in social well-being performance to the change in
environmental pressure upon moving from one phase to the next phase.
3.2.6. Classification System Based on TBL Scores and Decoupling Indices for Different Life
Cycle Phases
Table 7presents the description of the different cases of coupling and decoupling that
are possible after computation of the phase well-being and impact decoupling indices.
Li et al. (2019) [
179
] provide a similar kind of cut off values of decoupling degrees. Figure 4
is a graphical representation of the state of sustainability (ideal, permitted, and prohibited)
that arise from different combinations of PWBDIKand PIDIK, as given in Table 7.
Table 7. Description of different types of coupling/decoupling based on PWBDIKand PIDIK.
Type of Coupling/Decoupling Possible Cases Remark State of
Sustainability
PWBDI k > 1
Absolute well-being
decoupling SOPn > 1, ENPn < 1
Increase in social well-being but
decrease in environmental
pressure Ideal state
Relative well-being
decoupling SOPn > 1, ENPn > 1
Increase in social well-being
exceeds increase in environmental
pressure
Contract well-being
decoupling SOPn < 1, ENPn < 1
Decrease in social well-being is
less than the decrease in
environmental pressure
Permitted state
PWBDI k < 1
Expansive well-being
recoupling SOPn > 1, ENPn > 1
An increase in social well-being is
coupled with increasing
environmental pressure
Prohibited state
Absolute well-being
recoupling SOPn < 1, ENPn > 1 Decrease in social well-being with
increase in environmental pressure
Relative well-being
recoupling SOPn < 1, ENPn < 1
Decrease in social well-being is
more than the decrease in
environmental pressure
PIDI k > 1
Absolute impact
decoupling ECPn > 1, ENPn < 1
An increase in economic
well-being but decrease in
environmental pressure
Ideal state
Relative impact
decoupling ECPn > 1, ENPn > 1
An increase in economic
well-being exceeds increase in
environmental pressure
Contract impact
decoupling ECPn < 1, ENPn < 1
Decrease in economic well-being is
less than the decrease in
environmental pressure
Permitted state
PIDI k < 1
Expansive impact
recoupling ECPn > 1, ENPn > 1
An increase in economic
well-being is coupled with
increasing environmental pressure
Prohibited state
Absolute impact
recoupling ECPn < 1, ENPn > 1
Decrease in economic well-being
with increase in environmental
pressure
Relative impact
recoupling ECPn < 1, ENPn < 1
Decrease in economic well-being is
less than the decrease in
environmental pressure
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 18 of 52
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 51
Absolute impact
recoupling
ECPn < 1,
ENPn > 1
Decrease in economic well-being
with increase in environmental
pressure
Relative impact
recoupling
ECPn < 1, ENPn
< 1
Decrease in economic well-being is
less than the decrease in
environmental pressure
Figure 4. Categorization of states in sustainability based on phase well-being and phase impact decoupling indices.
4. Applicability of Proposed Methodological Framework
This section presents the details of applying a TBL based sustainability assessment
criteria, as given in Table 8, for three hypothetical cases and the related computations for
the phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDIK) and phase impact decoupling index (PI-
DIK), as given in Table 9. The criteria chosen in the present formulation are based on the
GRIHA Precertification scheme and GRIHA v.2019, a justification for which is also in-
cluded for completeness.
Apart from the authors’ regional context and understanding of the industry, some of
the other important reasons for selecting the GRIHA’s criteria for use in the proposed
framework are explained in the following paragraphs:
1. According to the latest report of IPCC (2021) [180], we are already on a trajectory
towards a 1.2 degrees Centigrade increase and we must act immediately to meet the
1.5 degrees Centigrade target, highlighting the urgency of this issue. The solutions
are clear but the willingness to implement solutions is still lacking. These solutions
should focus on long term outcomes and impacts, focusing on inclusive and green
economies, prosperity, cleaner air, and better health.
2. At present, more than 50% of the population live in cities and this is expected to grow
to 70% by 2050. The urban population of India (17.7% of the world’s population) has
been rising sharply over the past decades and is projected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050
[181]. Rapid urbanization aimed at economic growth in developing regions of the
world (mostly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia) creates unprecedented challenges
on environmental and socio-economic fronts. As stated by the GRIHA Council, “as
Figure 4.
Categorization of states in sustainability based on phase well-being and phase impact
decoupling indices.
4. Applicability of Proposed Methodological Framework
This section presents the details of applying a TBL based sustainability assessment
criteria, as given in Table 8, for three hypothetical cases and the related computations for
the phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDI
K
) and phase impact decoupling index
(PIDI
K
), as given in Table 9. The criteria chosen in the present formulation are based on
the GRIHA Precertification scheme and GRIHA v.2019, a justification for which is also
included for completeness.
Table 8. Benchmark score and performance score matrix of the three cases.
Sustainability
Assessment Parameters Pre-Construction Phase Construction Phase
Assessment Criteria Benchmark
Score
Performance Score Benchmark
Score Performance Score
Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
So-1: Sustainable Site
Planning—Green
Infrastructure
3 2333232
So-2: Occupant
Comfort—Visual
Comfort
4 3344322
So-3: Occupant
Comfort—Thermal and
Acoustic Comfort
2 1022112
So-4: Occupant
Comfort—Indoor Air
Quality
6 4256433
So-5: Socio-Economic
Strategies—Safety and
Sanitation for
Construction Workers
1 1111111
So-5: Socioeconomic
Strategies—Universal
Accessibility
2 1122112
So-6: Socioeconomic
Strategies—Dedicated
Facilities for Service
Staff
2 1122112
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 19 of 52
Table 8. Cont.
So-7: Socioeconomic
Strategies—Positive
Social Impact
4 2334233
Ec-1: Life Cycle
Costing—Life Cycle
Costing Analysis
5 3455243
En-1: Sustainable Site
Planning—Green
Infrastructure
2 2122221
En-2: Sustainable Site
Planning—Low-Impact
Design Strategies
5 3245334
En-3: Sustainable Site
Planning—Low-Impact
Design Strategies
2 1122111
En-4: Construction
Management—Air and
Soil Pollution Control
1 1111101
En-5: Construction
Management—Topsoil
Preservation
1 0111101
En-6: Construction
Management—
Construction
Management Practices
2 1222112
En-7: Energy
Optimization—Energy
Optimization
12 8 10 10 12 7 8 4
Energy Optimization—
Renewable Energy
Utilization
5 4345223
En-8: Energy
Optimization—Low
ODP and GWP
Materials
1 0011011
En-9: Water
Management—Water
Demand Reduction
3 2233232
En-10: Water
Management—
Wastewater
Treatment
3 1233222
En-11: Water
Management—
Rainwater
Management
5 4335243
En-12: Water
Management—Water
Quality and
Self-sufficiency
5 3225132
En-13: Solid Waste
Management—Waste
Management-Post
Occupancy
4 4334344
En-14: Solid Waste
Management—Organic
Waste Treatment
On-site
2 2222122
En-15: Sustainable
Building
Materials—Utilization
of Alternative Materials
in Building
5 3445343
En-16: Sustainable
Building
Materials—eduction in
GWP through Life
Cycle Assessment
5 3235323
En-17: Sustainable
Building
Materials—Alternative
Materials for External
Site Development
2 1012111
En-18: Performance
Metering and
Monitoring—
Commissioning for
Final Rating
0 0000000
En-19: Performance
Metering and
Monitoring—Smart
Metering and
Monitoring
6 4356444
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 20 of 52
Table 8. Cont.
En-20: Performance
Metering and
Monitoring—Operation
and Maintenance
Protocol
0 0000000
Table 9.
Computation of phase well-being decoupling index and phase impact decoupling index for
the three cases.
Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
Pre-
Construction
Phase
Construction
Phase
Pre-
Construction
Phase
Construction
Phase
Pre-
Construction
Phase
Construction
Phase
Social Score 15 14 22 15 15 17
Economic
Score 345243
Environment
Score 47 44 56 38 47 44
Normalized
Social Score 0.625 0.583 0.92 0.625 0.625 0.71
Chain Index
(SOPn) 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.14
Normalized
Economic
Score
0.60 0.80 1.00 0.40 0.80 0.60
Chain Index
(ECPn) 1.00 1.33 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.75
Normalized
Environment
Score
0.66 0.62 0.79 0.54 0.66 0.62
Normalized
Environmen-
tal Pressure
Score
0.34 0.38 0.21 0.46 0.34 0.38
Chain Index
(ENPn) 1.00 1.12 1.00 2.19 1.00 1.12
Cumulative
Score 65 62 83 55 66 64
#GRIHA
rating *** *** **** ** *** ***
Chain
Number 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.64
PWBDI 0.83 0.31 1.02
Remark
Decrease in social well-being
with the increase in
environmental pressure
Decrease in social well-being
with the increase in
environmental pressure
An increase in social well-being
exceeds the increase in
environmental pressure
PIDI 1.19 0.18 0.67
Remark
An increase in economic
well-being exceeds the increase
in environmental pressure
Decrease in economic
well-being with the increase in
environmental pressure
Decrease in economic
well-being with the increase in
environmental pressure
Categorization Acceptable region Prohibited region Acceptable region
#
“*” in the different columns refers to the rating as per GRIHA. For example, “***” is three star which is given
as “***”.
Apart from the authors’ regional context and understanding of the industry, some
of the other important reasons for selecting the GRIHA’s criteria for use in the proposed
framework are explained in the following paragraphs:
1.
According to the latest report of IPCC (2021) [
180
], we are already on a trajectory
towards a 1.2 degrees Centigrade increase and we must act immediately to meet the
1.5 degrees Centigrade target, highlighting the urgency of this issue. The solutions
are clear but the willingness to implement solutions is still lacking. These solutions
should focus on long term outcomes and impacts, focusing on inclusive and green
economies, prosperity, cleaner air, and better health.
2.
At present, more than 50% of the population live in cities and this is expected to grow
to 70% by 2050. The urban population of India (17.7% of the world’s population)
has been rising sharply over the past decades and is projected to reach 9.9 billion by
2050 [
181
]. Rapid urbanization aimed at economic growth in developing regions of the
world (mostly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia) creates unprecedented challenges
on environmental and socio-economic fronts. As stated by the GRIHA Council, “as
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 21 of 52
per international commitments, India plans to reduce its energy intensity by 33%–
35% by 2030 [
182
]. Green building design, construction and operation will play a
critical role as they are synonymous to both sustainable construction and assured
high performance”.
3.
Further, the GRIHA Council also stated that, “GRIHA—with its commitment to-
wards Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) has been instrumental
in recent years for good practices and innovative solution for enhancing resource
efficiency in the building sector. GRIHA’s large scale adoption will have enormous po-
tential in addressing challenges”. However, like any other assessment tools/schemes,
GRIHA, too, has scope for improvement in its assessment framework (as discussed
in
Section 2.2.1
). The endeavor to create large scale impact by proposing a new as-
sessment framework with modifications in the existing assessment framework and
mapping projects using well-being and impact decoupling indices (Figure 3) will be
instrumental in progressing towards true sense of sustainability.
4.
The GRIHA rating tool has separate schemes for assessing the sustainability per-
formance of the preconstruction (planning, feasibility, design and engineering) and
construction (new construction) phases. Though the assessment parameters are de-
fined from a TBL perspective, the weights allocated to different dimensions are not
transparent, and are not based on a clear logical set of parameters.
5.
