Effectiveness of existing green rating systems towards zero waste construction Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2396, 030014 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066416 Published Online: 28 September 2021 Anil Soharu, Naveen B. P. and Arjun Sil ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN Study of hydrogen sulphide removal from heavy crude oil AIP Conference Proceedings 2396, 030010 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066602 Composite slum performance index: A methodology to make city slum free AIP Conference Proceedings 2396, 030012 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066390 Investigative approach for identification of contamination in traditional water sources of Kerala state AIP Conference Proceedings 2396, 030015 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066315 AIP Conference Proceedings 2396, 030014 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066416 © 2021 Author(s). 2396, 030014 Effectiveness of Existing Green Rating Systems towards Zero Waste Construction Anil Soharu1, a), Naveen BP1, b), Arjun Sil2 1 2 Department of Civil Engineering, Amity University Haryana, Gurgaon, India Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, India a) Corresponding author: soharu@gmail.com b) bpnaveen@ggn.amity.edu Abstract. Several rating tools have been developed to evaluate the green building compliance for any construction work. Based on the compliances of set parameters as defined by green rating systems, a building is certified as green-rated with a certain level of certification. However, even after strict compliances of rating systems a large quantum of construction waste still getting diverted to landfills. Zero waste construction is one of the most effective approaches for this problem, which focus on reducing waste through reuse and recycling across the building life cycle. In this study, we critically evaluated the efficacy of these green rating systems both for developed and developing countries towards the zero-waste approach. It was found that in most cases even if a building is rated with a top-level certification by a green rating system, then also a large quantum of waste could have been generated during its construction and even at end-of-life demolition phases. This is mainly due to the missing application of green rating systems for achieving zero waste generation. Though these green rating systems also defined mandatory check credit points those are also limited to reduce the impact of waste to a certain level only. To overcome this problem, these rating systems must have a set of mandatory credit points leading to zero-waste construction, reduction, reuse and recycle of waste. This study will assist stakeholders in right selection of rating tool and will also lay the path for green rating agencies to refine their credit rating towards zero waste construction. Keywords: Green rating systems; Sustainability; Zero waste construction INTRODUCTION Construction is one of the key contributors to the growth of gross domestic product for any country, however, it also led to critical environmental issues due to continuous consumption of raw materials, water and energy resources [1]. To have a checkpoint and to optimize the potential environmental problem which may arise due to the construction of a new building, roads, bridges, industries, real-estate different green rating tools has been developed across all over the globe based on local and geographical conditions [2]. These green rating tools have predefined set parameters, which evaluate any building throughout its life cycle from the initial planning phase to the end-of-life demolition phase [3]. Each rating system has its unique credit point system with more weightage to certain issues in comparison to other issues which may be mainly due to geographic influence of their origin countries or their primary objective towards environment or economy or social enhancement [4]. Thus, a building can be rated very high with one type of green rating system however it may be rated less on another type of rating system [5], [6]. However, even after strict compliances of green rating systems a large quantum of construction waste still getting diverted to landfills. Zero waste construction is one of the most effective approaches for this problem, which focus on reducing waste through reuse and recycling across the building life cycle. Zero waste concept work with the primary objective of ensuring that all the material which is getting used in building construction must remain in its primary state only or can be reused for another process either by directly reusing or by taking it into a recycling process so that no material should be discarded and sent to landfill sites [7]. International Conference on Energy and Environment (ICEE 2021) AIP Conf. Proc. 2396, 030014-1–030014-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066416 Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4130-9/$30.00 030014-1 AN OVERVIEW OF GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS With continuous need and focus on ensuring healthy built environments for our future generations, green rating systems are getting very popular all across the globe [8]. Most of the countries have developed their rating systems based on their social, economic and demographical conditions as indicated in table 1 [9], [10], [11] [12]. TABLE 1. Green rating assessment tools used in different developing and developed countries. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Country Developed Country Assessment Tools Australia Canada France Germany Italy Japan New Zealand Singapore Spain Switzerland United States UK UAE Turkey Green Star Green Globes, LEED Canada HQE DGNB Protocollo Itaca CASBEE Green Star NZ Green Mark VERDE Minergie LEED BREEAM Estidama CEDBİK Developing Country Assessment Tools No Country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Brazil China India Indonesia Jordan Malaysia Mexico Pakistan Philippines Qatar South Africa Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam AQUA and LEED Brazil GBAS, Three Star IGBC and GRIHA Green Building Council Indonesia Jordan Green Building Council GBI Malaysia LEED Mexico Pakistan Green Building Council PHILGBC Qatar Sustainability Assessment Green Star SA GREENSL TREES LOTUS Rating Tools In this study, we critically evaluated the efficacy of 6 different green rating systems. 3nos from developed countries naming Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) from the United Kingdom established in the Year 1990, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) from the United States established in the Year 1994 and German Sustainable Building Certificate (DGNB – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V.) from Germany established in the Year 2007. Another 3nos from developing naming Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) established in the Year 2001 and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment system (GRIHA) established in the Year 2007 from India and Philippine Green Building Council (PHILGBC) from the Philippines established in the Year 2007 [13]. COMPARISON OF GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS Set of credit rating parameters based on which raking of any building is provided by green rating systems has been complied in the study to find their key focus areas as per Table 2 [14-19]. These credit-rating parameters vary from one rating system. For developed countries rating system, Figure 1 [14] explicit that BREEAM credit rating is highly focused on the social and economic well-being of a building, LEED key focus areas are Energy, atmosphere and indoor environmental quality as per Figure 2 [15] and Sociocultural, functional, technical and process quality are key parameters for DGNB as reflected in Figure 3 [16]. In the case of developing countries, as per Figure 4 [17], IGBC is highly focused on energy efficiency, water conversation, building material, and resources to be used, GRIHA also tends towards energy, water, and Sustainable Building Materials as per Figure 5 [18], whereas PHIlGBC key credit parameters are the use of land and ecology and water efficiency as reflected in Figure 6 [19]. 030014-2 TABLE 2. Credit parameters for green rating systems Parameters Governance Social Resources Ecology Transport Process Water Energy Environmental Innovation Local Economic Technical Performance Total Transport and movement BREEAM 9% 43% 22% 13% 14% LEED DGNB IGBC 21% 12% 9% 15% 1% 10% 30% 15% 5% 4% 16% 19% 11% 24% PHILGBC 6% 19% 18% 28% 12% 7% 16% 16% 19% 12% 4% 100% 8% 100% 16% 18% 14% 20% 14% 16% 18% 8% 21% 100% Governance 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Land use and ecology 100% 100% Integrative Process 30% Regional Priority Social and economic wellbeing 10% Indoor Environment al Quality Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Materials and Resources Energy and Atmosphere FIGURE 2. LEED Credit Category Sustainable Architecture and Design 30% Economic quality Sociocultural and functional quality Process quality Location and Transportatio n 0% Resources and energy Environment al quality 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 20% 100% Innovation FIGURE 1. BREEAM Credit Category Site quality GRIHA Innovation and Development 20% 10% 0% Indoor Environment al Quality Water Conservation Building Materials and Resources Technical quality FIGURE 3. DGNB Credit Category Site Selection and Planning Energy Efficiency FIGURE 4. IGBC Credit Category 030014-3 Site Planning 20% Innovation 15% Energy Efficiency and… 20 Construction Management Emissions 10% Performance Monitoring & Validation Energy 5% 10 0% SocioEconomic Strategies Occupant comfort and Well-being Solid Waste Management Water Efficiency and… 15 Indoor Environment Quality Waste Management 5 0 Transportatio n Water Sustainable Building Materials Management Green Materials FIGURE 5. GIRHA Credit Category Use of Land and Ecology FIGURE 6. PHILGBC Credit Category As per Table 3, the certification level of all rating systems has been summarized [20]. In most of the rating systems, a building can qualify for the minimum level certification even by scoring 50% credit points. Further, in the case of GRIHA building can be awarded a 1 Star rating, just by scoring 25% credit points. TABLE 3. Level of Certifications Certification Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 4th Level 5th Level Total credit % required for certification and levels BREEAM 85 Outstanding 70 Excellent 55 Very Good 45 Good 30 Pass LEED 80 Platinum 60 Gold 50 Silver 40 Certified DGNB 80 Platinum 65 Gold 50 Silver 35 Bronze IGBC 90 Super Platinum 80 Platinum 70 Gold 60 Silver 50 Certified GRIHA 86 5 – Star 71 4 - Star 56 3 - Star 41 2 - Star 25 1 - Star PHILGBC 91 5 – Star 81 4 – Star 71 3 – Star 61 2 – Star 51 1 – Star AN OVERVIEW