A Comparative Study on Architectural Design-Related Requirements of Green Building Rating Systems for New Buildings

Abstract

Design teams’ work is greatly influenced by green building rating systems (GBRSs). Early GBRSs that had an energy- or resource-based hierarchy and prioritized mechanical components and active technologies were unable to adequately support the architectural design (AD). Due to the recent rise in awareness of the importance of AD in the creation of GBs, many GBRSs may now improve requirements pertaining to AD. However, it has not been examined in earlier studies. As a result, this study uses a comparative approach, content analysis, and significance evaluation to examine the effectiveness of six GBRSs as applied to AD in terms of significance, inclusiveness, comprehensiveness, and certainty. Six GBRSs include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Assessment Standard for Green Building (ASGB), Green Mark (GM), WELL Building Standard (WELL), Assessment Standard for Healthy Building (ASHB), and Living Building Challenge (LBC). A heuristic theoretical evaluation framework (TEF) is developed with the goal of providing guidelines and references for the improvement of GBRSs and the strategic idea of AD. There are four key findings. Firstly, LBC assigns the highest and certain weight to AD, followed by LEED and ASGB, then ASHB, and finally GM and WELL. Secondly, green and regeneration GBRSs emphasize resource, environment, and physiological health, while wellbeing GBRSs emphasize physiological and psychological health. Thirdly, GM, ASGB, WELL, and ASHB are the most inclusive and comprehensive in process, resource, and environment, physiological health, and sociological and psychological health, respectively. Fourthly, LBC performs best in setting mandatory requirements in included aspects.