Methodology for Developing Criteria weights for Green Building Rating Tool For Gujarat State

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 03 Issue: 02 | Feb-2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2016, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 4.45 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 843
Methodology for Developing Criteria weights for Green Building Rating
Tool For Gujarat State
Abhishek Rana1, Dr. Rajiv Bhatt2
1Student, Construction Engineering and management, Birla Vishwakarma Mahavidhyalaya, Vallabh Vidhyanagar
2Associate professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, A.D. Patel Institute of technology, New Vallabh Vidhyanagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Green buildings play a vital role in the
conservation of the environment. However, it has been found
that there are many buildings which possess a minimum
impact on the environment, yet fail to get certified under the
various criteria set by the green building rating tool. Hence
there is a need for modified Green Building Rating tool. This
research paper presents a methodology on how the weights of
the criteria can be determined using AHP technique. These
weights shall further be utilized for the development of points
for green building rating tool.
Key Words: Green building, GRIHA, LEED, green building
rating tools, AHP.
1.INTRODUCTION
A green building is an environmentally sustainable
building, designed, constructed and operated to minimize
the total environmental impacts.To measure the impact of
the building on the environment, rating tools are available.
The evaluators evaluate the building with the help of these
rating tools and rate the building accordingly. In India, most
commonly used rating tools are GRIHA and LEED India.
Here we shall discuss briefly about the two main rating
tools used in India. They are
i. GRIHA
ii. LEED India
iii. SB Tool
i. GRIHA
Most of the internationally devised rating systems have
been tailored to suit the building industry of the country
where they were developed. TERI, being deeply committed
to every aspect of sustainable development, took upon itself
the responsibility of acting as a driving force to popularize
green buildings by developing a tool for measuring and
rating a building’s environmental performanceinthecontext
of India’s varied climate and building practices. This tool, by
its qualitative and quantitativeassessmentcriteria,wouldbe
able to ‘rate’ a building on the degree of its ‘greenness’. The
rating shall evaluate the environmental performance of a
building holistically over its entire life cycle, thereby
providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a ‘green
building’. The rating system, based on accepted energy and
environmental principles, seeks to strike a balance between
the established practices and emerging concepts, both
national and international. The guidelines/criteria appraisal
may be revised every three years to take into account the
latest scientific developments during this period. On a
broader scale, this system, along with the activities and
processes that lead up to it, will benefit the community at
large with the improvement in the environment by reducing
GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, improving energy
security, and reducing the stress on natural resources.
The rating applies to new building stock – commercial,
institutional, and residential – of varied functions. Endorsed
by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government
of India as of November 1 2007, GRIHA is a five star rating
system for green buildings which emphasizes on passive
solar techniques for optimizing indoor visual and thermal
comfort. In order to address energy efficiency, GRIHA
encourages optimization of building design to reduce
conventional energy demand and further optimize energy
performance of the building within specified comfort limits.
A building is assessed on its predicted performance over its
entire life cycle from inception through operation.
GRIHA was developed as an indigenous building rating
system, particularly to address and assess non-air
conditioned or partiallyairconditionedbuildings.GRIHA has
been developed to rate commercial, institutional and
residential buildings in India emphasizing national
environmental concerns, regional climatic conditions, and
indigenous solutions.
GRIHA stresses passive solar techniques for optimizing
visual and thermal comfort indoors, and encourages the use
of refrigeration-based and energy-demanding air
conditioning systems only in cases of extreme thermal
discomfort.
The GRIHA rating tool consists of 34 various criteria
divided under 7 different categories, such as sustainablesite
planning, healthandwell beingduringconstruction,material
management and so on.
GRIHA integrates all relevant Indian codes and
standards for buildings and acts as a tool to facilitate
implementation of the same.
ii. LEED India

Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design(LEED)
was developed and piloted in the US in 1998 as a consensus-
based building rating system based on the use of existing
building technology.
The rating system addresses specific environmental
building related impacts using a whole building
environmental performance approach. The Indian Green
Building Council has adapted LEEDsystemandhaslaunched
LEED India version for rating of new construction. In
addition, Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)haslaunched
several other products for rating of different typologies of
buildings including homes, factories, among others. The
following are key components of the LEED system.
1. Sustainable sites (construction related pollution
prevention, site development impacts,
transportation alternatives, storm water
management, heat island effect, and light pollution)
2. Water efficiency (landscaping water use reduction,
indoor water use reduction, and waste water
management strategies)
3. Energy and atmosphere (commissioning, whole
building energy performance optimization,
refrigerantmanagement, renewableenergyuse,and
measurement and verification)
4. Materials and resources (recycling collection
locations, building reuse, construction waste
management, and the purchase of regionally
manufactured materials, materials with recycled
content, rapidly renewable materials, salvaged
materials, and FSC certified wood products)
5. Indoor environmental quality (environmental
tobacco smoke control, outdoor air delivery
monitoring, increased ventilation, construction
indoor air quality, use low emitting materials,
source control, and controllability of thermal and
lighting systems)
6. Innovation and design process (LEED accredited
professional, and innovative strategies for
sustainable design).
iii. SB Tool
The SB method is a generic framework for rating the
sustainable performance of the buildings and projects. It
may also be thought of as a toolkit that assists local
organizations to develop SB Tool rating systems. The SB
Method can be used by authorized third parties to establish
adapted SB Tool version as rating systems to suit their own
region and building types.
It can also be used by owners and managers of large
building portfolios to express in a very detailed way their
own sustainability requirements to their internal staff or as
briefing material for competitors. The system covers a wide
range of sustainable building issues, not just green building
concers, but the scope of the system can be modified tobe as
narrow or as broad as desired, ranging from 100+ criteria to
half a dozen.
SB Method takes into account region-specific and site-
specific context factors, and these are used to switch off or
reduce certain weights, as well as provide background
information for all parties.
1.1 Need of study
Over the process of ratingvariousprojectsregisteredfor
GRIHA rating, ADaRSH (GRIHA secretariat) carried out a
realistic assessment of applicability of GRIHA criteria for
various projects. After carrying out this exercise it was
recognized that some criteria in the current GRIHA
framework may not apply to a particular project due to
technical constraints that are specific to the particular
project (for example the criteria related to tree preservation
and compensatory forestation may not apply to a site that is
devoid of trees). It was also recognized that the relative
weighting of points within the current framework needs to
be reassessed so that green interventions in a project are
given points based on its relative advantagetoa project.This
resulted in modificationstotheGRIHAdocumentwhichhave
been mentioned below. Criteria have been classified as
‘Applicable/Selectively-Applicable’. Certain mandatory
clauses have been modified/removed based on the
applicability /selective-applicability of the criterion.
The issue with the criteria of these rating tools is that
the criteria which are suitable for a particular region may
not be suitable for another region with different
climatic,geometric and topographical conditions. For
example, the criteria suitable for Southern India may not be
suitable for northern India because the climatic conditions
are different.. So the rating tools need to be enhanced forthe
particular region, as per the geometric and climatic
conditions of that particular region or state. Considering the
conditions of the Gujarat state, a separate green building
rating tool needs to be developed.
1.2 Scope of study
This researcharticle providesa systematicmethodology
for the development of the criteria weights for the modified
green building rating tool for the Gujarat state.
The construction industry will be benefited by using
these weights while developing Green Building Rating Tool.
2. METHODOLOGY
To generate the weights, first the criteria have to bedecided.
In order to do that, rating tools has to be studied and then,
the criteria which are suitable for the Gujarat state has to be
short listed and then needs to be verified from the

accredited experts of the respective rating tools. Once
criteria have been verified, comparison between these
criteria has to be made to generate weights according to the
relative importance. In order to do that, we shall the use the
AHP(Analytic Heirarchy Process) technique to make
comparison between the criteria.
A questioner shall be issued totherespective expertsfor
the comparison and generating relative importance of the
criteria. After collecting the data, using the AHP technique,
we can generate the weights for the criteria.
3. CRITERIA FRAMEWORK
After studying the rating tools, a criteria framework has
to be prepared by selecting the criteria which are most
suitable and favorable for the Gujarat state.
41 criteria have been selected under 7 different
categories, after the studying the rating tools.
The following table number 1 shows a comparative
study of the three rating tools under each column. Thisgives
us a brief idea about the criteria covered under each ofthese
rating tools. It also helps us to know which criteria has been
missed out under a particular rating tool.
Table 1: List of criteria
Serial
number
Criterion
Number
Details Source
of
criterion
Group A - Sustainable site planning (SSP)
1 A1 Site selection GRIHA
2 A2 Preserve and protect the landscape during
construction/compensatory depository
forestation.
GRIHA
3 A3 Soil conservation GRIHA
4 A4 Design to include existing site features GRIHA
5 A5 Reduce hard paving on site GRIHA
6 A6 Enhance outdoor lighting system efficiency GRIHA
7 A7 Plan utilities efficiently and optimize on-site
circulation efficiency
GRIHA
8 A8 Storm water design LEED
Group B- Health and well-being (HW) during construction
9 B1 Provide, at least, minimum level of
sanitation/safety facilities for construction
workers
GRIHA
10 B2 Reduce air pollution during construction GRIHA

