Review of LEED certified buildings in terms of sustainable design: the case of Turkey

Journal of Research in Ecology

Journal of Research in Ecology

ISSN No: Print: 2319 –1546; Online: 2319– 1554

An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

Review of LEED certified buildings in terms of sustainable design: the case of Turkey Authors: Kubra Celik1 and Esra Bostancioglu2 Institution: 1. Architect, M.Sc., Institute of Sciences, Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey.

2. Associate Professor Dr., Department of Architecture, Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey.

Corresponding author: Esra Bostancioglu

ABSTRACT: It appears that an ecological awareness has arisen all around the world as a result of ecological problems such as global warming, climate change, environmental pollution and rapid depletion of natural resources. Buildings have an impact on the environment too. The demand for sustainable building facilities with minimal environmental impact is increasing. Construction sector has started a green transformation to combat climate change. Sustainable building is also called green building. Being green in the construction sector means designing and constructing buildings in such a way as to reduce the negative impact of the building and its users on the environment, climate and human health throughout the building’s lifetime.

Following the early examples of green building projects, Green Building Rating Systems were created with the aim of certifying, promoting and mainstreaming the environmentally-friendly properties of such buildings. 12 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings are selected for the sample and are assessed with respect to the sustainable design principles. On the basis of the analyses conducted on the sample, it is concluded that sustainable design principles must be taken into consideration as a whole in designing green buildings. It has become important for architects to be knowledgeable about sustainable design principles to design projects.

Keywords: Sustainable design, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Green building rating system, Green building, Sustainability.

Article Citation: Kubra Celik and Esra Bostancioglu Review of LEED certified buildings in terms of sustainable design: the case of Turkey Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555 Dates: Received: 11 Feb 2018 Accepted: 06 March 2018 Published: 12 April 2018 Web Address: http://ecologyresearch.info/ documents/EC0543.pdf Journal of Research in Ecology An International Scientific Research Journal

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1545-1555| JRE | 2018 | Vol 6 | No 1

www.ecologyresearch.info

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 Snell, 2018), (Zhou and Wong, 2015), (Bynum et al.,

INTRODUCTION Sustainability in the built environment is turning

2013), (Azhar et al., 2011). There are some studies

into a solid power in the construction industry. Sustaina-

about sustainable design. Ahn et al. (2013) recommend-

bility accomplishes social and ecological advantages to

ed the direction of sustainability policies and programs

bring down negative ecological impacts (Ahn et al.,

and also the direction of future research and develop-

2013). Construction sector has started a green transfor-

ment. Palliyaguru et al. (2018) exhibited the require-

mation to combat climate change. The idea is to build

ment for a coordinated system for sustainable building

environmentally- and ecologically-friendly buildings.

design and construction in the rural context with a par-

This growing interest in environmentally-friendly build-

ticular spotlight on Ampara region of Sri Lanka with an

ings has led to the emergence of the concept of "green

extreme objective of empowering its communities. Also

building".

there are some studies about green building rating sys-

A green building is defined here as any new,

tems. Doan et al. (2017) developed a systematic review

existing or renovated building that is either certified, or

of the development of LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE and

plans to be certified, by an authorized green building

Green Star. Mattoni et al. (2018) provided an overview

certification body; or, that is planned, designed, con-

of the different certification procedures employed in

structed, maintained and/or renovated according to an

several countries all over the world and analyzed green

established guideline, which shall address sustainability

building

– as defined by ISO 15392 – in combination with the

BREEAM, LEED and Italian Accelerometric Archive

technical and functional requirements of a building.

(ITACA) in detail (Mattoni et al., 2018). Hu et al.

Accordingly, green design is defined as the elements of

(2017) intended to gain a holistic understanding of the

a building that make it green (Wu et al., 2017). Green

comparative effectiveness of each four green building

building rating systems have played an active role in the

rating systems (LEED, Net Zero Energy Building, Pas-

expansion of green buildings. Becoming more and more

sive House and Living Building Challenge). They com-

widespread all around the world, rating systems have

pared these systems by using a life cycle assessment

created a new approach and a new sector. Building Re-

framework.

rating

systems

(CASBEE,

Green

Star,

search Establishment Environmental Assessment Meth-

Researchers have studied on sustainable design

od (BREEAM) (England), Leadership in Energy and

and green building rating systems in Turkey, too.

