The unwritten history of green building rating tools: A personal view from some of the 'founding fathers'

Ade, R and Rehm, M (2020) The unwritten history of green building rating tools: A personal view from some of the 'founding fathers'. Building Research & Information, 48(1), pp. 1-17. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the world’s first green building rating tool was BREEAM. However, the history of this rating tool, and the ones that followed it like LEED and Greenstar, is not well documented by the literature and stands the risk of being lost as the founding fathers retire and pass on. Through personal correspondence with key industry participants like Rob Watson, Nigel Howard and Jerry Yudelson, the authors have sought to document this, almost lost, history to enable future researchers in this space to better understand why green building rating tools have originated in the manner and form they have. The research has uncovered previously undocumented information on the history of these rating tools, including the decision-making process that created key structural elements of the tools, like categories and weightings. This history is key to gaining an understanding of why these green building rating tools operate the way they do, especially their holistic nature and fundamental 'design' and 'construction' rating basis. It also provides insight into the future of these rating tools and whether they can continue to be agents for transformational change in their current form.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: BREEAM; green building; green star; homestar; LEED; sustainable buildings
Index terms: green building, decision-making process, sustainable building, history, BREEAM accreditation, agent
Subjects: architectural and construction history, decision analysis, sustainable construction, environmental policy, practitioner, design practice
Topics: Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Design Practice, Sustainability
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here