In addition, to test the proposed life cycle assessment framework incorporating
TBL and decoupling indices (phase well-being and impact well-being), TBL based
sustainability scores for at least two phases are required. As GRIHA allows the
same projects to be rated against its Pre-certification and New-Construction schemes,
providing the TBL based assessment scores for the same project in different life cycle
phases. This presents a good opportunity for testing the proposed framework with
slight modifications in the assessment scores obtained by the projects in their different
life cycle phases.
The GRIHA Precertification scheme represents the sustainability assessment of pre-
construction phase, i.e., conceptual planning and feasibility study and design and engineer-
ing, clubbed together. The GRIHA v.2019 scheme represents the sustainability assessment
of the construction phase. The benchmark scores for the different assessment criteria
(
Table 8
) in these schemes have been developed based on the analytical hierarchical process
(AHP) (GRIHA v.2019 Abridged Manual, 2019) [
70
]. Table 8also shows the assumed perfor-
mance score for three hypothetical cases in the preconstruction and construction phases. As
mentioned above, the computations using these assumed values for the different indices,
as defined in Equations (6) and (7), have been shown in Table 9.
5. Conclusions
Construction assessment schemes and tools have been widely criticized for ignoring
the life cycle assessment of social and economic dimensions in their sustainability frame-
works. Moreover, decoupling and its assessment, which is acknowledged as a core of
sustainability frameworks, is also not captured by any of these sustainability assessment
tools/schemes. This study is an attempt to answer the above limitations of current sus-
tainability assessment tools/schemes by developing a methodological framework for the
life cycle sustainability assessment of construction, incorporating TBL and decoupling
principles. The main conclusions/findings from this study can be summarized as follows:
1.
Construction, especially in the developing world, still operates on take, make, waste
(linear/coupled) systems. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) frameworks
that ensure continued economic and social well-being, but with reduced environmen-
tal pressures, are missing, i.e., decoupled systems have a clear role to play.
2. Comparative analysis of GRIHA (India), LEED-IGBC (India), Green Star (Australia),
BCA Green Mark (Singapore), DGNB (Germany), CASBEE (Japan), BREEAM (UK),
Green Globes (Canada), BEAM Plus (Hong Kong), and GSAS (Gulf countries) from
a TBL perspective shows that most of these assessment tools are biased towards
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 22 of 52
environmental sustainability evaluation and have allocated 69 percent of total credit
points, on average. Although most of these assessment tools try to evaluate social
sustainability by allocating 25 percent of the total credit points, on average, economic
sustainability has been mostly neglected in the sustainability assessment.
3.
Only the DGNB (Germany) system was observed to have a balance in their approach
for allocating credit points across the three dimensions of sustainability. It allocated
30, 30, and 40 percent of total credit points towards evaluating social, economic,
and environmental dimensions of sustainability, respectively (Table 1). However,
irrespective of initial weights across TBL dimensions, these rating tools provide
classification systems based on an aggregate scoring system (except CASBEE) and,
therefore, they lack in evaluating interactions among different pillars of sustainability.
4.
Credit criteria, such as: ethical considerations, a system of environmental–economic
accounting, targeted incentives, long term value to the society, design for harmony
with nature and the built environment, and design for tackling climate change, are
some of the key criteria that are not explicitly included in rating tools/schemes but
are found in the literature. For optimized sustainability evaluation, these criteria
should be included in the current sustainability rating tools/schemes (Tables 2–4).
5.
DGNB (Germany) is the only rating tool that has a sustainability assessment scheme
for rating the decommissioning/deconstruction phase of a building project (pilot
mode). Considering the importance of the decommissioning phase in the building
life cycle, TBL based sustainability assessment criteria for the decommissioning phase
needs to be considered. Green building councils (GBCs) should focus on developing
assessment schemes/tools and respective criteria for the decommissioning phase,
taking account of the regional context.
6.
The current study proposes a methodological framework for calculating life cycle
based TBL scores and decoupling indices. Two decoupling indices are proposed,
i.e., phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDI
K
) (Equation (6) and phase impact
decoupling index (PIDI
K
) (Equation (7), for supporting TBL-based life cycle assess-
ment. These developed decoupling indices specifically estimate the interdependence
of human well-being, economic growth, and environmental pressure associated with
construction projects. Construction projects in their different life cycle phases can be
mapped using computed PWBDIKand PIDIKby referring to Table 7and Figure 4of
this study.
7.
The sustainability assessment criteria from the GRIHA Precertification and GRIHA
v.2019 schemes, representing assessment criteria of pre-construction and construction
phase, respectively, were used to illustrate the calculations in the proposed LCSA
framework. For three hypothetical cases, PWBDI
K
and PIDI
K
were computed repre-
senting projects moving from the preconstruction phase to the construction phase. It
was highlighted that for case-1 and case-3, their GRIHA rating (***) was maintained
after sustainability evaluation of the preconstruction and construction phases. It can
be seen from Tables 8and 9that the performance of case-2 changed from (****) to (**)
when moving from the preconstruction phase to the construction phase. This can be
taken to be an example of how the proposed framework can be used to ensure that
projects do not lose track when moving from one phase to another.
8.
The PWBDI value for case-1 indicates that there is a decrease in social well-being
with an increase in environmental pressure, and the PIDI value for case-1 indicates
that there is an increase in economic well-being that exceeds the increase in envi-
ronmental pressure. The PWBDI value for case-2 indicates that there is a decrease
in social well-being with an increase in environmental pressure and the PIDI value
for case-2 indicates that there is a decrease in economic well-being with an increase
in environmental pressure. The PWBDI value for case-3 indicates that there is an
increase in social well-being that exceeds the increase in environmental pressure and
the PIDI value for case-3 indicates that there is a decrease in economic well-being with
an increase in environmental pressure (Tables 7and 9). However, based on aggregate
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 23 of 52
scores, different scenarios are possible and, moreover, when these projects move from
one phase to another phase, they can behave differently, irrespective of their base
phase performance, as illustrated by the PWBDI and PIDI for GRIHA cases. For a
better understanding of the proposed PWBDI/PIDI approach an illustrative example
has been included in Appendix C.
The proposed methodological framework not only encapsulates a TBL based life cycle
sustainability approach in construction, but also ensures a monitoring mechanism for the
same using decoupling indices. Given the fact that the parameters involved in the operation
and decommissioning phases could be quite different from those in the preconstruction
and construction phases (as illustrated in Tables 2–4), the present study is confined to the
preconstruction and construction phases only. It is agreed that scores derived from a “real”
project would be more valuable and convincing. However, in the absence of such (real)
data, the present study only presents the methodological framework and includes a “proof
of concept” verification or validation on the basis of assumed (but “reasonable”) values.
The authors continue to strive to collect/access real data in their future works.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.S., U.I.R. and S.M.; methodology, S.S. and S.M.; valida-
tion S.S., U.I.R. and S.M.; formal analysis, U.I.R. and S.M.; investigation, S.S.; resources, S.S.; data
curation, S.S.; writing-original draft preparation, S.S.; writing-review and editing, U.I.R. and SM;
supervision, U.I.R. and S.M.; project administration, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
This research used secondary data, so no ethics approval
was needed.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
No such data was used. All data used was publicly available from
green building websites.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Methodology for Detailed Division of Credits from TBL Consideration in Different Rating
Tools/Schemes
Ten well-established rating tools/schemes representing different regions of the world
for studying their approach to the TBL concept of sustainability were selected, namely,
GRIHA (India), LEED-IGBC (India), Green Star (Australia), BCA Green Mark (Singa-
pore), DGNB (Germany), CASBEE (Japan), BREEAM (UK), Green Globes (Canada), GBI
(Malaysia), GSAS (Gulf countries). There are different types of schemes developed by
these rating agencies to rate different typologies of construction projects. Keeping in
mind the criticality and scale of adoption, only schemes that certify non-residential (new-
constructions) under these rating agencies were chosen for critical evaluation in this study.
And, a comparison based on weights of TBL (social, economic, and environment) among
these tools is presented Table 1of the manuscript.
The following text outlines the method adopted in this study for evaluating a compre-
hensive performance of projects on the basis of scores obtained on the social, economic,
and environmental fronts.
1.
The classification of the credit points for an individual parameter into social, economic,
or environmental dimension was carried out using a subjective judgement based on
available literature. This has been explained in Section 2.2.1 and Tables 2–4. of the
manuscript. The user/technical manuals for each of these mentioned schemes were
also referred.
2.
However, in cases when a parameters/indicator was judged to belong to more than
one dimension, the credits assigned to that particular category were divided equally
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 24 of 52
between/among the different dimensions of sustainability the parameter contributes.
For example, in the DGNB classification system, under the category of Technical
Quality, “Ease of cleaning building components” is one of the assessment parameters.
Where the detailed description for this parameter at Criteria “Ease of cleaning build-
ing components”|DGNB System (dgnb-system.de), says “The issue of how a building
structure can be cleaned has a significant effect on the costs and environmental impact of a
building during its use. Surfaces that can be easily cleaned require less cleaning agents and re-
sult in lower cleaning costs”. Now, this parameter was qualitatively judged to belong to
both—the economic and environmental heads, and therefore the allocated credit (1.66)
for this parameter was equally assigned to the economic and environmental heads
(i.e., it was taken to be 0.83 and 0.83 for further computations in both these heads).
3.
In the case of DGNB (Germany), which declares a total of six categories – environment,
economic, socio-culture, technical quality, process quality, and site quality. The
document also mentions the respective parameters under each of these categories.
Now, for the purpose of the present study, whereas the parameters for the first three
were adopted as such, the parameters for the latter three were assigned to the former
three using qualitative judgement.
4.
Some of the assessment parameters/indicators under these rating tools/schemes are
given as prerequisite. For example, In Part 3—“Resource Stewardship” of Green Mark
(Singapore), water efficient fittings are listed as a prerequisite. The schemes expect
compliance with respect to these as a minimum, and do not award any points for
that in their scoring scheme. This approach has been adopted in the present study
also and such parameters have been excluded from award of any credit points under
these schemes.
GRIHA v.2019 Abridged Manual.
GRIHA Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Sustainable Site Planning-12%
Criterion 1: Green Infrastructure 5 2 + 1 * 2
Criterion 2: Low-Impact Design Strategies 5 5
Criterion 3: Design to Mitigate UHIE 2 2
Construction Management-4%
Criterion 4: Air and Soil Pollution Control 1 1
Criterion 5: Topsoil Preservation 1 1
Criterion 6: Construction Management
Practices 2 2
Energy Optimization-18%
Criterion 7: Energy Optimization 12 12
Criterion 8: Renewable Energy Utilization 5 5
Criterion 9: Low ODP and GWP Materials 1 1
Occupant Comfort-12%
Criterion 10: Visual Comfort 4 4
Criterion 11: Thermal and Acoustic Comfort 2 2
Criterion 12: Indoor Air Quality 6 6
Water Management-16%
Criterion 13: Water Demand Reduction 3 3
Criterion 14: Wastewater Treatment 3 3
Criterion 15: Rainwater Management 5 5
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 25 of 52
GRIHA Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Criterion 16: Water Quality and
Self-sufficiency 5 5
Solid Waste Management-6%
Waste Management-Post Occupancy 4 4
Organic Waste Treatment On-site 2 2
Sustainable Building Mateials-12%
Criterion 19: Utilization of Alternative
Materials in Building 5 5
Criterion 20: Reduction in GWP through Life
Cycle Assessment 5 5
Criterion 21: Alternative Materials for
External Site Development 2 2
Life Cycle Costing-5%
Life Cycle Costing Analysis 5 5
Socio-Economic Strategies-8%
Criterion 23: Safety and Sanitation for
Construction Workers 1 1
Criterion 24: Universal Accessibility 2 2
Criterion 25: Dedicated Facilities for Service
Staff 2 2
Criterion 26: Positive Social Impact 4 4
Performance Metering and Monitoring-7%
Criterion 27: Commissioning for Final
Rating 0 0
Criterion 28: Smart Metering and
Monitoring 6 6
Criterion 29: Operation and Maintenance
Protocol 0 0
Total 100
Innovation
Criterion 30: Innovation 5
Grand Total 100 + 5 = 105
Percentile thresholds for achieving stars in GRIHA v.2019.
