XXXXXXXXXXwords (Included 40 Harvard reference).2. Literature Review& Compare with BREEAM, LEED or similar to a building design and appraisal of its performance.3. A study of implementing renewables...

Running Header: CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY FOR THE EVALUATION OF EFFICACY
PERTAINING TO BREEAM CODES FOR SUSTAINABLE HOME 1
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home 2
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home
Introduction & Methodology
There are at present substantial level of literature for evidences indicating climate change
trends are occu
ing on account of human activities. The same is representing threats for actual
existence of the human life (Dixit et al, 2012; Kibert, 2016; Seyfang, 2010). Various initiative
are being undertaken for driving sustainable development through top-down methods aided by
legislations, codes, mandates, initiatives, and, directives in addition to incentives and guidelines.
Further additionally, bottom-up methods are also undertaken and actions encouraged from
government bodies in enhancing agenda for sustainability (Dixit et al, 2012; Kibert, 2016;
Seyfang, 2010). One example for these approaches comprise the assessment methods that are
established and used for ensuring incessant decreases over ca
on footprints in the existing and
new buildings. This study shall focus over Codes for Sustainable Homes (“CSH”) as well as
attempts for mapping the same against very significant set of international competitors for
evaluating if as well as how the same could be enhanced in including the environmental impacts
concerning buildings beyond their envelopes. For the purposes identified, CASBEE and LEED
are identified to further investigate by way of mixed methods comprising qualitative exploratory
study of relevant literature as well as detailed content analyses in cross-comparative form over
various formal documents.
The specific aims of the study is in assessing the CSH for the purposes of evaluating the
extent of efficacies by way of comparing with major international competitors that is LEED and
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home 3
CASBEE, as well as identifying ways the same could be improved given complexity of the
sustainability measures.
The critical evaluation of recent literature in this context were undertaken for establishing
the principles, general concepts and latest developments pertaining to methods of assessments
pertaining CSH compared to LEED and CASBEE (Taylor et al, 2015). On identifying
differences, concerned positive / negative aspects pertaining assessment methods are established
y detailed reviews of official documents as well as through cross-referencing of various
assessment criteria, methodologies and components (Taylor et al, 2015).
Literature Review
The Building Environment Quality Evaluations for Sustainability through Time
(“BEQUEST”) offers foundation of the common global level understanding pertaining
sustainable form of u
an development by way of multidisciplinary networks concerning
epresentatives of every actors involved with production, maintenance, and use of built
environments (Kylili & Fokaides, 2015; Wallhagen, 2016; Mills et al, 2012). This BEQUEST
has drove numerous varied legislations, actions and policies that inter link together the
dimensions of technical and socioeconomic factors across u
an communities (Kylili &
Fokaides, 2015; Wallhagen, 2016; Mills et al, 2012), employed by Europe Green Buildings
Forum (“EGBF”). The specific Europe Sustainability Development Strategy (“ESDS”) is set up
for driving sustainable development across Europe through key set of objectives, that is,
economic prosperity, cohesion and social equity, environmental protection and developments
that meet global responsibilities (Yu & Kim, 2011; Wallhagen & Glaumann, 2011; Andrade &
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home 4
Bragança, 2016). Further certain cities / towns have pursued these initiatives to the subsequent
stage, establishing their specific comprehensive agenda for complying with global
esponsibilities and commitments for environment. For example, Freiburg, located in south
western Germany that had availed “European City for Year 2010” award by Academy of
U
anism at London, established Freiburg Charter (“FC”) that comprises the framework for
outlining sustainable and viable form of u
an planning policies basis 12 principles (Yu & Kim,
2011; Wallhagen & Glaumann, 2011; Andrade & Bragança, 2016). The 12 principles represent
factors like that of principles of procedures, design quality / culture, education, employment,
content principles encompassing economy, spatial principles pertaining city of the
neighbourhoods established near transport lines paving for longer term vision that is sustainable,
participation and communication from concerned stakeholders (Cole, 2010; Faulcon
idge,
2015; Lam et al, 2010; Tuohy & Murphy, 2015).
