4.7 Article

The development of building assessment criteria framework for sustainable non-residential buildings in Saudi Arabia

Journal

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
Volume 26, Issue -, Pages 289-305

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.07.007

Keywords

Saudi Arabia; Building environmental assessment method; Sustainability; Sustainable construction; Building performance; BRREAM; LEED; Culture

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education of the Saudi Arabian, Cultural Bureau in London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To quantify the environmental impacts of building construction, many environmental assessment methods for measuring building performance have been proposed worldwide, such as BREEAM (UK), LEED (US) and Green Star (AU). However, much debate exists about the efficacy of these international assessment tools in measuring building performance outside their country of origin, due to global variations in climate, geography, economics and culture. To address this debate, this study proposes a framework for developing domestic sustainable non-residential building assessment criteria for Saudi Arabia. To create this framework, five major building assessment methods were compared with respect to their application methods, major characteristics and categories. Surveys were conducted with a range of Saudi sustainable construction experts to gain their expertise in reflecting the local context of Saudi Arabian construction. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was applied to evaluate survey data. Nine criteria and 36 sub-criteria were defined in this study for inclusion as the most appropriate assessment criteria for sustainable non-residential construction in Saudi Arabia. These criteria include water efficiency and energy efficiency, indoor air quality, materials selection, effective management, land and waste, whole-life cost, quality of service and cultural aspects. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available