Percentile Threshold Achievable Stars as per GRIHA v. 2019
25–40 *
41–55 **
56–70 ***
71–85 ****
86 and more *****
IGBC Green New Buildings Rating System.
IGBC Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Owner-occupied
Buildings
Tenant Occupied
Buildings Social Economic Environment
Sustainable Architecture
and Design 5
Integrated Design
Approach 1 1 1
Site Preservation 2 2 2
Passive Architecture 2 2 2
Site Selection and
Planning 14
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 26 of 52
IGBC Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Owner-occupied
Buildings
Tenant Occupied
Buildings Social Economic Environment
Local Building Regulations Required Required
Soil Erosion Control Required Required
Basic Amenities 1 1 1 *
Proximity to Public Transport 1 1 1
Low-emitting Vehicles 1 1 1
Natural Topography or
Vegetation 2 2 2
Preservation or
Transplantation of Trees 1 1 1
Heat Island Reduction,
Non-roof 2 2 2
Heat Island Reduction, Roof 2 2 2
Outdoor Light Pollution
Reduction 1 1 1
Universal Design 1 1 1
Basic Facilities for
Construction Workforce 1 1 1
Green Building Guidelines 1 1 1 1
Water Conservation 18
Rainwater Harvesting, Roof &
Non-roof Required Required
Water Efficient Plumbing
Fixtures Required Required
Landscape Design 2 2 2
Management of Irrigation
Systems 1 1 1
Rainwater Harvesting, Roof &
Non-roof 4 4 4
Water Efficient Plumbing
Fixtures 5 5 5
Wastewater Treatment and
Reuse 5 5 5
Water Metering 1 2 1
Energy Efficiency 28
Ozone Depleting Substances Required Required
Minimum Energy Efficiency Required Required
Commissioning Plan for
Building Required Equipment
& Systems
Required Required
Eco-friendly Refrigerants 1 1 1
Enhanced Energy Efficiency 15 15 15
On-site Renewable Energy 6 6 6
Off-site Renewable Energy 2 2 2
Commissioning,
Post-installation of Equipment
& Systems
2 2 2
Energy Metering and
Management 2 2 2
Building Materials and
Resources 16
Segregation of Waste,
Post-occupancy Required Required
Sustainable Building Materials 8 8(1 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2) *
Organic Waste Management,
Post-occupancy 2 2 2
Handling of Waste Materials,
During Construction 1 1 1
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 27 of 52
IGBC Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Owner-occupied
Buildings
Tenant Occupied
Buildings Social Economic Environment
Use of Certified Green
Building Materials, Products &
Equipment
5 5 5
Indoor Environmental Quality 12
Minimum Fresh Air
Ventilation Required Required
Tobacco Smoke Control Required Required
CO2 Monitoring 1 1 1
Daylighting 2 2 2
Outdoor Views 1 1 1
Minimize Indoor and Outdoor
Pollutants 1 1 1
Low-emitting materials 3 3 3
Occupant Well-being Facilities 1
Indoor Air Quality Testing,
After Construction and Before
Occupancy
2 2 2
Indoor Air Quality
Management, During
Construction
1 1 1
Innovation and Development 7
Innovation in Design Process 4 4
Optimization in Structural
Design 1 1 1
Waste Water Reuse, During
Construction 1 1 1
IGBC Accredited Professional 1 1 1
Total 100
Percentile thresholds for different certification levels in IGBC Green New Buildings
Rating System.
Certification Level Owner-Occupied
Buildings
Tenant-Occupied
Buildings Recognition
Certified 40–49 40–49 Best Practices
Silver 50–59 50–59 Outstanding Performance
Gold 60–74 60–74 National Excellence
Platinum 75–100 75–100 Global Leadership
Green Star—Design & As-Built, 2017.
Green Star Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Owner-Occupied
Buildings Social Economic Environment
MANAGEMENT 14
Green Star Accredited Professional 1 1
Commissioning and Tuning 4 4
Adaptation and Resilience 2 2
Building Information 1 1
Commitment to Performance 2 2
Metering and Monitoring 1 1
Responsible Construction Practices 2 1 1
Operational Waste 1 1
INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITY 17
Indoor Air Quality 4 4
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 28 of 52
Green Star Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Owner-Occupied
Buildings Social Economic Environment
Acoustic Comfort 3 3
Lighting Comfort 3 3
Visual Comfort 3 3
Thermal Comfort 2 2
Access to Fresh Food 2 2
ENERGY 22
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 20 20
Peak Electricity Demand Reduction 2 2
TRANSPORT 10
Sustainable Transport 10 5 5
WATER 12
Potable Water 12 12
MATERIALS 14
Life Cycle Impacts 7 7
Responsible Building Materials 3 3
Sustainable Product 3 3
Construction and Demolition Waste 1 1
LAND USE & ECOLOGY 6
Ecological Value 3 3
Sustainable Sites 2 2
Heat Island Effect 1 1
EMISSIONS 5
Stormwater 2 2
Light Pollution 1 1
Microbial Control 1 1
Refrigerant Impacts 1 1
Total 100
INNOVATION 10
Innovation 10 5 5
Grand Total 110
Percentile thresholds for different certification levels in Green Star—Design & As-Built, 2017.
Percentage of Available Points Rating Outcome
<10 No * Assessed
10–19 * Minimum practice
20–29 ** Average practice
30–44 *** Good practice
45–59 **** Australian best practice
60–74 ***** Australian excellence
75+ ****** World leadership
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 29 of 52
Green Mark for Non-Residential Building NRB:2015.
Green Mark Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Elective Requirements
Part 1-Climate Responsive Design
Climate Responsive Design Prerequisite
Envelope and Roof Thermal Transfer Prerequisite
Air Tightness and Leakage Prerequisite
Bicycle Parking Prerequisite
1.1 Leadership 10
1.1a Climatic & Contextually Responsive Brief 1 1
1.1b Integrative Design Process (*4D, 5D & 6D
BIM (Advanced Green Efforts)) 4(*3) *1 *1 *2
1.1c Environmental Credentials of Project Team 2 2
1.1d User Engagement 3 3
1.2 Urban Harmony 10 points
1.2a Sustainable Urbanism Up to 5 points
(i) Environmental Analysis (* Creation of
possible new ecology and natural ecosystems
(Advanced Green Efforts))
2(*1) 2(*1)
(ii) Response to Site Context 3 1 1 1
(iii) Urban Heat Island (UHI) Mitigation 1 1
(iv) Green Transport 1.5 1.5
1.2b Integrated Landscape and Waterscape Up to 5 points
Green Plot (i) Ratio (GnPR) (*GnPR ≥5.0
(Advanced Green Efforts)) 3(*1) 3(*1)
(ii) Tree Conservation 1 1
(iii) Sustainable Landscape Management 1.5 1.5
(iv) Sustainable Storm Water Management 1 1
1.3 Tropical 10 points
1.3a Tropical Façade Performance
Low heat gain façade (Advanced Green Efforts)
Greenery on the East and West Façade
(Advanced Green Efforts)
Thermal Bridging (Advanced Green Efforts)
3(*1, 1,1) 3(*1, 1,1)
1.3b Internal Spatial Organisation 3 3
1.3c Ventilation Performance (*Wind Driven
Rain Simulation (Advanced Green Efforts)) 4(*1) 4(*1)
Part 2-Building Energy Performance 22 points
Air Conditioning Total System and
Component Efficiency Prerequisite
Lighting Efficiency and Controls Prerequisite
Vertical Transportation Efficiency Prerequisite
2.1 Energy Efficiency
Option 1: Energy Performance Points
Calculator
2.1a Air Conditioning Total System Efficiency 5 5
2.1b Lighting System Efficiency 3 3
2.1c Carpark System Efficiency 2 2
2.1d Receptacle Efficiency 1 1
2.1e Building Energy (*Further Improvement
in Design Energy Consumption (Advanced
Green Efforts)
11(*2) 11(*2)
Option 2: Performance-Based Computation
2.1f Space Conditioning Performance
(*Efficient space conditioning energy design
(Advanced Green Efforts))
10(*1) 10(*1)
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 30 of 52
Green Mark Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
2.1g Lighting Performance (*Efficient lighting
design (Advanced Green Efforts)) 6(*1) 6(*1)
2.1h Building System Performance
(*Additional Energy-Efficient Practices and
Features (Advanced Green Efforts))
6(*2) 6(*2)
2.2 Renewable Energy 8 points
2.2a Solar Energy Feasibility Study 0.5 0.5
2.2b Solar Ready Roof 1.5 1.5
2.2c Adoption of Renewable Energy (*Further
Electricity Replacement by Renewables
(Advanced Green Efforts))
6(*5) 6(*5)
Part 3-Resource Stewardship
Water Efficient Fittings Prerequisite
3.1 Water 8 points
3.1a Water Efficient Systems 3 3
(i) Landscape irrigation 1 1
(ii) Water Consumption of Cooling Towers
(*Better Water Efficient Fittings (Advanced
Green Efforts)
2 2
3.1b Water Monitoring 2 2
(i) Water Monitoring and Leak Detection 1 1
(ii) Water Usage Portal and Dashboard 1 1
3.1c Alternative Water Sources 3 3
3.2 Materials 18 points
3.2a Sustainable Construction 8 8
(i) Conservation and Resource Recovery 1 1
(ii) Resource Efficient Building Design (* Use of
BIM to calculate CUI (Advanced Green
Efforts))
4(*1) 4(*1)
(iii) Low Carbon Concrete (*Use of Advanced
Green Materials (Advanced Green Efforts)) 3(*1) 3(*1)
3.2b Embodied Carbon
(*Provide Own Emission Factors with Source
Justification (Advanced Green Efforts),
Compute the Carbon Footprint of the Entire
Development (Advanced Green Efforts))
2(*1,1) 2(*1,1)
3.2c Sustainable Products 8 points
(i) Functional System 8 8
(ii) Singular Sustainable Products outside of
Functional Systems (*Sustainable Products
with Higher Environmental Credentials
(Advanced Green Efforts))
2(*2) 2(*2)
3.3 Waste 4 points
3.3a Environmental Construction Management
Plan 1 1
3.3b Operational Waste Management 3 3
Part 4-Smart & Healthy Building
Thermal Comfort Prerequisite
Minimum Ventilation Rate Prerequisite
Filtration Media for Times of Pollution Prerequisite
Low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Paints Prerequisite
Refrigerants Prerequisite
Sound Level Prerequisite
Permanent Instrumentation for the
Measurement and Verification of Chilled Water
Air-Conditioning Systems
Electrical Sub-Metering & Monitoring Prerequisite
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 31 of 52
Green Mark Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
4.1 Indoor Air Quality 10 points
4.1a Occupant Comfort 2 2
(i) Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Surveillance Audit 1 1
(ii) Post Occupancy Evaluation 0.5 0.5
(iii) Indoor Air Quality Display (* Indoor Air
Quality Trending (Advanced Green Efforts) 0.5 0.5
4.1b Outdoor Air 3 points 3 points
(i) Ventilation Rates 1.5 1.5
(ii) Enhanced Filtration Media 1 1
(iii) Dedicated Outdoor Air System 0.5 0.5
4.1c Indoor Contaminants 5 points 5 points
(i) Local Exhaust and Air Purging System 2 2
(ii) Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI)
System 0.5 0.5
(iii) More Stringent VOC Limits for Interior
Fittings and Finishes 2 2
(iv)Use of Persistent Bio-cumulative and Toxic
(PBT) free lighting (*Zero ODP Refrigerants
with Low Global Warming Potential
(Advanced Green Efforts))
0.5(*1) 0.5(*1)
4.2 Spatial Quality 10 points 10 points
4.2a Lighting Up to 6 points Up to 6 points
(i) Effective daylighting for common areas 2 2
(ii) Effective daylighting for occupied spaces 4 4
(iii) Quality of Artificial Lighting 1 1
4.2b Acoustics 2 2
(i) Sound Transmission Reduction 0.5 0.5
(ii)Acoustic Report 1.5 1.5
4.2c Wellbeing Up to 2 points Up to 2 points
(i) Biophilic Design 3 3
(ii) Universal Design (UD) Mark 1 1
4.3 Smart Building Operations 10 points
4.3a Energy Monitoring 3 3
(i) Energy Portal and Dashboard 2 2
(ii) BAS and Controllers with Open Protocol (*
Permanent M&V for VRF Systems (Advanced
Green Effort), Permanent M&V for Hot Water
systems (Advanced Green Efforts))
1(*2,1) 1(*2,1)
4.3b Demand Control 3 3
(i) ACMV Demand Control 2 2
(ii) Lighting Demand Control 1 1
(iii) Carpark Guidance System 0.5 0.5
4.3c Integration and Analytics 3
(i) Basic Integration and Analytics 0.5/feature 0.5/feature
(ii) Advanced Integration and Analytics (*
Additional Advanced Integration and
Analytical Features (Advanced Green Effort))
1/feature (*1) 1/feature
(*1)
4.3d System Handover and Documentation 1 1
Expanded Post Occupancy Performance
Verification by a 3rd Party (Advanced Green
Effort)
2 2
Energy Performance Contracting (Advanced
Green Effort) 1 1
Part 5-Advanced Green Efforts 20 points
5.1 Enhanced Performance Up to 15 points 15
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 32 of 52
Green Mark Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
5.2 Complementary Certifications 1 1
5.3 Demonstrating Cost Effective Design 1 1
5.4 Social Benefits 2 2
Annexes for specialized buildings 10 to 15 points
Annex 1: Energy Efficiency Features for
Specialised Building [Hawker Centres] 15 15
Annex 2: Energy Efficiency Features for
Specialised Building Healthcare Facilities] 10 10
Annex 3: Energy Efficiency Features for
Specialised Building [Laboratories] 10 10
Annex 4: Energy Efficiency Features for
Specialised Building [Schools] 10 10
Total 150–155
Percentile thresholds for different certification levels in IGBC Green New Buildings
Rating System.