Group C - Material Management
11 C1 Utilization of fly-ash in building structure GRIHA
12 C2 Reduce volume, weight and time of
construction by adopting efficient
technology, for example pre-cast systems,
ready-mix concrete and so on
GRIHA
13 C3 Use low- energy materials in interiors GRIHA
14 C4 Renewable energy based hot-water system GRIHA
15 C5 Use of low VOC paints/adhesives/sealants GRIHA
16 C6 Materials Reuse LEED
17 C7 Regional Materials LEED
18 C8 Rapidly Renewable Materials LEED
Group D – Water
19 D1 Reduce landscape water requirement GRIHA
20 D2 Reduce building water use GRIHA
21 D3 Efficient water use during construction GRIHA
22 D4 Waste water treatment GRIHA
23 D5 Water recycle and reuse (including
rainwater)
GRIHA
24 D6 Ensure water quality GRIHA
25 D7 Water use reduction LEED
Group E – Energy
26 E1 Optimize building design to reduce
conventional energy demand
GRIHA
27 E2 Optimize energy performance of building
within specified comfort limits
GRIHA
28 E3 Renewable energy utilization GRIHA

29 E4 Energy audit and validation GIRHA
Group F – Health and well-being (HW) post construction
30 F1 Minimize ozone depleting substances GRIHA
31 F2 Acceptable indoor and outdoor noise levels GRIHA
32 F3 Tobacco and smoke control GRIHA
33 F4 Universal accessibility GRIHA
34 F5 Operations and maintenance protocol for
electrical and mechanical equipment
GRIHA
35 F6 Thermal comfort LEED
36 F7 Daylight and views LEED
Group G – Waste Management
37 G1 Reduction in waste during construction GRIHA
38 G2 Efficient waste segregation GRIHA
39 G3 Storage and disposal of waste GRIHA
40 G4 Resource recovery from waste GRIHA
41 G5 Construction waste management LEED
4. INTRODUCTION TO AHP
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), since its invention,
has been a tool at the hands of decision makers and
researchers; and it is one of the most widely used multiple
criteria decision-makingtools.Manyoutstanding workshave
been published based on AHP: they include applications of
AHP in different fields such as planning, selecting a best
alternative, resource allocations, resolving conflict,
optimization, etc., and numerical extensions of AHP.
The speciality of AHP is its flexibility to be integrated
with different techniques like Linear Programming, Quality
Function Deployment, Fuzzy Logic, etc. This
enables the user to extract benefits from all the combined
methods, and hence, achieve the desiredgoal ina better way.
Analytic Hierarchy Process is a multiple criteria
decision-making tool. This is an Eigen value approach to the
pair-wise comparisons. It also provides a methodology to
calibrate the numeric scale for the measurement of
quantitative as well as qualitative performances. The scale
ranges from 1/9 for least valued than, to 1 for equal,andto9
for absolutely more important than covering the entire
spectrum of the comparison. Some key and basic steps
involved in this methodology are:
1. State the problem.
2. Broaden the objectives of the problem or consider
all actors, objectives and its outcome.
3. Identify the criteria that influence the behavior.
4. Structure the problem in a hierarchy of different
levels constituting goal, criteria, sub-criteria and
alternatives.
5. Compare each element in the corresponding level
and calibrate them on the numerical scale. This
requires n(n-1)/2 comparisons, where n is the
number of elements with the considerations that
diagonal elements are equal or 1 and the other

