A critical review of green building labeling systems : the U.S. LEED, the China GBL and the Hong Kong BEAM -- (a green war among international, national and local green building labeling systems)

The world’s first green building labeling system, the U.K. BREEAM, was announced in 1990. From 1990 to 2007, the development of global green building market was slow. One of the triggers of the formation of green market was the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which was awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC scientists, in appreciation of their contribution to the debate on Global Warming. After 2007, the global green building market increased rapidly, and especially the globalization of the U.S. LEED system. China, as a developing country, announced the fist batch of certified green building, using the national GBL system in 2008. In 2010, the GBL system started to be promoted in Hong Kong. Under the free market system, the international (the U.S. LEED), national (China GBL) and local (Hong Kong BEAM) green building labeling systems are simultaneously used in Hong Kong. Thus, a green war among the three systems emerged. From the review of the green building development and market competitions, this research assumes that technical guideline is the core competitiveness of a green building labeling system, and the main research question is “What are the differentiations among the international, national and local green building labeling systems, and how to differentiate passive design strategies from the credits in the three systems for enhancing the architect’s responsibility in green building development?” To answer this question, three sub-questions are stated and the universalizing and individualizing comparative analysis methods are selected for this research. From the universalizing comparison, it compares the principles and framework among the three systems, and discovers that the fundamental framework of the three systems is the same. However, the assessment method, procedures, weighting of each aspect, and others is different due to the different targeting market of each system. From the individualizing comparison, it established a framework for a credit-by-credit comparison. It reveals that the transferability of credits among the three systems is low. Factors that lead to the low transferability are categorized and analyzed, and find that 1) the major reason of the low transferability is the inconsistent and imprecise establishment of the detailed requirements of credits in the GBL system; 2) the other reason is the lack of environmental and well being related credits in either LEED, GBL or BEAM system; and 3) local context is not a key difference among international, national and local systems. To further enhance the involvement of architects in green building developments, the design integration need to be emphasized in three different integration modes, 1) credits can be achieved by passive, active or both strategies, 2) credits can be achieved by several passive and active strategies, 3) credits with the same intent in a credit series. This can assist the design team to select the most appropriate strategy, to combine different strategies into a comprehensive design method, and to optimize design strategies for related credits with same intent.published_or_final_versionArchitectureDoctoralDoctor of Philosoph