Green Mark Rating Green Mark Score (Percentage Point Scored)
Green Mark Platinum 70 and above
Green Mark Gold PLUS 60 to <70
Green Mark Gold >50 to <60
Green Mark Certified Compliance with all pre-requisite requirement
DGNB System criteria set-New Construction Building.
DGNB Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Environmental Quality 22.50%
Building life cycle assessment 9.5
Local environmental impact 4.7
sustainable resource extraction 2.4
Potable water demand and
wastewater volume 2.4
Land use 2.4
Bio-diversity at site 1.2
Economic Quality 22.50%
Life cycle costing 10
Flexibility and adaptability 7.5
Commercial viability 5.0
Socio-Cultural and functional
quality 22.50%
Thermal comfort 4.1
Indoor air quality 5.1
Acoustic comfort 2.0
Visual comfort 3.1
User control 2.0
Quality of indoor and outdoor
spaces 2.0
Safety and security 1.0
Design for all 3.1
Technical Quality 15%
Sound insulation 1.15
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 33 of 52
DGNB Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Quality of the building envelope 2.96
Use and integration of building
technology 1.23 1.23
Ease of cleaning building
components 0.83 0.83
Ease of recovery and recycling 1.63 1.63
Emissions control 0.71 0.71
Mobility infrastructure 0.82 0.82 0.82
Process Quality 12.50%
Comprehensive project brief 1.6
Sustainability aspects in the tender
phase 1.6
Documentation for sustainable
management 1.1
Procedure for urban and design
planning 0.8 0.8
Construction site/construction
process 0.8 0.8
Quality assurance of the
construction 0.53 0.53 0.53
Systematic commissioning 1.6
User communication 0.55 0.55
FM-compliant planning 0.5
Site Quality 5%
Local environment 0.55 0.55
Influence on the district 1.1
Transport access 0.36 0.36 0.36
Access to amenities 0.85 0.85
Total 100%
Classification of different certification levels as per DGNB System criteria set-New Con-
struction Building.
Certification Percentage Points
DGNB Platinum 65–80
DGNB Gold 50–65
DGNB Silver 35–50
DGNB Bronze >35
CASBEE.
CASBEE Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Water Efficiency 15
Water leakage Detection 3.6 3.6
Water use during construction 1.8 1.8
Waste water management 7.2 7.2
Sanitary used pipe 2.4 2.4
Materials Resources 10
Regionally procured materials 1.5 0.75 0.75
Materials fabricated on site 0.5 0.5
Use of readily renewable materials 1.5 1.5
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 34 of 52
CASBEE Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Use of salvaged material 1.5 0.75 0.75
Use of recycled material 2 1.0 1.0
Use of lightweight materials 0.5 0.5
Use of higher durability materials 0.5 0.5
Use of prefabricated elements 1.5 0.75 0.75
Life cycle cost analysis of materials
in the project 0.5 0.5
Indoor Environmental Quality 10 10
Sustainable Site, Accessibility and
Ecology 15 7.5 7.5
Desert Area Development 1.5 1.5
Informal Area Development 1.5 1.5
Brownfield site development 1.5 1.5
Compatibility with the national
development plan 1.5
Transport infrastructure connection 1.5 1.5
Catering for remote site 1.5 1.5
Alternative methods of transport 1.5 1.5
Protection of habitat 1.5 1.5
Energy Efficiency 25
Passive External Heat Gain Loss 7.5 7.5
Reduction 3.5 3.5
Energy Efficient Appliances 1.5 1.5
Vertical Transportation Systems 1.5 1.5
Peak Load Reductions 3 1.5 1.5
Renewable Energy Sources 5 5
Environmental Impact 2 2
Energy and Carbon Inventories 1 1
Management 10
Providing Containers for site
materials waste 1 1
Control of emissions and pollutants 1 1
Waste recycling workers on site 0.5 0.5
Providing Identified and separated
storage areas 1 1
Project Waste Management Plan 0.5 0.5
Engaging a company specialized in
recycling 1 1
Protecting water sources from
pollution 1 1
Waste from mixing equipment 1 1
Total 85
Classification of different certification levels as per CASBEE.
Ranks Valuation BEE Value Indication
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 35 of 51
Management
10
Providing Containers for site
materials waste
1
1
Control of emissions and
pollutants
1
1
Waste recycling workers on site
0.5
0.5
Providing Identified and
separated storage areas
1
1
Project Waste Management Plan
0.5
0.5
Engaging a company specialized
in recycling
1
1
Protecting water sources from
pollution
1
1
Waste from mixing equipment
1
1
Total
85
Classification of different certification levels as per CASBEE.
Ranks
Valuation
BEE Value
Indication
S
Excellent
BEE = 3.0 or more and Q = 50 or more
*****
A
Very Good
BEE=1.5-3.0
BEE = 3.0 or more and Q is less than
50
****
B+
Good
BEE = 1.0–1.5
***
B−
Fairly Poor
BEE = 0.5–1.5
**
C
Poor
BEE is less than 0.5
*
BREEAM International New Construction 2016.
BREEAM
Maximum Points
Dimension of Sustainability
Social
Economic
Environment
Management
20
Project brief and design
(2 + 2)
4
Life cycle cost and
service life planning
(2 + 1 + 1)
4
Responsible construction
practices
(1 + 1 + 2 + 2)
3
3
Commissioning and
handover
(1 + 1 + 1 + 1)
*
4
Aftercare
(1 + 1 + 1)
2
1 *
Health and wellbeing
22
Visual comfort
6
6
Indoor air quality
5
5
Safe containment in
laboratories
2
1
1
Thermal comfort
3
3
Acoustic performance
4
4
Accessibility
2
2
Hazards
1
0.5
0.5
Private space
1
1
Water quality
1
1
*
Energy
35
Reduction of energy use
and carbon emissions
15
15
Energy monitoring
2
2
External lighting
1
1
S Excellent BEE = 3.0 or more and Q =
50 or more *****
A Very Good
BEE = 1.5–3.0
BEE = 3.0 or more and Q is
less than 50
****
B+Good BEE = 1.0–1.5 ***
B−Fairly Poor BEE = 0.5–1.5 **
C Poor BEE is less than 0.5 *
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 35 of 52
BREEAM International New Construction 2016.
BREEAM Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Management 20
Project brief and design (2 + 2) 4
Life cycle cost and service life planning (2 + 1 + 1) 4
Responsible construction practices (1 + 1 + 2 + 2) 3 3
Commissioning and handover (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) * 4
Aftercare (1 + 1 + 1) 2 1 *
Health and wellbeing 22
Visual comfort 6 6
Indoor air quality 5 5
Safe containment in laboratories 2 1 1
Thermal comfort 3 3
Acoustic performance 4 4
Accessibility 2 2
Hazards 1 0.5 0.5
Private space 1 1
Water quality 1 1 *
Energy 35
Reduction of energy use and carbon
emissions 15 15
Energy monitoring 2 2
External lighting 1 1
Low carbon design 3 3
Energy-efficient cold storage 3 3
Energy-efficient transport systems 3 3
Energy-efficient laboratory systems 5 5
Energy-efficient equipment 2 2
Drying space 1 1
Transport 13
Public transport accessibility 5 1.67 1.67 1.67
Proximity to amenities 2 0.67 0.67 0.67
Alternative modes of transport 2 2
Maximum car parking capacity 2 2
Travel plan 1 0.33 0.33 0.33
Home office 1 0.33 0.33 0.33
Water 10
Water consumption 5 * 5
Water monitoring 1 * 1
Water leak detection 3 * 3
Water-efficient equipment 1 * 1
Materials 12
Life cycle impacts 6 6
Hard landscaping and boundary
protection N/A
Responsible sourcing of materials 4 * * 4
Insulation N/A
Designing for durability and resilience 1 * 0.5 0.5
Material efficiency 1 0.5 0.5
Waste 10
Construction waste management 3 1.5 1.5
Recycled aggregates 1 * 1
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 36 of 52
BREEAM Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Operational waste 2 * 2
Speculative floor and ceiling finishes 1 * * 1
Adaptation to climate change 1 0.33 0.33 0.33
Functional adaptability 1 0.5 0.5
Land Use and Ecology 10
Site selection 3 3
The ecological value of site and
protection of ecological features 2 2
Minimizing impact on existing site
ecology N/A
Enhancing site ecology 3 3
Long term impact on biodiversity 2 2
Pollution 13
Impact of refrigerants 4 4
NOx emissions 2 * 2
Surface water run-off 5 5
Reduction of night time light pollution 1 1
Reduction of noise pollution 1 1
Innovation 10
Innovation
Total 155
Classification of different certification levels as per BREEAM rating benchmarks.
BREEAM Rating Percentage Score
Outstanding ≥85
Excellent ≥70
Very good ≥55
Good ≥45
Pass ≥30
Unclassified <30
Green Globes for New Construction.