elements will simply be the reciprocals of the
earlier comparisons.
6. Perform calculations to find the maximum Eigen
value, consistency index CI, consistency ratio CR,
and normalized valuesfor eachcriteria/alternative.
7. If the maximum Eigen value, CI, and CR are
satisfactory then decision is taken based on the
normalized values; else the procedure is repeated
till these values lie in a desired range.
AHP helps to incorporate a group consensus.
Generally this consists of a questionnaire for comparison
of each element and geometric mean to arrive at a final
solution. The hierarchy method used in AHP has various
advantages.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
A survey questionnaire has to be developed based on
AHP method. This step of the methodology requires the
criteria identified to be weighted against one another. In an
AHP model, researchers can assume that although there
might be multiple criteria when making a decision, not all
the criteria may have the same impact on the final decision.
It is then the task in this step to determine the criteria
weights as perceived by the respondents.
A comparison between the two criteria has to be made
over a scale on 1 to 9. This scale is known as Saaty scale.
The following table number 2 shows what the score on
the saaty scale mean. By studying the table, the expert
respondent can mark the relativeimportanceofthecategory
and its criteria.
Table 2: The comparison scale
An example is shown below to give a clear understanding
of the comparative method of the criteria.
Sustainable site planning Health and well being during construction
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Similarly a comparison hastobemadeofthesubcriteria.
Site selection Preserve and protect landscape during construction
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Like wise the questionnaire shall contain a comparison
between all the 7 main categories and then comparison
between the subcriteria shall aslo be made on saaty scale to
determine their relative importanceonthesaatyscaleof1-9.
After getting the responses from the experts, matrices
shall be generated and the weights of each criteria, based on
the relative importance, could be generated. These weights
shall be utilized for the development of score points for the
Green Building Rating Tool for Gujarat.
6. CONCLUSION
This article states the need for the modified Green
Building Rating Tool for the Gujarat, with clear, logical
reasons that different regions or different states need
different criteria for the green building rating tool as per
their geographic and climatic conditions.
Further, this research article provides a systematic
methodology for the generationofthecriteria fortheGujarat
state and then the procedure for the development of the
criteria weights based on the responsesoftheexperts.These
weights can be utilized for the development of Green
Buildign Rating Tool for Gujarat. AHP techniqueissuggested
for weight development.
References
[1] Binh K. Nguyen, Hasim Altan , “Comparative review
of five sustainable rating systems”, 2011 International
Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities.
[2] Choongwan Koo, Taehoon Hong, “Developmentofa
dynamic operational rating system in energy
performance certificates for existing buildings:
Geostatistical approach and data-mining technique”,
Value Meaning Importance
1 Equal
2 Between Equal to moderate
3 Moderate
4 Between Moderate to strong
5 Strong
6 Between Strong to Very strong
7 Very strong
8 Between Very strong to
Extreme
9 Extreme

Applied Energy 154 (2015) 254–270, Accepted 3 May
2015 Available online 19 May 2015
[3] ChoongwanKoo,TaehoonHong n,
MinhyunLee,HyoSeonPark,“Developmentofanewenergy
efficiency rating system for existing residential
buildings”,EnergyPolicy68(2014)218–231,30December
2013.
[4] Dane Miller, “The contribution of structural design
to green building ratingsystems: An industry perspective
and comparison of life cycle energyconsiderations”
Sustainable Cities and Society, Available online 25
February 2015
[5] Devarshi Tathagat, “ Role of Green Buildings in
Sustainable Construction- Need, Challenges and Scope in
the Indian Scenario”, IOSR Journal ofMechanical andCivil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN:
2320-334X, Volume 12, Issue 2 Ver. II (Mar - Apr. 2015),
PP 01-09
[6] F. Asdrubali, G. Baldinelli*,F.Bianchi,S.Sambuco,“A
comparison between environmental sustainabilityrating
systems LEED and ITACA for residential buildings” ,
Building and Environment 86 (2015)98e108,Accepted3
January 2015 Available online 10 January 2015 –
[7] Gregor P. Henze , Gregory S. Pavlak , Anthony R.
Florita , Robert H. Dodier, Adam I. Hirsch, “An energy
signal tool for decision support in building energy
systems”, Applied Energy 138 (2015) 51–70, Accepted 6
October 2014 Available online 9 November 2014
[8] Hadas Gabay, Isaac A. Meir, Moshe Schwartz, Elia
Werzberger, “Cost-benefit analysisofgreenbuildings:An
Israeli officebuildings case study”, Energy and Buildings
76 (2014)558–564,Accepted13February2014Available
online 21 February 2014
[9] Hikmat H. Ali , Saba F. Al Nsairat, “Developing a
green building assessmenttool fordevelopingcountries –
Case of Jordan” Building and Environment 44 (2009)
1053–1064, Received 9 February 2008 Received in
revised form 25 July 2008 Accepted 25 July 2008
[10] John H. Scofield , “Efficacy of LEED-certification in
reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emission for large New York Cityoffice buildings”,Energy
and Buildings 67 (2013) 517–524, Accepted 18 August
2013.

Methodology for Developing Criteria weights for Green Building Rating Tool For Gujarat State

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Methodology for Developing Criteria weights for Green Building Rating Tool For Gujarat State (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Methodology for Developing Criteria weights for Green Building Rating Tool For Gujarat State