OF ZERO WASTE CONSTRUCTION Construction activity leads to a large quantum of waste generation during its construction phase. Further, if a building not planned and designed with a perspective of the end-of-life usage, it may lead to generate an enormous volume of waste after completion of its serviceable life span. At the end life of the building, in general, it’s getting demolished and materials in demolition waste are commonly not reused but discarded in a landfill [21]. In cases, when materials are recycled then also it doesn’t resolve the complete problem as materials are down-cycled due to which the same material can’t be reused in their original form which leads to the reduction of material usability ultimately generate waste or usage of new resources. For new uses, this generates a requirement for new materials to be extracted and produced for our limited resources on earth, which must be preserved to the maximum extend. Thus buildings must be designed for proper end of life solutions that allow for proper re-use and recycling for all of its components [22], [23]. The term “zero waste” was intimately introduced by Paul Palmer in 1973 [24]. It follows the principle to avoid and eliminate all kinds of material wastage in any process either by safeguarding or by retrieval of material after usage during the process [25]. Zero waste is a philosophy that ensures the restructure of product life cycles so that all used material can be reused [26]. For Zero waste construction designing of any building, every construction and demolition activity is evaluated as per steps listed in FIGURE 7. The main focus of the zero-waste design is the reduction and reuse of material whereas recycling and recovery of materials must be the last step before disposal [27], [28], [29]. 030014-4 Avoid Reuse Reduce Recover Recycle Dispose Treat FIGURE 7. Zero Waste Construction Process REVIEW OF GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM TOWARDS ZERO WASTE CONSTRUCTION An in-depth review of credit rating parameters was done to evaluate individual credit points of all the rating systems to check their contribution towards the achievement of zero waste construction. As per [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], it was found that the weightage of credits points towards waste reduction is varying from 12% to 24%. TABLE 4. Green Rating Systems credit points for top and passing certification and credit point’s weightage towards waste reduction Achievable Credits Passing Credits without Top Rating Green Rating weightage for Certification Total Credits Waste System Credits waste reduction Credits Reduction Breeam 100% 85% 30% 20% 81% LEED 100% 80% 40% 12% 88% DGNB 100% 80% 35% 24% 76% IGBC 100% 90% 50% 18% 82% GRIHA 100% 86% 25% 27% 73% PHILGBC 100% 91% 51% 15% 85% Based on the comparison of rating systems, it was noticed that a building can achieve a high level of certification points, even if no credit points have been achieved by building towards was reduction as shown in Figure 8. In case of LEED, top certification level with a Platinum rating can be achieved by a building, even if 12% of credit points towards waste reduction have not been achieved. 100% 85% 80% 81% 80% 80% 88% 76% 60% 40% 40% 30% 90% 86% 85% 82% 50% 91% 73% 51% 35% 100% 80% 60% 40% 25% 20% 20% 0% 0% Breeam LEED DGNB IGBC GRIHA Achievable Credits without Waste Reduction Total Credits Top Rating Certification Passing Certification Credits PHILGBC FIGURE 8. Green Rating Systems achievable credits without any waste reduction However, all green rating systems defined mandatory check credits which need to be achieved even for passing the lowest level of certification. These checkpoints control the effectiveness of credit points as indicated in Table 5 [14-19]. 030014-5 TABLE 5. Mandatory check credits for waste reduction BREEAM LEED DGNB Construction Pollution Segregation of Waste Life cycle assessment Sustainable resource Ecology strategy IGBC Segregation of Waste Flexibility Waste Planning Recovery and recycling Design planning Construction process GRIHA Low-impact design Recovery and recycling Low impact materials Avoided landfill PHILGBC Segregation of Waste Materials Recovery Green Procurement DISCUSSION Green rating systems emphasise sustainable building construction capturing all integrated parameters towards the environment, social, and economic. However, to overcome our focused problem of continually increasing landfill sites, current rate systems are not providing a holistic approach to ensure zero waste going towards landfills. Even mandatory check credit points defined by green rating systems are also limited to reduce the impact of waste to a certain level only. Further, the limitation of green rating systems which facility award of high-level certification to any building just be complying with bare minimum fulfilment of mandatory check credits for waste reduction also relaxes the construction agencies, investors and builders to work towards a state of zero waste reduction. To overcome this problem, the following points must be incorporated into currently available rating systems: x Set of mandatory credit points leading to zero waste construction. x Credit point for reduction of waste. x Credit point for reuse of waste. x Credit point for the recycling of waste. CONCLUSION Globally, construction activities account for a major portion of waste which lead to pollution and environmental issues. Zero