Environmental Design (LEED) (U.S.A.), Green Star

Bavilolyaei (2012) analyzed a school building, Suzer

(Australia), Comprehensive Assessment System for

(2012) analyzed mixed-use residential high-rise build-

Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) (Japan), Sus-

ings in accordance with LEED certification system. Ya-

tainable Building Tool (SBtool) (Canada) and Deutche

vasbatmaz (2012) examined 13 tall buildings according

Gesellschaft

(DGNB)

to sustainable design. Guler (2016) analyzed sustainable

(Germany) are common systems. Rating systems are

office buildings in terms of construction to utilization

used for rating the environmental performance of build-

phase. Afacan (2017) examined tourism buildings in

ings.

accordance with sustainable design principles.

fur

Nachhaltiges

Bauen

There are a lot of researches about sustainable

Researchers in Turkey have studied on one type

design and green building rating systems in the litera-

of building like school, residential building, tall build-

ture. Especially there are a lot of studies relating Build-

ing, etc. There is no study for all types of the buildings.

ing Information Modeling (BIM) last years (Cohen and

The aim of this study is to assess the LEED certified

1546

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 buildings of Turkey in terms of sustainable design crite-

materials (Kibert, 2016).

ria; and as a result, to enhance the contribution to the

Contributing to the mitigation of the environ-

design process of the architect, who is the most im-

mental impacts of buildings, green building rating sys-

portant member of the design team. LEED certified

tems guide design professionals in the production pro-

buildings in Turkey are selected for the case study be-

cess and in the implementation. These rating systems

cause LEED is the most widespread of the green build-

have been developed by green building associations and

ing rating systems.

certain research institutions so as to support sustainable

Sustainable design

building design (Yavasbatmaz, 2012). The general ob-

There is a growing interest in sustainability and sustainable manufacturing because of: 1.

jective of these systems is to mitigate the environmental impacts of buildings and construction activities in a

increasing population, industrialization and stand-

lifecycle approach. Having been developed for the con-

ards of living,

ditions of the countries they have originated in, these

dwindling natural resources (eg. fossil fuels) and

models can now also be implemented in developing

increase in the consumptions of the nonrenewable

countries directly or after necessary adjustments. The

resources,

subjects that are common to BREEAM, LEED and

3.

global climate changes,

CASBEE green building rating systems are sustainable

4.

risk to biodiversity and ecosystem (El-Halwagi,

sites, water conservation, indoor air quality, selection of

2017).

appropriate materials and building elements, water effi-

2.

Sustainability in building design and construc-

ciency, and energy and atmosphere (Tonguc, 2012).

tion is achieving quick growth inside the architecture,

Ecologically sustainable development is very

engineering and construction. It gives a chance to en-

important and embodies the environmental protection

hance the proficiency of building ventures by joining

and management. Generally, sustainable development

proficient and powerful materials, technologies and

helps to insure long-term ecological, social and econom-

strategies into the building procedure (Karakhan and

ic growth in society. Connected to project development,

Gambatese, 2017) .

it comprises of the efficient allocation of assets, least

Green building rating systems characterize the

energy consumption, low embodied energy intensity in

idea of high performance and give a scoring systems to

building materials, reuse and recycling, and different

demonstrate the achievement of the project in meeting

mechanisms to accomplish viable and effective short-

its sustainability goals. High performance building ven-

and long term utilization of natural resources (Ding,

tures are focusing on the interest for high-proficiency or

2008).

hyper-effective buildings, consideration of building area

Ding (2008), Yavasbatmaz (2012) and Tonguc

to limit transportation energy and difficulties of environ-

(2012) categorize sustainability into economic, ecologi-

mental change (Kibert, 2016).

cal and socio-cultural sustainability components. At the

As time advances and more is known about the

end of the literature review, sustainable design criteria

future and difficulties, the built in environment will em-

are formed by the authors. Classification of sustainable

brace to meet this changing future landscapes. These

design criteria can be seen in Table 1.

difficulties are notwithstanding issues, for example, indoor environmental quality, security of biological systems and biodiversity and dangers related with building Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

1547

Ecological Sustainable Design

1548

Transport (ESD5)

Materials and Resources (ESD4)

Energy and Atmosphere (ESD3)

Water Use Efficiency (ESD2)

Sustainable Sites (ESD1)

Measures

ESD4.7 ESD5.1 ESD5.2 ESD5.3 ESD5.4 ESD5.5 ESD5.6

ESD1.1 ESD1.2 ESD1.3 ESD1.4 ESD1.5 ESD1.6 ESD1.7 ESD2.1 ESD2.2 ESD2.3 ESD3.1 ESD3.2 ESD3.3 ESD3.4 ESD3.5 ESD3.6 ESD3.7 ESD3.8 ESD3.9 ESD3.10 ESD4.1 ESD4.2 ESD4.3 ESD4.4 ESD4.5 ESD4.6

Continued‌..

