Incomplete sustainability checklist highlighting the gaps in building assessments.

Decoding Green Buildings: Are Sustainable Building Assessment Systems Truly Effective?

Soraya Malik in Climate & Environment September 2025 • 4 min read.

"A critical look at sustainable building assessment systems reveals gaps in coverage and a lack of consensus, highlighting the need for better evaluation methods."

In an era defined by climate concerns and environmental awareness, the concept of sustainable buildings has surged to the forefront of the construction and design industries. Governments, organizations, and consumers alike are increasingly seeking methods to evaluate and enhance the sustainability of buildings, leading to the proliferation of sustainable building (SB) assessment systems.

These systems, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), and Green Star, serve as frameworks for assessing a building's environmental impact, resource efficiency, and overall contribution to sustainability. Yet, as these assessment systems gain traction, critical questions arise about their effectiveness, consistency, and comprehensiveness.

A new study by Jamal Al-Qawasmi (2018) casts a critical eye on the usage of indicators and the attributes of sustainability they measure in 11 renowned sustainable building assessment systems from various regions of the world. The study reveals that although each SB assessment system has been developed for the specific region, many of these systems are currently used to assess SB in various countries and regions across the globe. This article aims to explore Al-Qawasmi's research, shedding light on the gaps, inconsistencies, and potential pitfalls in current SB assessment practices while offering insights into how these systems can be improved to more accurately reflect building sustainability.

What Key Indicators Are Being Overlooked in Sustainable Building Assessments?

Incomplete sustainability checklist highlighting the gaps in building assessments.

One of the key findings of Al-Qawasmi's research is the significant variation in coverage among different SB assessment systems. This variation extends not only to the type and optimal number of indicators used but also to the depth and breadth of coverage of various SB attributes. The study reveals a lack of consensus on which sustainability attributes should be prioritized and how they should be measured, leading to inconsistencies in assessment outcomes.

To assess the consistency and coverage of SB assessment systems, Al-Qawasmi developed a "Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI)". Using CLOSBI as a base-case, the study examined the usage of indicators in 11 different SB assessment systems and to what extent these systems are consistent in their coverage of sustainability attributes.

Environmental impact: Energy Efficiency, Air pollution, waste management, and water consumption.
Social Factors: Indoor Environmental Quality, Accessibility, Health and Wellbeing and spatial quality.
Economic Aspects: Life cycle costs, capital cost and operational costs.

The lack of focus on certain core dimensions of sustainability such as economic aspect is worrisome. While many systems put considerable emphasis on social aspect and environmental protection such as efficient waste management, economic factors need considerations. To enable transparency and reliability a system must take an multidimensional approach.

Moving Towards More Effective Sustainability Assessments

The findings of Al-Qawasmi's research underscore the need for a more standardized and comprehensive approach to sustainable building assessment. To ensure that SB assessment systems accurately reflect a building's sustainability, it is crucial to address the gaps in coverage, resolve inconsistencies in indicator usage, and prioritize a holistic, multi-dimensional approach that considers environmental, social, and economic factors.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What are the primary sustainable building assessment systems discussed, and what is their main purpose?

The article discusses several sustainable building (SB) assessment systems, including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), and Green Star. These systems serve as frameworks for evaluating a building's environmental impact, resource efficiency, and overall contribution to sustainability, aiming to provide a standardized way to measure and improve building performance in these areas.

What are the key dimensions of sustainability that should be considered in SB assessment, and which are often overlooked?

SB assessments should consider environmental impact, social factors, and economic aspects. Environmental impact includes Energy Efficiency, Air pollution, waste management, and water consumption. Social Factors include Indoor Environmental Quality, Accessibility, Health and Wellbeing and spatial quality. Economic Aspects include Life cycle costs, capital cost and operational costs. The research highlights that economic aspects are often overlooked, with many systems primarily focusing on environmental and social factors, highlighting a need for a more balanced approach.

How did Al-Qawasmi's research contribute to understanding the effectiveness of SB assessment systems?

Jamal Al-Qawasmi's research provided a critical assessment of 11 SB assessment systems, revealing gaps in coverage, inconsistencies in indicator usage, and a lack of consensus on which sustainability attributes to prioritize. The research, using the Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI), showed variations in the type, number, and depth of indicators used across different systems. This helps highlight the need for standardization and a more comprehensive approach to ensure accurate sustainability assessments.

What are the implications of the variations in indicator coverage among different SB assessment systems, like LEED or BREEAM?

The variations in indicator coverage, as found in systems like LEED and BREEAM, lead to inconsistencies in assessment outcomes. Different systems may prioritize different aspects of sustainability, potentially leading to different ratings for the same building. This lack of consistency makes it challenging to compare buildings across different systems and undermines the reliability of these assessments in accurately reflecting a building's true sustainability performance. This means that a building might score well in one system but poorly in another, based on which attributes are emphasized.

What steps are needed to move towards more effective sustainability assessments, according to the discussed research?

To move towards more effective sustainability assessments, the research suggests addressing gaps in coverage, resolving inconsistencies in indicator usage, and prioritizing a holistic, multidimensional approach. This includes standardizing the assessment process, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of environmental, social, and economic factors, and promoting a more consistent and reliable method for evaluating building sustainability, such as the use of Comprehensive List of Sustainable Building Indicators (CLOSBI) to achieve consensus.