Evaluating LEED commercial interior (LEED-CI) projects under the LEED transition from v3 to v4: the differences between China and the US

Pushkar, Svetlana

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04701

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A comparison of the former two buildings that attained Gold suggests that the most difficult categories to attain points were Indoor Environmental Quality at 47% and 41%, respectively, and Materials and Resources, where projects attained 0% and 35%, respectively (Table 5). These results are similar to a study examining LEED (ID+C 3.0) certified buildings in China and the U.S., which found that the median number of points attained for Indoor Environmental Quality was 50% in China and 53% in the U.S., and 29% in China and 32% in the U.S. for Materials and Resources [70]. Both categories also proved most challenging for Eaton Place, which attained 5% and 15%, respectively (Table 6).…”

Section: Examples In Nairobisupporting

confidence: 86%

Always with the Best Intentions? Interrogating the Use of Sustainable Building Assessment Systems in Developing Countries: Kenya

Chelang’at,

Lawrence

2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment methodologies such as BREEAM and LEED allocate points based on prescribed interventions that promote design features or strategies considered to be more sustainable than others. A focus on accumulating numerical scores, however, often fails to address pertinent contextual issues, particularly within developing countries. This paper examines the use of four assessment systems in Kenya—two international systems, LEED-US and Green Star SA-Kenya; and two locally developed systems, Green Mark Kenya and the Safari Green Building Index. The paper compares the relative weighting of different categories under each system, and assesses their appropriateness to a Kenyan context, with reference to the suitability of active technology versus passive design approaches. The paper examines selected examples of ‘green’ buildings in Nairobi, reflecting on the influence of different methods of assessment on the adopted design approaches. The paper argues that international rating systems, such as LEED, often focus on a Western construct of sustainability featuring a systematic bias towards global rather than local perspectives, with an emphasis on physical environmental factors. In pursuit of objectivity, the measurement of non-contextual parameters untailored to local circumstances (e.g., energy performance) is prioritised at the expense of those contingent on local conditions or climate.

show abstract

Section: Examples In Nairobisupporting

confidence: 86%

Always with the Best Intentions? Interrogating the Use of Sustainable Building Assessment Systems in Developing Countries: Kenya

Chelang’at,

Lawrence

2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pushkar [19] estimated the similarity/dissimilarity between China and the USA in an analysis of LEED-CI v4 gold-certified projects. In the study, 38 and 36 LEED-CI v4 gold-certified projects were analyzed in China (n 1 = 38) and the USA (n 2 = 36), respectively.…”

Section: Leed-ci V4: Comparison Groups With Moderate Sample Sizesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Commercial Interior Version 4 (LEED-CI v4) Gold-Certified Office Space Projects: A Pairwise Comparative Analysis between Three Mediterranean Countries

Pushkar

2024

Buildings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past five years, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Commercial Interior version 4 (LEED-CI v4)-certified office projects have been intensively studied in the USA and China, but they have not yet been studied in the Mediterranean region. The purpose of this study was to explore office building certification strategies for LEED-CI v4-certified projects in the Mediterranean region. The study design included pairwise comparative analyses between Spain (number of projects (n) n1 = 14), Türkiye (n2 = 13), and Israel (n3 = 11). Cliff’s δ and exact Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were used to process ordinal and discrete data, while the natural logarithm of the odds ratio and 2 × 2 Fisher’s exact tests were used to handle dichotomous data. It was found that Spain and Türkiye outperformed Israel in the Location and Transportation (LT) category due to their desire to reduce the use of private transport. Spain and Türkiye were ahead of Israel in the LTc5 “reduced parking footprint” credit (p = 0.008 and 0.0005, respectively). Israel outperformed Spain and Türkiye in the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) category due to the sum of all six EA credits (p = 0.086 and 0.010). Spain overtook Türkiye and Israel in the Materials and Resources (MRs) category due to Spain’s increased use of environmental product declarations. Spain and Türkiye were ahead of Israel in the following four MRs credits: MRc1 “long-term commitment” (p = 0.030), MRc2 “interiors life cycle impact reduction” (p = 0.037), MRc3 “building product disclosure and optimization—environmental product declarations” (p = 0.029), and MRc5 “building product disclosure and optimization—material ingredients” (p = 0.034). Spain, Türkiye, and Israel showed similarly low levels of achievement in the Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) category (p ≥ 0.405). However, Spain and Türkiye outperformed Israel in the following two credits: EQc1 “enhanced indoor air quality strategies” and EQc2 “low-emitting materials” (p = 0.001 and 0.060, respectively). In parallel, Israel outperformed Türkiye in the EQc3 “construction indoor air quality management plan” (p = 0.026), and Israel outperformed Spain in the EQc8 “quality views” credit (p = 0.066). As a result, a pairwise comparison of the three Mediterranean countries showed that each country has a unique LEED certification strategy. Knowledge of the above green building strategies will be helpful for LEED professionals.

show abstract

“…Based on the USGBC and GBIG databases, we collected the same number of LEED-EB v3 large office-type (>6435 m 2 ) projects with the same properties, as identified in LEED-EB v4 [25,26]. This design structure was used to reduce the influence of uncontrollable factors when two independent groups were to be compared [27,28]. Table 1 demonstrates that, for both versions, the differences between building sizes certified in Finland and Spain seemed to be negative.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LEED-EB Gold Projects for Office Spaces in Large Buildings Transitioning from Version 3 (v3) to 4 (v4): Similarities and Differences between Finland and Spain

Pushkar

2020

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to assess the similarities and differences between Finland and Spain in terms of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) Gold large office building-type projects transitioning from version 3 (v3) to version 4 (v4). The percentages of the average scores are used here to assess the achievements of the LEED-EB data. The natural logarithm of the odds ratio lnθ and Fisher′s exact 2 × 2 tests with a mid p-value are used to evaluate dichotomous data, while the exact Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney and Cliff′s δ effect size tests are used to evaluate ordinary data. The results for LEED-EB Gold large offices demonstrate similar certification strategies in Finland and Spain. These results may be useful to LEED-EB practitioners in Finland and Spain for facilitating the selection of appropriate certification strategies in line with identified high-performance credits for large offices.

show abstract

Evaluating LEED commercial interior (LEED-CI) projects under the LEED transition from v3 to v4: the differences between China and the US

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Always with the Best Intentions? Interrogating the Use of Sustainable Building Assessment Systems in Developing Countries: Kenya

Always with the Best Intentions? Interrogating the Use of Sustainable Building Assessment Systems in Developing Countries: Kenya

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Commercial Interior Version 4 (LEED-CI v4) Gold-Certified Office Space Projects: A Pairwise Comparative Analysis between Three Mediterranean Countries

LEED-EB Gold Projects for Office Spaces in Large Buildings Transitioning from Version 3 (v3) to 4 (v4): Similarities and Differences between Finland and Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About