Green Globes Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Project Management 50
Integrated Design Process (IDP) 9 9
Environmental Management During
Construction 12 12
Commissioning 29 29
Site 115
Development Area 30 30
Ecological Impacts 32 32
Stormwater Management 18 18
Landscaping 28 28
Exterior Light Pollution 7 7
Energy 390
Energy Performance 100 100
Energy Demand 35 * 35
Metering, Measurement, and Verification 12 * 12
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 37 of 52
Green Globes Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Social Economic Environment
Building Opaque Envelope 31 31
Lighting 36 36
HVAC Systems and Controls 59 59
Other HVAC Systems and Controls 32 32
Other Energy Efficient Equipment and
Measures 11 *
Renewable Energy 50
Energy Efficient Transportation 24 12 12
Water 110
Water Consumption 42 42
Cooling Towers 9 9
Boilers and Water Heaters 4 4
Water Intensive Applications 18 18
Water Treatment 3 3
Alternate Sources of Water 5 5
Metering 11 * 11
Irrigation 18 18
Materials and Resources 125
Building Assembly (core and shell
including envelope) 33 33
Interior Fit-outs (Including Finishes and
Furnishings) 16 16
Re-use of Existing Structures 26 * 26
Waste 9 9
Building Service Life Plan 7 7
Resource Conservation 6 6
Envelope—Roofing/Openings 10 10
Envelope—Foundation, Waterproofing 6 6
Envelope—Cladding 5 5
Envelope—Barriers 7 7
Emissions 50
Heating 18 18
Cooling 29 29
Janitorial Equipment 3 3
Indoor Environment 160
Ventilation 37 37
Source Control and Measurement of
Indoor Pollutants 46 46
Lighting Design and Systems 30 30
Thermal Comfort 18 18
Acoustic Comfort 29 29
Total 1000
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 38 of 52
Classification of different certification levels as per Green Globes rating for New Construction.
Green Globes Percentage Score Green Globes Rating Description
85–100% 4 Globes
Demonstrates national leadership and excellence
in the practice of energy, water, and
environmental efficiency to reduce environmental
impacts.
70–84% 3 Globes
Demonstrates leadership in applying best
practices regarding energy, water, and
environmental efficiency.
55–69% 2 Globes
Demonstrates excellent progress in the reduction
of environmental impacts and use of
environmental efficiency practices.
35–54% 1 Globes Demonstrates a commitment to environmental
efficiency practices.
85–100% 4 Globes
Demonstrates national leadership and excellence
in the practice of energy, water, and
environmental efficiency to reduce environmental
impacts.
70–84% 3 Globes
Demonstrates leadership in applying best
practices regarding energy, water, and
environmental efficiency.
GBI-Non-Residential Building Construction.
GBI Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
ENERGY EFFICIENCY 38 Social Economic Environment
Design & Performance
Minimum EE Performance 2 2
Lighting Zoning 3 3
Electrical Sub-metering 2 2
Renewable Energy 5 5
Advanced or Improved EE Performance—BEI 15 15
Commissioning
Enhanced or Re-commissioning 4 4
On-going Post Occupancy Commissioning 2 2
Monitoring, Improvement & Maintenance
EE Monitoring & Improvement 2 2
Sustainable Maintenance 3 2 1
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 21
Air Quality
Minimum IAQ Performance 1 1
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control 1 1
Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control 1 1
Indoor Air Pollutants 2 2
Mould Prevention 1 1
Thermal Comfort
Thermal Comfort: Controllability of Systems 2 2
Air Change Effectiveness 1 1
Lighting, Visual & Acoustic Comfort
Daylighting 2 2
Daylight Glare Control 1 1
Electric Lighting Levels 1 1
High-Frequency Ballasts 1 1
External Views 2 2
Internal Noise Levels 1 1
Verification
IAQ Before/During Occupancy 2 2
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 39 of 52
GBI Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
ENERGY EFFICIENCY 38 Social Economic Environment
Occupancy Comfort Survey: Verification 2 2
SUSTAINABLE SITE PLANNING &
MANAGEMENT 10
Facility Management
GBI Rated Design & Construction 1 1
Building Exterior Management 1 1
Integrated Pest Management, Erosion Control &
Landscape Management 1 1
Transportation
Green Vehicle Priority 1 1
Parking Capacity 1 1
Reduce Heat Island Effect
Greenery & Roof 4 4
Building User Manual 1 1
MATERIALS & RESOURCES 9
Reused & Recycled Materials
Material Reuse and Selection 1 1
Recycle Content Materials 1 1
Sustainable Materials & Resources and Policy
Sustainable Timber 1 1
Sustainable Purchasing Policy 1 1
Waste Management
Storage, Collection & Disposal of recyclables 3 3
Green Products
Refrigerants & Clean Agents 2 2
WATER EFFICIENCY 12
Water Harvesting & Recycling
Rainwater Harvesting 3 3
Water Recycling 2 2
Increased Efficiency
Water Efficient—Irrigation/Landscaping 2 2
Water Efficient Fittings 3 3
Metering & Leak Detection System 2 2
INNOVATION 10
Innovation & Environmental Initiatives 9 9
Green Building Index Facilitator 1 1
Classification of different certification levels as per GBI-Non-Residential Building Construction.
Points GBI Rating
86–100 Platinum
76–85 Gold
66–75 Silver
50–65 Certified
GSAS Design & Build Certification.
GSAS Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Urban Connectivity 0.180 Social Economic Environment
Proximity to infrastructure
Proximity to amenities
Load on local traffic conditions
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 40 of 52
GSAS Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Urban Connectivity 0.180 Social Economic Environment
Public transportation
Green transportation
Neighbourhood acoustics
Site 0.510
Land preservation
Waterbody preservation
Biodiversity preservation
Vegetation
Drain and stormwater contamination
Rainwater runoff
Heat island effect
Shading
Accessibility
External lighting
Light pollution
Noise pollution
Eco-Parking
Mixed use
Construction practices
Energy 0.720
Thermal energy demand performance
Energy use performance
Primary energy performance
CO2emissions
Energy sub-metering *
Water 0.480
Water demand performance
Water reuse performance
Water sub-metering
Materials 0.270
Locally sourced material *
Material eco-labelling *
Recycled content of materials *
Material reuse *
Existing structure reuse *
Design for disassembly *
Responsible sourcing of material *
Indoor Environment 0.570
Thermal comfort
Natural ventilation
Mechanical ventilation
Lighting
Daylight
Glare
Views
Acoustics
Low VOC-materials
Airborne contaminants
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 41 of 52
GSAS Maximum Points Dimension of Sustainability
Urban Connectivity 0.180 Social Economic Environment
Cultural & Economic Value 0.120
Heritage and cultural identity
Support of national economy
Management and Operations 0.150
Systems commissioning
Waste management
Facility management
Leak detection systems
Automated control systems
Transportation systems in building
Total 3.0
* Category weight is divided equally among the category parameters. For example, the Site category points are 0.510 and
there are 15 category parameters hence score assumed for each parameter is 0.510/15 i.e., 0.034.
Classification of different certification levels as per GSAS Design & Build.
Score Rating
X < 0 Certification denied
0.00 ≤X≤0.50 *
0.50 < X ≤1.00 **
1.00 < X ≤1.50 ***
1.50 < X ≤2.00 ****
2.00 < X ≤2.50 *****
2.50 < X ≤3.0 ******
Appendix B
Table A1. Table of explanation refered from Table 2in maintext.
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 1. Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study)
Parameters Further Explanation
Stakeholders’
consultation and
engagement
•Expectations of the owner, designer, and public early in the project
i.e., community relationship and involvement
•Informing stakeholders about the project constraints like budget,
schedule, location, size, design, and construction standards i.e.,
well-defined project scope and limitations
•
Ensure participation of final users in design for understanding and
anticipating their needs i.e., social apprehension of their
needs-social design
•Establish partnering strategies for resolving interpersonal conflicts
among project stakeholders
•The minimized project caused nuisances and disruptions like dust,
noise, traffic, and others
•
Provisions for public safety like barricading, signboards, and others
•Protecting local heritage (natural and cultural) from project’s
negative impact
•Empowering of young people, women, disadvantaged with better
job opportunities, the creation of green jobs, and the conditions
needed to create them i.e., sustainable employment
•
Awareness training for social and environmental sustainability and
education/training for skill development
•
Concern for users’ safety, health, productivity, privacy, and security
Accessibility of built facility through rail/road/public transit systems,
universal accessibility through disabled-friendly features
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 42 of 52
Table A1. Cont.
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 1. Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study)
Parameters Further Explanation
Health and safety
considerations
•
Planning for worker’s facilities such as drinking water, sewage, and
solid waste management, and others
•Planning for female worker’s specific health and safety facilities
•Conducting safety assessment/planning to identify any future
risk/safety issues to public and safety users
Ethical
considerations
•Corruption incidents’ monitoring and prompt action against
unethical conduct
•Organizational ethics anti-competitive and fair bidding practices
•Disclosure towards anti-corruption measures
•Compliance with regulations to overcome ethical lapses
•Leadership appointments involving ethical considerations i.e.,
avoiding any conflict of interest
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 2. Design and Engineering)
Parameters Further Explanation
Health, wellbeing,
and the environment
•Design for better health and surrounding environment to promote
activity indoors and outdoors, and encourage physical health of
occupants
•Design for better lifestyle practices, including nutrition, hydration,
and social connectivity for the occupants
•Design for reducing infectious disease transmission within
constructed facility environment
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 3. Construction)
Parameters Further Explanation
Socio-economic
strategies for
workers
•Ensure health (both physical and mental) and safety of workers by
minimizing unsafe acts and unsafe conditions like exposure to
hazardous materials, chemicals, carcinogenic substances, and others
•Empowerment of females and promote gender equality among
construction workforce
•Protect labour rights, ensure the workforce is free from forced,
trafficked, and child labour
•Ensure safe, clean, and habitable living conditions for workers ·
Ensure access to grievance redressal mechanism for workers
•
Education schemes for construction workers for improving literacy
and skills especially targeting workers in certain geographies who
are working since childhood
•
Educating workers for continuous awareness about carbon-neutral
technologies and sustainability practices
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 4. Operation and Maintenance)
Parameters Further Explanation
Prioritizing
occupant’s comfort
•Ensuring thermal comfort during the operational phase
•
Ensuring natural and energy-efficient lighting solutions during the
operational phase
•Ensuring acoustic comfort during the operational phase
•Ensuring olfactory, ergonomics, and visual comforts during the
operational phase
•Ensure universal access to different ability people during the
operational phase
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 43 of 52
Table A1. Cont.
Social Sustainability Parameters (Phase 5. End-of-life)
Parameters Further Explanation
Effective project
communication
•Disclosure to the public about dismantling process and
digital dissemination about the same
•Disseminating information of building materials and
components and communicating with planners,
construction workers, and other active professionals
•Disseminating information on effects on local environment
and measures taken to mitigate the same
•Managing communication among the stakeholders
Security
•Ensure work and safety plan for the contaminated and
non-contaminated area
•Ensure implementation of construction site ordinance
•Ensure accessibility of the site only to the authorized
persons via protective measures
Table A2. Table of explanation refered from Table 3in maintext.
Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 5. End-of-Life)
Parameters Further Explanation
Values of expandable resources
•Estimating potential expandable
components and products, fixtures, and
furniture
•Assessing the components and
construction products potentially
expandable
•Proactive analysis of identified potential
expandable components and fixtures
•Market analysis of identified potential
expandable components and fixtures
Separation, recycling, and disposal
•Ensure characterization of material and
designation of quality levels
•Measures to minimize the accumulated
rubble/mixed construction waste whose
separation is technically and
economically not feasible
•Optimization of disposal and recycling
routes
•Measures for pure separation, circular
use, and storage in material banks
Appendix C
Illustrative example highlighting the advantage of the proposed PWBDI/PIDI approach
Consider two projects which are evaluated using the GRIHA system, which assigns
maximum credits of 24, 5 and 71 to social, economic, and environmental assessment
respectively. The scores achieved by the two projects under the different sustainability
dimensions are as given in the following table.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 44 of 52
Description Sustainability Dimension
Social Economic Environment
Maximum credits 24 5 71
Assumed performance
score-PROJECT 1 14 1 65
Assumed performance
score-PROJECT 2 9 3 68
GRIHA rating for both the projects would be “****” based on aggregate score of 80.
Project 1 scored low on economic assessment (20%) but still achieved “****” while Project 2
scored low on social assessment (37.5%) and still achieved “****”. To judge whether both
the Project 1 and Project 2 are equally sustainable or one is more/less compared to other is
critical. Hence, taking a simple ‘arithmetic sum’ of three scores and having that sum clear
a pre-determined benchmark leaves a possibility of extremely low scores in one (or even
two) dimension(s) and still qualifying for a high rating. This inherent lacuna is addressed
by defining and adopting the PWBDI and PIDI approach as illustrated in following tables.
GRIHA scores in pre-construction phase.
Description Sustainability Dimension
Social Economic Environment
Max. Credits 24 5 71
Assumed performance
score-PROJECT 1 14 1 65
Assumed performance
score-PROJECT 2 9 3 68
Normalized performance
score-PROJECT 1 0.58 0.20
0.91; environment
non-conformance
= 1 −0.91 = 0.09
Normalized performance
score-PROJECT 1 0.37 0.6
0.96; environment
non-conformance
= 1 −0.96 = 0.04
Base phase chain
number-PROJECT 1 1 1 1
Base phase chain-PROJECT 1
1 1 1
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 45 of 52
GRIHA scoring in construction phase.
Description Sustainability Dimension
Social Economic Environment
Max. Credits 24 5 71
Assumed performance
score-PROJECT 1 17 2 61
Assumed performance
score-PROJECT 2 11 2 67
Normalized performance
score-PROJECT 1 0.71 0.4
0.86; environment
non-conformance
= 1 −0.86 = 0.14
Normalized performance
score-PROJECT 2 0.46 0.4
0.94; environment
non-conformance
= 1 −0.94 = 0.06
Current phase chain
number -PROJECT 1 1.22 2 1.55
Current phase chain
number -PROJECT 2 1.24 0.67 1.5
PWBDI Scenario
-PROJECT 1 0.79
Remark -PROJECT 1
As SOPn > 1, ENPn > 1 and PWBDI < 1; It indicates that as the
project-1 moves from pre-construction to construction phase,
increase in social well-being is coupled with increasing
environmental pressure
PIDI -PROJECT 1 1.29
Remark -PROJECT 1
As ECPn > 1, ENPn > 1 and PIDI > 1; It indicates that as the project-1
moves from pre-construction to construction phase, increase in
economic well-being exceeds the increase in environmental pressure
PWBDI -PROJECT 2 0.83
Remark -PROJECT 2
As SOPn > 1, ENPn > 1 and PWBDI < 1; It indicates that as the
project-2 moves from pre-construction to construction phase,
increase in social well-being is coupled with increasing
environmental pressure
PIDI -PROJECT 2 0.44
Remark -PROJECT 2
As ECPn < 1, ENPn > 1 and PIDI < 1; It indicates that as the project-2
moves from pre-construction to construction phase, economic
well-being decreases with increase in environmental pressure
Description
GRIHA Rating Based on Aggregate
Score
(Pre-Construction →Construction)
Interpretation Based on
PWBDI/PIDI Approach
(PWBDI, PIDI)
Project-1 **** →**** (0.79, 1.29)
Project-2 **** →**** (0.83, 0.44)
Non-desirable state, which could not have been detected by mere
aggregate scoring as offered by these rating tools/schemes
It may be noted that based on aggregate scores different scenarios are possible and
moreover when these projects move from one phase to other phase, they can behave
differently irrespective of their base phase performance as illustrated by PWBDI and PIDI
for the above two projects.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 46 of 52
References
1.
United Nations-The General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available
online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 10 October 2020).
2.
Heravi, G.; Fathi, M.; Faeghi, S. Evaluation of sustainability indicators of industrial buildings focused on petrochemical projects.
J. Clean. Prod. 2015,109, 92–107. [CrossRef]
3.
World Green Building Council. The Benefits of Green Buildings. 2017. Available online: https://www.worldgbc.org/benefits-
green-buildings (accessed on 18 October 2020).
4.
Goh, C.S.; Chong, H.Y.; Jack, L.; Faris, A.F.M. Revisiting triple bottom line within the context of sustainable construction: A
systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,252, 119884. [CrossRef]
5.
World Economic Forum. Shaping the Future of Construction: A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology. 2016. Available
online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/shaping-the-future-of-construction-a-breakthrough-in- mindset-and- technology
(accessed on 6 December 2020).
6.
Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.E.M.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency in green buildings to
achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Build. Environ. 2018,146, 119–132. [CrossRef]
7.
Papajohn, D.; Brinker, C.; Asmar, M.E. Uncovering key criteria to assess sustainability rating systems for the built environment.
In Construction Research Congress 2016; 2016; Volume 2016, pp. 1303–1312. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479
827.131 (accessed on 2 November 2021).
8. Sala, S.; Ciuffo, B.; Nijkamp, P. A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2015,119, 314–325. [CrossRef]
9.
Andrade, J.; Bragança, L. Sustainability assessment of dwellings–a comparison of methodologies. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst.
2016
,
33, 125–146. [CrossRef]
10.
Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A critical comparison of green
building rating systems. Build. Environ. 2017,123, 243–260. [CrossRef]
11.
Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. J. Build. Eng.
2017,11, 25–29. [CrossRef]
12.
Mattoni, B.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Bisegna, F.; Gori, P.; Asdrubali, F. Critical review and methodological approach to
evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2018
,82, 950–960. [CrossRef]
13. Yu, W.D.; Cheng, S.T.; Ho, W.C.; Chang, Y.H. Measuring the Sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle: A
Taiwan lesson. Sustainability 2018,10, 1523. [CrossRef]
14.
UNEP. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth. 2011. Available online: https:
//wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/31439 (accessed on 10 January 2021).
15.
Wu, Y.; Chau, K.W.; Lu, W.; Shen, L.; Shuai, C.; Chen, J. Decoupling relationship between economic output and carbon emission
in the Chinese construction industry. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018,71, 60–69. [CrossRef]
16.
Du, Q.; Zhou, J.; Pan, T.; Sun, Q.; Wu, M. Relationship of carbon emissions and economic growth in China’s construction industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019,220, 99–109. [CrossRef]
17.
Liang, Y.; Cai, W.; Ma, M. Carbon dioxide intensity and income level in the Chinese megacities’ residential building sector:
Decomposition and decoupling analyses. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,677, 315–327. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Sev, A. How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustain. Dev.
2009
,
17, 161–173. [CrossRef]
19.
Said, H.; Berger, L. Future trends of sustainability design and analysis in construction industry and academia. Pract. Period. Struct.
Des. Constr. 2014,19, 77–88. [CrossRef]
20.
Svensson, G.; Wagner, B. Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability.
Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2015,26, 195–213. [CrossRef]
21.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Circularity in the Built Environment: Case Studies a Compilation of Case Studies from the ce100.
2016. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Built-Env-Co.Project.pdf (accessed on 8
September 2020).
22.
Iyer-Raniga, U.; Huovila, P.; Erasmus, P. Sustainable Buildings and Construction: Responding to the SDGs. Sustain. Cities
Communities 2021. [CrossRef]
23.
Nasir, M.H.A.; Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Koh, S.C.L.; Yamoah, F. Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study
from the construction industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017,183, 443–457. [CrossRef]
24.
Scheel, C.; Aguiñaga, E.; Bello, B. Decoupling Economic Development from the Consumption of Finite Resources Using Circular
Economy. A Model for Developing Countries. Sustainability 2020,12, 1291. [CrossRef]
25.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation. The Built Environment Two Circular Investment Opportunities for a Low-Carbon and Prosperous
Recovery. 2020. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/The-Built-Environment.pdf
(accessed on 2 February 2021).
26.
Wallbaum, H.; Ostermeyer, Y.; Salzer, C.; Escamilla, E.Z. Indicator based sustainability assessment tool for affordable housing
construction technologies. Ecol. Indic. 2012,18, 353–364. [CrossRef]
27.
Agol, D.; Latawiec, A.E.; Strassburg, B.B. Evaluating impacts of development and conservation projects using sustainability
indicators: Opportunities and challenges. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014,48, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 47 of 52
28.
Illankoon, I.C.S.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod.
2017,164, 209–220. [CrossRef]
29.
Parkin, S. Sustainable development: The concept and the practical challenge. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil
Engineering; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2000; Volume 138, No. 6; pp. 3–8.
30.
Karji, A.; Woldesenbet, A.; Khanzadi, M. Social sustainability indicators in mass housing construction. In Proceedings of the
53rd ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings, Motif Hotel, Seattle, 5–8 April 2017; pp. 762–769. Available online:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/archengfacpub/127 (accessed on 2 November 2021).
31.
Balkema, A.J.; Preisig, H.A.; Otterpohl, R.; Lambert, F.J. Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment
systems. Urban Water 2002,4, 153–161. [CrossRef]
32.
Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhao, X.J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. J.
Clean. Prod. 2012,29, 277–289. [CrossRef]
33.
Abidin, N.Z. Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat
Int. 2010,34, 421–426. [CrossRef]
34.
Munasinghe, M. Sustainomics: A Trans-disciplinary framework for making development more sustainable. Int. Soc. Ecol.
Econ. 2004. [CrossRef]
35.
Baloi, D.; Price, A.D. Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2003
,21, 261–269.
[CrossRef]
36. Goodland, R. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1995,26, 1–24. [CrossRef]
37. Yates, J.K.; Castro-Lacouture, D. Sustainability in Engineering Design and Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
38. UNEP. Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases a Basis for Greener Processes and Products. Imprimerie
Escourbiac. 2011. Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2011%20-%20Global%
20Guidance%20Principles.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2021).
39.
Wulf, C.; Werker, J.; Ball, C.; Zapp, P.; Kuckshinrichs, W. Review of sustainability assessment approaches based on life cycles.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5717. [CrossRef]
40.
Sala, S.; Farioli, F.; Zamagni, A. Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 2013,18, 1686–1697. [CrossRef]
41.
Guinée, J. Life cycle sustainability assessment: What is it and what are its challenges. In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 45–68.
42.
Hannouf, M.; Assefa, G. A life cycle sustainability assessment-based decision-analysis framework. Sustainability
2018
,10, 3863.
[CrossRef]
43. Ji, Y.; Plainiotis, S. Design for Sustainability; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2006.
44.
Bal, M.; Bryde, D.; Fearon, D.; Ochieng, E. Stakeholder engagement: Achieving sustainability in the construction sector.
Sustainability 2013,5, 695–710. [CrossRef]
45.
Herazo, B.; Lizarralde, G. Understanding stakeholders’ approaches to sustainability in building projects. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2016
,
26, 240–254. [CrossRef]
46.