Lee (2012) indicates that as Building Research Establishments Environmental
Assessments Method (“BREEAM”) was initially launched during 1990, there have been major
increase over several assessment schemes for building environment. The methods widely known
comprise Leadership on Energy & Environmental Designs (“LEED”) in United States, Green
Star for Australia, Building Environment Performances Assessment Criteria (“BEPAC”) for
Canada, Evaluation Standards for Green Buildings (“ESGB”) across China, Eco-Management &
Auditing Schemes (“EMAS”) across Europe Union, Building Environment Assessment Methods
Plus (“BEAM Plus”) across Hong Kong, Comprehensive Assessments Scheme in Built
Environment Efficiencies (“CASBEE”) across Japan, Green Buildings Certification Criteria
(“GBCC”) across Korea, Sustainable Buildings Assessment Tools (“SBAT”) across South
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home 5
Africa, Green Buildings Labelling Systems across Taiwan, Green Mark for Singapore, Green
Building Indices (“GBI”) for Malaysia, and Estidama environment assessment methods in UAE
that employs Pearl Rating Systems (Cole, 2010; Faulcon
idge, 2015; Lam et al, 2010; Tuohy &
Murphy, 2015). There are additionally global collaboration framework called Sustainable
Buildings Tool (“SBTool”).
It has for long period discussed that numerous methods for assessment lack
systematically dedicated criteria for assessing the buildings beyond the physical boundaries
(Cole, 2010; Faulcon
idge, 2015; Lam et al, 2010; Tuohy & Murphy, 2015). On account of this
serious issues are raised concerning efficacy pertaining tools for environmental assessment.
BREEAM, along with its latest CSH, which are oldest tool for assessments, have wide popularity
over various benefits that offers with primary one being ease of usage (Burdová & Vilčeková,
2012; Schwartz & Raslan, 2013; Allacker et al, 2013). On other end, LEED, fundamentally
originating from BREEAM illustrates extraordinary growth by way of popularity across globe.
The same has been identified for the usage, international recognition usage and the wide
audience for gauging what could be learned to enhance BREAM / CSH. On other end CASBEE,
a Japanese counterpart of BREEAM is actually formulated from much
oad scope for
assessment comprising factors beyond and above building envelope (Burdová & Vilčeková,
2012; Schwartz & Raslan, 2013; Allacker et al, 2013). For closing the loop of comparative
analysis CASBEE had been selected for the comprehensiveness and uniqueness in methodology
allowing equal values over sustainable performances both within building envelope as well as
outside (Burdová & Vilčeková, 2012; Schwartz & Raslan, 2013; Allacker et al, 2013). The same
is backed further by comparative assessments of five sustainable rating systems undertaken by
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of Efficacy Pertaining to BREEAM Codes for
Sustainable Home 6
Nguyen & Altan (2011) indicating highest score totalling 75 for LEED and BREEAM, followed
closely by CASBEE at 69.5, BEAM Plus at 66 and Green Star at 65. For ca
ying out analyses
FC, ESDS and BEQUEST were utilized for benchmarking criteria pertaining CASBEE, LEED
and CSH beyond the physical boundaries of buildings, against measures of sustainable form of
u
an development as well as sustainable champion city from Academy of U
anism awarded
each year (Diaz, 2010; Wangel et al, 2016; Ebert et al, 2011).
The LEED and CSH for Homes are in utilization starting 2006 - 2007 and numerous
uildings at present are rated by each method of assessment globally (Diaz, 2010; Wangel et al,
2016; Ebert et al, 2011). LEED has been developed originally on basis of BREEAM (Diaz, 2010;
Wangel et al, 2016; Ebert et al, 2011) and hence both possess assessment parameters aiming
similarly at enhanced energy efficiencies (Diaz, 2010; Wangel et al, 2016; Ebert et al, 2011) and
inging down GHG emissions (Diaz, 2010; Wangel et al, 2016; Ebert et al, 2011). These two
assessment methods comprise format of linear checklist over which target performance are
established and for which credits shall be attributed. The primary differences amongst these two
concerns processes of certification. CSH has assessors trained and work under BRE, validate
evidences offered against criteria requirements and provide reports for BRE, who later award
certificates to developers (Mötzl & Fellner, 2011; Georgiadou, 2014). In terms of LEED for
Home it becomes non-compulsory for including the assessor. Although the use of assessor shall
add additional credits (Mötzl & Fellner, 2011; Georgiadou, 2014). There are in addition little
differences with respect to assessment criteria, like the inclusions in CSH for exclusive criteria
for ecology whilst LEED doesn‟t. On other end, LEED possesses assessment parameters
Cross-Sectional Study for the Evaluation of...