Site selection in accordance with residential density Creation of transport and car park systems Reducing heat- island effect Effective use of building spaces Improvement of urban sites Protection of natural habitats Protection of fertile soil Use of water-efficient fittings and equipment Selection of plants that require little water and care in landscape design Reuse of waste water and rainwater Use of solar cells in electricity generation Use of sunlight in lighting Use of solar collectors in water heating Use of wind energy in ventilation and cooling Selection of energy-efficient construction materials Selection of local materials Use of light coloured construction materials for façades Use of high-performance joinery and glass Energy efficiency by means of effective insulation systems Establishment of systems for the building to self-power Procurement of construction materials from the near environment Use of standardized construction materials that do not cause health problems or pollution Development of a material management plan to prevent resource loss and waste creation Selection of recyclable and reusable construction materials Use of quick self-renewable construction materials Selection of construction materials that are economical, aesthetically pleasing, high-performance and that have a producer's warranty and user satisfaction certificate Avoiding the use of construction materials whose production may have damaged the ecosystem Establishment of transport axes Devising alternative transport paths and car parks Minimization of car park areas Designing bicycle parks and pedestrian crossings Prioritization of easy and safe public transport vehicles Prioritization of the use of high-capacity, low carbon emission service vehicles

Methods

Table 1. Classification of sustainable design principles (Yavasbatmaz, 2012; Tonguc, 2012; Ding, 2008)

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Sociocultural

Economic Sustainable Design

Innovation and Design Process (SCSD2)

Interior Space Life Quality (SCSD1)

Low Cost of Use (ECSD5)

Building Envelope (ECSD4)

Spatial Organization (ECSD3)

Efficient Use of Resources (ECSD2)

Building Form (ECSD1)

Natural Lighting and Ventilating (ESD6)

Orientation and spatial organization for the maximum natural lighting Design of the width and length of the building taking climatic data into consideration Reduction of the size of the exterior surface of the building.

ESD6.7 ECSD1.1 ECSD1.2

Ensuring resource efficiency through the use of recyclable construction materials Selection of construction materials with long-term usability Allowing variable and flexible spatial designs through the use of mobile elements Designing accurately oriented transitional spaces to make appropriate use of sunlight Allowing for designs that can change in line with future needs through modular designs Standardization of construction elements and details Use of wide windows for the best use of natural lighting and narrow windows in the prevailing wind direction Green faรงades and roofs Designing solar control equipment in line with the type of glass, the orientation and site Optimum level of insulation on the roof, walls and coverings Reduction in costs by ensuring energy and resource efficiency in production Choosing local construction materials, hence lowering costs for transport to the construction site Economic design through cost analysis Establishing appropriate comfort conditions in interior spaces Ensuring interior air quality Avoiding construction materials containing toxic substances Prevention of air pollution Establishing a visual contact with the outdoor environment Designing buildings that use little energy in construction and operation Designing buildings that make efficient use of interior spaces Taking into consideration climatic data in design

ECSD2.1 ECSD2.2 ECSD3.1 ECSD3.2 ECSD3.3 ECSD3.4 ECSD4.1 ECSD4.2 ECSD4.3 ECSD4.4 ECSD5.1 ECSD5.2 ECSD5.3 SCSD1.1 SCSD1.2 SCSD1.3 SCSD1.4 SCSD2.1 SCSD2.2 SCSD2.3 SCSD2.4

Designation of the storey height of the building to capitalize on natural lighting Designation of the number of storeys in the building taking into consideration the building users Design of the indentations in the building form for shading purposes

Use of light coloured painting for rooms

ESD6.6

ECSD1.3 ECSD1.4 ECSD1.5

Use of the shading elements Artificial lighting support to natural lighting Closing the artificial lighting automatically with the level of natural lighting The controllable ventilating system with window area and opening direction Use of the skylight

ESD6.1 ESD6.2 ESD6.3 ESD6.4 ESD6.5

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018

1549

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 Table 2. Assessment Indicator (Yavasbatmaz, 2012)

resources and low costs of use from design till demolition should be at the foreground; and for socio-

S. No

Application Symbol

Application Situation

Point

culturally sustainable design, indoor life quality and

1

+

Applied

2

innovation and design process should be focused on.

2

Âą

Partially applied

1

After the literature review in the second part,

3

-

Not applied

0

sustainable design criteria are formed by the authors and

MATERIALS AND METHODS

they are indicated in Table 1. 66 criteria is set out as

Selection of the sample for the case study

sustainable design criteria for the assessment.