Fletcher, R.; Rammelt, C. Decoupling: A key fantasy of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. Globalizations
2017
,14,
450–467. [CrossRef]
47.
Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Leopoulos, V. Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The case of
construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,279, 123774. [CrossRef]
48.
Glass, J.; Simmonds, M. “Considerate construction”: Case studies of current practice. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
2007
,14,
131–149. [CrossRef]
49.
Ugwu, O.O.; Haupt, T.C. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—A South African
construction industry perspective. Build. Environ. 2007,42, 665–680. [CrossRef]
50.
Edum-Fotwe, F.T.; Price, A.D. A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction projects and developments. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2009,27, 313–322. [CrossRef]
51.
Mills, F.T.; Glass, J. The construction design manager’s role in delivering sustainable buildings. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag.
2009
,5,
75–90. [CrossRef]
52.
Valdes-Vasquez, R.; Klotz, L.E. Social sustainability considerations during planning and design: Framework of processes for
construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013,139, 80–89. [CrossRef]
53.
Cheng, E.W.; Kelly, S.; Ryan, N. Use of safety management practices for improving project performance. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf.
Promot. 2015,22, 33–39. [CrossRef]
54.
Almahmoud, E.; Doloi, H.K. Assessment of social sustainability in construction projects using social network analysis. Facilities
2015,33, 152–176. [CrossRef]
55.
Abdel-Raheem, M.; Ramsbottom, C. Factors affecting social sustainability in highway projects in Missouri. Procedia Eng.
2016
,
145, 548–555. [CrossRef]
56.
Pocock, J.; Steckler, C.; Hanzalova, B. Improving socially sustainable design and construction in developing countries. Procedia
Eng. 2016,145, 288–295. [CrossRef]
57.
O’Connor, J.T.; Torres, N.; Woo, J. Sustainability actions during the construction phase. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2016
,142, 04016016.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 48 of 52
58.
Sodangi, M. Overcoming the constraints to the adoption of sustainable civil engineering practices. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
2019
,21,
490–507. [CrossRef]
59.
Farzanehrafat, M.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Ghoddousi, P. Analysis of different views towards social sustainability in construction. In
ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction; IAARC Publications, 2015; Volume 32,
p. 1. Available online: https://www.iaarc.org/publications/2015_proceedings_of_the_32st_isarc_oulu_finland/analysis_of_
different_views_towards_social_sustainability_in_construction.html (accessed on 2 November 2021).
60.
Sierra, L.A.; Yepes, V.; Pellicer, E. A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod.
2018,187, 496–513. [CrossRef]
61.
Lakhani, R. Occupational health of women construction workers in the unorganised sector. J. Health Manag.
2004
,6, 187–200.
[CrossRef]
62. Vee, C.; Skitmore, C. Professional ethics in the construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2003,10, 117–127. [CrossRef]
63.
Moodley, K.; Smith, N.; Preece, C.N. Stakeholder matrix for ethical relationships in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ.
2008,26, 625–632. [CrossRef]
64.
Hartley, R. Fighting corruption in the Australian construction industry: The national code of practice. Leadersh. Manag. Eng.
2009
,
9, 131–135. [CrossRef]
65.
Oladinrin, O.T.; Ho, C.M. Critical enablers for codes of ethics implementation in construction organizations. J. Manag. Eng.
2016
,
32, 04015023. [CrossRef]
66.
Saenz, C.; Brown, H. The disclosure of anticorruption aspects in companies of the construction sector: Main companies worldwide
and in Latin America. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,196, 259–272. [CrossRef]
67.
Alkhatib, O.J.; Abdou, A. An ethical (descriptive) framework for judgment of actions and decisions in the construction industry
and engineering—Part I. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2018,24, 585–606. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68.
World Green Building Council. The World GBC’s Health & Wellbeing Framework Six Principles for a Healthy, Sustainable Built
Environment. 2020. Available online: https://worldgbc.org/health-framework (accessed on 5 March 2021).
69.
UKGBC. Social Value in New Development: An Introductory Guide for Local Authorities and Development Teams S. 2018.
Available online: https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Value.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2021).
70.
Griha Council. Griha v.2019 Abridged Manual; The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI): New Delhi, India, 2019; Available
online: https://www.grihaindia.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Manuals/griha-v2019-abridged-manual.pdf (accessed on 23
October 2020).
71.
Building Responsibly. Building Responsibly Collaborating to Promote the Welfare of Workers in the Engineering and Construction
Industry, 2017. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa2d2d82971141ff9a61ea5/t/5eb2925fa9dc2768b0a7
d51b/1588761202701/Building+Responsibly_Worker+Welfare+Principles.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2020).
72.
ASHRAE Standards & Guidelines. Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings. 2018. Available online:
https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-189-1 (accessed on 18 October 2020).
73. Du Plessis, C. Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries. CSIR Rep. BOU E 2002,204, 2–5.
74.
Loosemore, M.; Chau, D.W. Racial discrimination towards Asian operatives in the Australian construction industry. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 2002,20, 91–102. [CrossRef]
75. Mitullah, W. Informal Labour in The Construction Industry in Kenya; University of Nairobi: Nairobi, Kenya, 2003.
76.
Shen, L.Y.; Li Hao, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yao, H. A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 2007,13, 273–281. [CrossRef]
77.
Baruah, B. Gender and globalization: Opportunities and constraints faced by women in the construction industry in India. Labor
Stud. J. 2010,35, 198–221. [CrossRef]
78.
Tjoe Nij, E.; Hilhorst, S.; Spee, T.; Spierings, J.; Steffens, F.; Lumens, M.; Heederik, D. Dust control measures in the construction
industry. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2003,47, 211–218. [PubMed]
79.
Thomas, N.I.R.; Costa, D.B. Adoption of environmental practices on construction sites. Ambiente Construído
2017
,17, 9–24.
[CrossRef]
80.
Paul, W.L.; Taylor, P.A. A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between a green building and a conventional building.
Build. Environ. 2008,43, 1858–1870. [CrossRef]
81.
Ioan, S.; Călin, S. Olfactory comfort assurance in buildings. Chem. Emiss. Control Radioact. Pollut. Indoor Air Qual.
2011
, 407.
[CrossRef]
82.
Bernardini, E.; Spence, S.M.; Kwon, D.K.; Kareem, A. Performance-based design of high-rise buildings for occupant comfort. J.
Struct. Eng. 2015,141, 04014244. [CrossRef]
83.
Andargie, M.S.; Touchie, M.; O’Brien, W. A review of factors affecting occupant comfort in multi-unit residential buildings. Build.
Environ. 2019,160, 106182. [CrossRef]
84. Evans, G.W. The built environment and mental health. J. Urban Health 2003,80, 536–555. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85.
Hoisington, A.J.; Stearns-Yoder, K.A.; Schuldt, S.J.; Beemer, C.J.; Maestre, J.P.; Kinney, K.A.; Postolache, T.T.; Lowry, C.A.; Brenner,
L.A. Ten questions concerning the built environment and mental health. Build. Environ. 2019,155, 58–69. [CrossRef]
86.
Campbell, M.A.; Gunning, J.G. Strategies to improve mental health and well-being within the UK construction industry. Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 2020,173, 64–74. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 49 of 52
87.
Lingard, H.; Lin, J. Career, family and work environment determinants of organizational commitment among women in the
Australian construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2004,22, 409–420. [CrossRef]
88.
Karakhan, A.A.; Gambatese, J.A.; Simmons, D.R.; Al-Bayati, A.J. Identifying Pertinent Indicators for Assessing and Fostering
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of the Construction Workforce. J. Manag. Eng. 2021,37, 04020114. [CrossRef]
89.
Hübner, F.; Volk, R.; Kühlen, A.; Schultmann, F. Review of project planning methods for deconstruction projects of buildings.
Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2017,7, 212–226. [CrossRef]
90.
German Sustainable Building Council. DGNB Criteria Set–Deconstruction of Buildings. 2020. Available online: https://www.
dgnb-system.de/de/gebaeude/rueckbau/kriterien/ (accessed on 30 November 2020).
91.
Yeheyis, M.; Hewage, K.; Alam, M.S.; Eskicioglu, C.; Sadiq, R. An overview of construction and demolition waste management in
Canada: A lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2013,15, 81–91. [CrossRef]
92.
Enshassi, A.; Kochendoerfer, B.; Al Ghoul, H. Factors affecting sustainable performance of construction projects during project life
cycle phases. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol.
2016
,7. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12358/26557 (accessed
on 2 November 2021).
93.
Vardon, M.; Castaneda, J.P.; Nagy, M.; Schenau, S. How the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting can improve
environmental information systems and data quality for decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018,89, 83–92. [CrossRef]
94.
UNEP. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting. 2021. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/
unsd/statcom/52nd-session/documents/BG-3f-SEEA-EA_Final_draft-E.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2021).
95. Perry, J.G.; Hayes, R.W. Risk and its management in construction projects. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1985,78, 499–521. [CrossRef]
96.
Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project
managers’ perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017,35, 1084–1102. [CrossRef]
97.
Chan, A.P.; Scott, D.; Lam, E.W. Framework of success criteria for design/build projects. J. Manag. Eng.
2002
,18, 120–128.
[CrossRef]
98.
Pulaski, M.H.; Horman, M.J. Organizing constructability knowledge for design. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
2005
,131, 911–919.
[CrossRef]
99.
Lind, H.; Brunes, F. Explaining cost overruns in infrastructure projects: A new framework with applications to Sweden. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 2015,33, 554–568. [CrossRef]
100.
Dahl, P.; Horman, M.; Pohlman, T.; Pulaski, M. Evaluating design-build-operate-maintain delivery as a tool for sustainability. In
Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives; 2005; pp. 1–10. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)
27 (accessed on 2 November 2021). [CrossRef]
101. Spooner, K.; Kaine, S. Defining sustainability and human resource management. Int. Employ. Relat. Rev. 2010,16, 70–81.
102.
Othman, I.; Idrus, A.; Napiah, M. Human resource management in the construction of a sustainable development project:
Towards successful completion. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012,162, 169–180.
103.
Siew, R.Y.J. Human resource management in the construction industry–Sustainability competencies. Constr. Econ. Build.
2014
,14,
87–103. [CrossRef]
104.
Siew, R.Y.J. Integrating sustainability into construction project portfolio management. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
2016
,20, 101–108.
[CrossRef]
105.
Simatupang, T.M.; Sridharan, R. The collaboration index: A measure for supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 2005,35, 44–62. [CrossRef]
106.
Adetunji, I.; Price, A.D.F.; Fleming, P. Achieving sustainability in the construction supply chain. In Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2008; Volume 161, No. 3; pp. 161–172.
107.
Pero, M.; Moretto, A.; Bottani, E.; Bigliardi, B. Environmental collaboration for sustainability in the construction industry: An
exploratory study in Italy. Sustainability 2017,9, 125. [CrossRef]
108.
Dadhich, P.; Genovese, A.; Kumar, N.; Acquaye, A. Developing sustainable supply chains in the UK construction industry: A
case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015,164, 271–284. [CrossRef]
109.
Meng, X. Change in UK construction: Moving toward supply chain collaboration. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
2013
,19, 422–432. [CrossRef]
110.
Banchuen, P.; Sadler, I.; Shee, H. Supply chain collaboration aligns order-winning strategy with business outcomes. IIMB Manag.
Rev. 2017,29, 109–121. [CrossRef]
111. Spence, R.; Mulligan, H. Sustainable development and the construction industry. Habitat Int. 1995,19, 279–292. [CrossRef]
112.