waste is one of the most visionary approaches to overcome waste problems using the fundamental principles of avoiding, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, and treat. This study suggests that the credit parameter of the zero-waste principle must be incorporated in the rating system. Based on this study, simple but revolutionary initiatives towards zero waste principles listed below must be marked as mandatory credit points for any green building certification. x Eco-design x Use of Building Information Modelling, Revit, Micro station, Archi CAD, Tekla x Life cycle assessment x Circular economy x Closed-loop supply chain management x Product stewardship x Environmental Management System x Industrial Symbiosis x Innovative technology x Prefabrication x Demountability x Segregation of Waste x Training on waste management The zero-waste concept provided a cost-effective substitute to waste systems in which the requirement of raw material for building construction will be constantly getting replenished from the existing used products either in its existing state or by recycling process. 030014-6 REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. L. Rouach, “A comparison of green building certifications in europe: How does it apply to practice in luxembourg,” in LuxReal FORUM Sustainability (2013). G. Ding, “Sustainable construction - The role of environmental assessment tools,” Journal of Environmental Management 86, 451-464 (2007). R. Reed, A. Bilos, S. Wilkinson, and K. W. Schulte, “International Comparison of Sustainable Rating Tools,” Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 1, 1–22 (2009). J. S. Andrew, “Sourcebook for Sustainable Design A Guide to Environmentally Responsible Building Materials and Processes,” Boston Society of Architects, (1983). C. Poveda, M. Lipsett, “A review of sustainability assessment and sustainability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools,” Journal of Sustainable Development 4, 36–55 (2011). U. Berardi, “Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings,” Sustainable Development 20, 411-24 (2011). Building and Construction Authority, [Online]. Available: http://www.bca.gov.sg. [Accessed 30 06 2020]. A. Z. Hamedani, F. Huber, “A comparative study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM certificate systems in urban sustainability,” The sustainable city VII: Urban regeneration and sustainability 1, 1121-1132 (2012). B. K. Nguyena, H. Altan, “Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems,” International Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities 21, 376-386 (2011). S. Barlow, Guide to BREEAM (RIBA Publishing, 2011). R. Reed, A. Bilos, S. Wilkinson, and K. Schulte, “A Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools – an update,” in The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, 1, 16–19 (2011). G. Vyas, N. Jha, “Comparative Study of Rating Systems for Green Building in Developing and Developed Countries,” Advancing Civil, Architectural and Construction Engineering & Management 3, 1-6, 2012. BREEAM, [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/communitiesmanual/content/00_introduction/05_scoring_and_rating_proposals.htm# category_aims. [Accessed 03 07 2020]. LEED, [Online]. Available: https://www.usgbc.org/credits?Version=%22v4.1%22&Rating+System=%22New+Construction%22. [Accessed 03 07 2020]. DGNB, [Online]. Available: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/buildings/new-construction/criteria/. [Accessed 04 07 2020]. IGBC, [Online]. Available: https://igbc.in/igbc/html_pdfs/abridged/IGBC%20Green%20New%20Buildings%20Rating%20System%20(Ve rsion%203.0).pdf. [Accessed 03 07 2020]. GRIHA, [Online]. Available: https://www.grihaindia.org/griha-rating. [Accessed 04 07 2020]. PHILGBC, [Online]. Available: http://docs.berdeonline.org/userguide/v2.0.0/berde-nc/#scoring-and-rating. [Accessed 05 07 2020]. BREEAM Credits, “BREEAM Credits,” [Online]. Available: https://www.breeam.com/communitiesmanual/content/00_introduction/05_scoring_and_rating_proposals.htm. [Accessed 11 07 2020]. D. F. Laefer, D. F. Manke, “Building Reuse Assessment for Sustainable Urban Reconstruction,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 134, 217-227 (2008). Palmer, P, “Zero Waste Institute,” [Online]. Available: https://zerowasteinstitute.org/?page_id=202. [Accessed 04 07 2020]. S. H. Baba, B. M. Skinder, and A. B. Muzaffar, “Zero Waste: A Sustainable Approach for Waste Management,” in Innovative Waste Management Technologies for Sustainable Development, Kashmir, IGI Global, 134-155 (2020). P. Palmer, “The Faux Zero Waste Movement Is Spreading,” California, (1974). 030014-7 24. A. U. Zaman, S. Lehmann, “Challenges and Opportunities in Transforming a City into a 'Zero Waste City',” Challenges 2, 73-93, 2011. 25. J. Winter, “A world without waste,” 11 March 2007. [Online]. Available: http://archive.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/11/a_world_without_waste/. [Accessed 17 07 2020]. 26. P. Connett, The Zero Waste Solution, Washington (Chelsea Green Publishing, 1998). 27. W. McDonough, M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (North Point Press, 2002). 28. K. Liyanage, A. Waidyasekara, and H. Mallawarachchi, “Enabling Zero Waste Concept In The Construction Industry: A,” in The 7th World Construction Symposium 2018: Built Asset Sustainability: Rethinking Design, Construction and Operations, Colombo, (2018). 030014-8