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, Svetlana

doi:10.3390/app10238737

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2017, Wu et al [1] noted that Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 3 (v3) was the most commonly used green building rating system worldwide. However, LEED version 4 (v4) was already being actively used in the USA, China [2], Vietnam [3], Finland, and Spain [4] between 2019 and 2020.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2020, the author of this study [4] compared the differences between Finland and Spain in terms of LEED-EB gold-certified office space projects under transition from v3 to v4. However, Pushkar's study had at least two limitations: (1) differences in the transition from v3 to v4 were assessed between Finland and Spain rather than within each country, and (2) the ranking of LEED-certified projects by high and low achievements in the "optimize energy performance" credit was not performed due to a small sample size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of “Optimize Energy Performance” Credit Achievement on the Compensation Strategy of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings Gold-Certified Office Space Projects in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain

Pushkar

2023

Buildings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) version 3 (v3) and version 4 (v4) gold-certified office space certification strategies in Spain have not yet been studied. The two purposes of this study were to evaluate (1) the impact of high or low achievements in the energy and atmosphere (EA) “optimize energy performance” credit (EAc1 for v3 and EAc8 for v4) on the compensation strategy for LEED “compensation group” credits and (2) the impact of EAc1-v3 or EAc8-v4 on the monotonic change in LEED “compensation group” credits. Data on a total of 77 LEED-EB v3 and 43 LEED-EB v4 gold-certified office space projects were collected. In the v3 group, 26 LEED-certified projects had the highest EAc1 achievements (v3 group 1), and 26 LEED-certified projects had the lowest EAc1 achievements (v3 group 2). In the v4 group, 15 LEED-certified projects had the highest EAc8 achievements (v4 group 1), and 15 LEED-certified projects had the lowest EAc8 achievements (v4 group 2). The exact Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test and Fisher’s exact 2 × 2 with Lancaster’s correction test were used to estimate the difference between groups 1 and 2. Spearman’s rank-order correlation was used to assess monotonic change in LEED credits. The results show that v3 and v4 group 1 outperformed v3 and v4 group 2 in EAc1 and EAc8 (p < 0.0001, respectively). However, v3 and v4 group 2 outperformed v3 and v4 group 1 in “renewable energy” (EAc4 for v3 and EAc6 for v4, p = 0.0039 and 0.0088, respectively) and “building commissioning” (EAc2.2 for v3, p = 0.0015; EAc3 for v4, p = 0.0560, respectively). EAc1-v3 and LEED v3 “compensation group” credits showed a moderate negative correlation (rs = −0.53 and p < 0.0001). EAc8-v4 and LEED v4 “compensation group” credits showed a strong negative correlation (rs = −0.74 and p < 0.0001). As a result, increasing the share of renewable energy and performing building commissioning in LEED-EB v3- and v4-certified projects occurred only as a compensation strategy in response to the low achievement in the “optimize energy performance” credit.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of “Optimize Energy Performance” Credit Achievement on the Compensation Strategy of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings Gold-Certified Office Space Projects in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain

Pushkar

2023

Buildings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific to LEED, such as that by Pushkar [12,13], has also compared across a single rating system. In both [12] and [13] Pushkar compared LEED certification earned under LEED version (v) 3.0 and LEED v4.0 in two different countries. In their work, they removed uncontrollable impacts (e.g., different building types, sizes) through a statistical analysis to better understand how credits were pursued under each version in each location.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Sustainability of New Construction Projects over Time by Examining the Evolution of the LEED Rating System

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1998, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program to provide a standard form of evaluation for sustainability in building design and construction. Since its inception, LEED has undergone seven significant revisions, wherein the expectations needed to achieve the desired certification level were clarified and updated. The reasons for these updates are varied and include the recognition of new technologies and materials, the application of more stringent energy standards, and the recognition of differences in building types. However, the perception within the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry is that higher certification levels are more challenging to obtain in each subsequent version of LEED. For example, projects receiving a Gold certification under LEED 2.1 may only qualify for a Silver certification under LEED 3.0. The goals of this paper are to review changes in LEED over time and to empirically test this perception. Direct comparisons of the text of the credit requirements were performed between LEED versions (v) 2.1, v2.2, and v3.0 on a credit-by-credit basis. The comparison revealed ten different categories of changes between versions. From this comparison, conversion matrices were developed to allow a project scorecard from an older version of LEED to be converted to a newer version. To address uncertainty resulting from changing the level of detail in the information submitted on project scorecards, both strict and interpretative versions of these matrices were developed. These matrices were then applied to a sample of LEED-certified building projects, drawn using a stratified random sampling procedure from the publicly available USGBC database. The strata were separated first by LEED version (e.g., v2.1, v2.2, and v3.0) and then by certification level (e.g., Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum). After converting the project scorecards from this sample, qualitative and correlational analyses were performed to test the hypothesis that LEED scores increase over time. The results show that in both strict and interpretive transformations, LEED scores show a slight to moderate increase in points over time.

show abstract

“…To compare between the LEED-CI projects certificated in China and the US, the projects were fixed to the factors, certification level, and climate conditions in these countries [16]. The similar design structure was recently used, when the rating system, version, certification level, space-type, and project size of the LEED project were fixed, while the country (culture and climate) variables were different [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credits and Project Size in the LEED-NC Version 3 (v3) and 4 (v4) Projects

Pushkar

2021

Buildings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to explore the influence of project size on the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) credits in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC) version 3 (v3) in California and version 4 (v4) in the United States (US) in office-type projects. If the relationship between the ordinal data of EA credits and project size changed monotonically, then Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used. If the relationship between the EA credits ordinal data and project size did not change monotonically, then the EA credit data were divided into below and above the median project size groups, and, as a consequence, the Cliff′s δ effect size and exact Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests were used. If the EA credits were binary or dichotomous data, then the natural logarithm of the odds ratio and Fisher’s exact 2 × 2 test with Lancaster’s mid-p-value were used. The results showed that the performance of operational energy, enhanced the refrigerant management and that the renewable energy credits in LEED-NC v3/v4 Certified, Silver, and Gold projects depended on the project size. We concluded that the LEED project size is an important variable for developing LEED-NC strategies for office-type projects.

show abstract

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

Cited by 7 publications

References 47 publications

Impact of “Optimize Energy Performance” Credit Achievement on the Compensation Strategy of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings Gold-Certified Office Space Projects in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain

Impact of “Optimize Energy Performance” Credit Achievement on the Compensation Strategy of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings Gold-Certified Office Space Projects in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain

Evaluating the Sustainability of New Construction Projects over Time by Examining the Evolution of the LEED Rating System

Relationship between Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credits and Project Size in the LEED-NC Version 3 (v3) and 4 (v4) Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About