Abdulsalam, D.; Faki, A.I.; Dardau, A.A. Impact assessment of incentive schemes for the sustainable development of Nigerian
construction industry. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2012,6, 1194. [CrossRef]
113.
Avilova, I.; Krutilova, M.; Peresypkina, E. Economic incentives of green standards in civil and municipal engineering. Int.
Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConf. SGEM 2017,17, 255–261.
114.
Gan, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chang, R.; Wen, T. How affordable housing becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. J.
Clean. Prod. 2017,162, 427–437. [CrossRef]
115.
Adams, K.T.; Osmani, M.; Thorpe, T.; Thornback, J. Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges, and
enablers. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Waste and Resource Management; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2017;
Volume 170, No. 1; pp. 15–24.
116. Schneiderova-Heralova, R. Importance of life cycle costing for construction projects. Eng. Rural Dev. 2018,17, 1223–1227.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 50 of 52
117.
Manege, S.L.; Kennedy, C.J. Investigating whole life costing awareness in Tanzania building construction industry. Int. J. Constr.
Manag. 2020, 1–8. [CrossRef]
118.
Kagioglou, M.; Cooper, R.; Aouad, G. Performance management in construction: A conceptual framework. Constr. Manag. Econ.
2001,19, 85–95. [CrossRef]
119.
Larsen, J.K.; Shen, G.Q.; Lindhard, S.M.; Brunoe, T.D. Factors affecting schedule delay, cost overrun, and quality level in public
construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016,32, 04015032. [CrossRef]
120.
Li, X.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Q. Research on construction schedule management based on BIM technology. Procedia Eng.
2017
,174,
657–667. [CrossRef]
121. Rumane, A.R. Quality Management in Construction Projects; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017.
122. Levy, S.M. Project Management in Construction; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
123.
Dubois, A.; Gadde, L.E. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: Implications for productivity and innovation.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 2002,20, 621–631. [CrossRef]
124.
Dulaimi, M.F.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Ofori, G.; Silva, N.D. Enhancing integration and innovation in construction. Build. Res. Inf.
2002
,30,
237–247. [CrossRef]
125. Park, H.S. Conceptual framework of construction productivity estimation. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2006,10, 311–317. [CrossRef]
126.
Ries, R.; Bilec, M.M.; Gokhan, N.M.; Needy, K.L. The economic benefits of green buildings: A comprehensive case study. Eng.
Econ. 2006,51, 259–295. [CrossRef]
127.
Dobiáš, J.; Macek, D. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and its impact on building operational expenditures.
Procedia Eng. 2014,85, 132–139. [CrossRef]
128.
German Sustainable Building Council. DGNB System–Buildings in Use Criteria Set VERSION 2020. Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Nachhaltiges Bauen. 2020. Available online: https://static.dgnb.de/fileadmin/dgnb-system/downloads/criteria/DGNB-
Criteria-Set-Buildings-In-Use-Version-2020.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2020).
129. Finch, E.; Jones, K.; Sharp, M. A new performance-based process model for built asset maintenance. Facilities 2007,25, 525–535.
130.
Wibowo, M.A.; Handayani, N.U.; Mustikasari, A. Factors for implementing green supply chain management in the construction
industry. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2018,11, 651–679. [CrossRef]
131.
Villena, V.H. The missing link? The strategic role of procurement in building sustainable supply networks. Prod. Oper. Manag.
2019,28, 1149–1172. [CrossRef]
132.
Dantata, N.; Touran, A.; Wang, J. An analysis of cost and duration for deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in
Massachusetts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005,44, 1–15. [CrossRef]
133.
Akbarnezhad, A.; Ong, K.C.G.; Chandra, L.R. Economic and environmental assessment of deconstruction strategies using
building information modeling. Autom. Constr. 2014,37, 131–144. [CrossRef]
134.
Duran, X.; Lenihan, H.; O’Regan, B. A model for assessing the economic viability of construction and demolition waste recycling—
The case of Ireland. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006,46, 302–320. [CrossRef]
135.
Zheng, L.; Wu, H.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Wang, J.; Jiang, W.; Dong, B.; Liu, G.; Zuo, J.; Song, Q. Characterizing the generation and
flows of construction and demolition waste in China. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017,136, 405–413. [CrossRef]
136.
Sanchez, B.; Rausch, C.; Haas, C. Deconstruction programming for adaptive reuse of buildings. Autom. Constr.
2019
,107, 102921.
[CrossRef]
137.
Raškovi´c, M.; Ragossnig, A.M.; Kondracki, K.; Ragossnig-Angst, M. Clean construction and demolition waste material cycles
through optimised pre-demolition waste audit documentation: A review on building material assessment tools. Waste Manag.
Res. 2020,38, 923–941. [CrossRef]
138.
Kibert, C.J.; Chini, A.R. August. Overview of Deconstruction in Selected Countries; CIB Publication: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000;
Volume 252.
139.
Tam, C.M.; Tam, V.W.; Tsui, W.S. Green construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of
Hong Kong. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004,22, 563–571. [CrossRef]
140.
Ding, G.K. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag.
2008
,86, 451–464. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
141.
Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes. Build. Environ.
2010
,
45, 766–775. [CrossRef]
142. Letmathe, P.; Doost, R.K. Environmental cost accounting and auditing. Manag. Audit. J. 2000,15, 424–431. [CrossRef]
143.
Ding, G.K. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of sustainable building materials: An overview. Eco-Effic. Constr. Build. Mater.
2014
, 38–62.
[CrossRef]
144.
Bredenoord, J. Sustainable building materials for low-cost housing and the challenges facing their technological developments:
Examples and lessons regarding bamboo, earth-block technologies, building blocks of recycled materials, and improved concrete
panels. J. Archit. Eng. Technol. 2017,6, 1–11. [CrossRef]
145. Estokova, A.; Samesova, D. Sustainable Building Materials and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2021,13, 2012. [CrossRef]
146.
Kellert, S.R. Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design. In Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing
Buildings to Life; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 3–19.
147. Kellert, S.R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2018.
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 51 of 52
148.
Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; John Wiley &
Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
149. DeZuane, J. Handbook of Drinking Water Quality; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997.
150.
WHO. Air Quality Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005 Guidelines Global Update 2005 A. WHO Regional Office for
Europe. 2005. Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78638/E90038.pdf (accessed on 14
November 2020).
151.
WHO. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; Available online: https://www.euro.who.
int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78638/E90038.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2020).
152.
Yang, C.T.; Liao, C.J.; Liu, J.C.; Den, W.; Chou, Y.C.; Tsai, J.J. Construction and application of an intelligent air quality monitoring
system for healthcare environment. J. Med. Syst. 2014,38, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
153.
Hossaini, N.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Spatial life cycle sustainability assessment: A conceptual framework for net-zero buildings.
Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015,17, 2243–2253. [CrossRef]
154.
Karlsson, I.; Rootzén, J.; Johnsson, F. Reaching net-zero carbon emissions in construction supply chains–Analysis of a Swedish
road construction project. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020,120, 109651. [CrossRef]
155.
Son, H.; Kim, C.; Chong, W.K.; Chou, J.S. Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry: Constructors’
perspectives in the US and Korea. Sustain. Dev. 2011,19, 337–347. [CrossRef]
156.
Kucukvar, M.; Tatari, O. Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the US construction industry. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 2013,18, 958–972. [CrossRef]
157.
Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S.; De Silva, L.; Rameezdeen, R. Water use efficiency and conservation during construction: Drivers, barriers
and practices. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016,6, 553–566. [CrossRef]
158.
Furlong, C.; Jegatheesan, J.; Currell, M.; Iyer-Raniga, U.; Khan, T.; Ball, A.S. Is the global public willing to drink recycled water? A
review for researchers and practitioners. Util. Policy 2019,56, 53–61. [CrossRef]
159.
Wu, Z.; Wu, Z.; Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, M. Developing a strategic framework for adopting water-saving measures in construction
projects. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020,42, 955–968. [CrossRef]
160.
Spiegel, R.; Meadows, D. Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and Specification; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2010.
161.
Llatas, C. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to the European waste list. Waste Manag.
2011
,31,
1261–1276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
162. Kim, J.T.; Yu, C.W. Hazardous materials in buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2014,23, 44–61. [CrossRef]
163.
Velenturf, A.P.; Archer, S.A.; Gomes, H.I.; Christgen, B.; Lag-Brotons, A.J.; Purnell, P. Circular economy and the matter of
integrated resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,689, 963–969. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
164.
Schneider, P.; Schwerdt, S.; Schulz, K.; Fiebig, S.; Mirschel, D. Feasibility of substitute building materials for circular use in urban
green infrastructure: Dresden Nexus Conference 2020–Session 4–Circular Economy for Building with Secondary Construction
Materials to Minimise Resource use and Land use. Civ. Eng. Des. 2020,2, 159–168. [CrossRef]
165. Council, U.G.B. US Green Building Council; US Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
166.
Guo, Y.; Baetz, B.W. Sizing of rainwater storage units for green building applications. J. Hydrol. Eng.
2007
,12, 197–205. [CrossRef]
167. Ching, F.D.; Shapiro, I.M. Green Building Illustrated; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
168. Kijak, R.; Moy, D. A decision support framework for sustainable waste management. J. Ind. Ecol. 2004,8, 33–50. [CrossRef]
169.
Wu, Z.; Shen, L.; Ann, T.W.; Zhang, X. A comparative analysis of waste management requirements between five green building
rating systems for new residential buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,112, 895–902. [CrossRef]
170.
Cha, H.S.; Kim, J.; Han, J.Y. Identifying and assessing influence factors on improving waste management performance for building
construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009,135, 647–656. [CrossRef]
171.
Wu, S.R.; Apul, D. Framework for integrating indoor air quality impacts into life cycle assessments of buildings and building
related products. J. Green Build. 2015,10, 127–149. [CrossRef]
172.
Wang, B.Z.; Zhu, Z.H.; Yang, E.; Chen, Z.; Wang, X.H. Assessment and management of air emissions and environmental impacts
from the construction industry. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018,61, 2421–2444. [CrossRef]
173.
Hu, M.; Van Der Voet, E.; Huppes, G. Dynamic material flow analysis for strategic construction and demolition waste management
in Beijing. J. Ind. Ecol. 2010,14, 440–456. [CrossRef]
174.
Pan, X.; Xie, Q.; Feng, Y. Designing recycling networks for construction and demolition waste based on reserve logistics research
field. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,260, 120841. [CrossRef]
175.
Jain, S.; Singhal, S.; Pandey, S. Environmental life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste recycling: A case of
urban India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020,155, 104642. [CrossRef]
176.
Lawson, N.; Douglas, I.; Garvin, S.; McGrath, C.; Manning, D.; Vetterlein, J. Recycling construction and demolition wastes—A UK
perspective. Environ. Manag. Health 2001,12, 146–157. [CrossRef]
177.
Kallio, H.; Pietilä, A.M.; Johnson, M.; Kangasniemi, M. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a
qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J. Adv. Nurs. 2016,72, 2954–2965. [CrossRef]
178.
Glossary: Chain Index. 2013. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:
Chain_inde (accessed on 24 September 2021).
Sustainability 2022,14, 197 52 of 52
179.
Li, Y.N.; Cai, M.; Wu, K.; Wei, J. Decoupling analysis of carbon emission from construction land in Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod.
2019
,
210, 25–34. [CrossRef]
180.
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1
/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2021).
181.
PRB. Population Mid-2020 (Millions). 2020. Available online: https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/population/table/
(accessed on 21 September 2021).
182.
UNFCC. India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution: Working towards Climate Justice. 2015. Available online: https://
www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/India%20First/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf (accessed
on 24 September 2021).