12 LEED certified buildings in Turkey have been selected for the case study. Distribution of LEED

Assessment of the sample in terms of sustainable design criteria

certified buildings in Turkey has been taken into consid-

An objective method which was used by Yavas-

eration in the selection of the buildings. 2 Platinum, 8

batmaz (2012) to assess 13 tall buildings according to

Gold and 2 Silver Certified New Buildings have been

sustainable design has been used in this study. The

examined. These buildings are; Erke Green Academy

method has been used to assess the effectiveness of the

(GB1), Eser Holding Headquaters (GB2), Sabanci

buildings in terms of sustainable design. The assessment

University Nanotechnology Center (GB3), Sisecam

criteria have been objectively given scores. Sustainable

ARGE Building (GB4), Garanti Bank Karsiyaka Office

design criteria that are applied in the buildings are

Building

Engineering

awarded 2, those that are partially applied are awarded

Building (GB6), Basf DilovasÄą Management Building

1, and those that are not applied are awarded 0 points

(GB7), Nurol Tower (GB8), The House Residence

(Table 2).

(GB9),

(GB5),

Uskudar

Ozyegin

University

Municipality

Convention

Center

(GB10), Izmir Adnan Menderes Airport Terminal (GB 11) and Li-Fung Center (GB12).

RESULTS Assessment principles are scored in accordance with the assessment indicator provided in the Table 2.

Setting out the sustainable design criteria Sustainable design principles need to be

The effectiveness of the 12 sampled buildings in terms

observed in all stages of the building; as pre-design,

of sustainable design is ascertained. This assessment is

design, construction, utilization and demolition stages.

provided in terms of ecological sustainable design in

Sustainable design principles cover a wide array of

Table 3, in terms of economic sustainable design in Ta-

matters including the building site, the climate of the

ble 4 and in terms of socio-cultural sustainable design in

region, the position of the building and its compatibility

Table 5.

with the environment surrounding it, storey height and

As 40 criteria were set out as ecological sustain-

number, size of storey spaces, ventilation and lighting

able design criteria for the assessment, the sampled

systems, structural system, construction materials to be

buildings were assessed on a 80 point basis, but ecologi-

used, construction methods, the aesthetic qualities of the

cal sustainable design points were also changed on a

building,

ecologically

100 point basis for comparing. As 18 criteria were set

water

use

out as economic sustainable design criteria for the as-

efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and

sessment, the sampled buildings were assessed on a 36

resources

for

point basis, but economic sustainable design points were

economically sustainable design, efficient use of

also changed on a 100 point basis for comparing. As 8

sustainable

1550

etc.

In

this

design, should

context,

sustainable be

put

at

for sites,

the

forefront;

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 Table 3. Assessment of the sample in terms of ecological sustainable design S. No

Sample

GB1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ESD 1.1 ESD 1.2 ESD 1.3 ESD 1.4 ESD 1.5 ESD 1.6 ESD 1.7

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

ESD 2.1 ESD 2.2 ESD 2.3 ESD 3.1 ESD 3.2 ESD 3.3 ESD 3.4 ESD 3.5 ESD 3.6 ESD 3.7 ESD 3.8 ESD 3.9 ESD 3.10 ESD 4.1 ESD 4.2 ESD 4.3 ESD 4.4 ESD 4.5 ESD 4.6 ESD 4.7 ESD 5.1 ESD 5.2 ESD 5.3 ESD 5.4 ESD 5.5 ESD 5.6 ESD 6.1 ESD 6.2 ESD 6.3 ESD 6.4 ESD 6.5 ESD 6.6 ESD 6.7 P (../80) P(.../100)

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 76 95

GB2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2

GB3 2 2 0 2 2 2 2

GB4 2 2 0 2 2 2 0

GB5 2 2 1 2 1 2 0

GB6 2 2 1 2 1 2 1

GB7 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

GB8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

GB9 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

GB10 2 2 2 1 2 0 0

GB11 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

GB12

2 2

2 1

2 1

1 1

2 1

1 2

2 2

2 2

0 2

2 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 67

1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 62

1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 59

2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 59

1 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 58

1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 54

2 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 53

2 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 52

2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 52

2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 51

84

78

74

74

73

68

66

65

65

64

1 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 50 62

1 2 1 2 1 2 1

criteria were set out as socio-cultural sustainable design

for comparison. In accordance with the assessment

criteria for the assessment, the sampled buildings were

Table 6 presented, it is seen that LEED certified build-

assessed on a 16 point basis, but socio-cultural sustaina-

ings were successfully applying sustainable design prin-

ble design points were also changed on a 100 point basis

ciples. It could be concluded that ecological, economic

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

1551

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 Table 4. Assessment of the sample in terms of economic sustainable design S. No

Sample

GB1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

ECSD 1.1 ECSD 1.2 ECSD 1.3 ECSD 1.4 ECSD 1.5 ECSD 2.1 ECSD 2.2 ECSD 3.1 ECSD 3.2 ECSD 3.3 ECSD 3.4 ECSD 4.1 ECSD 4.2 ECSD 4.3 ECSD 4.4 ECSD 5.1 ECSD 5.2 ECSD 5.3 P (../36) P (.../100)

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 32 89

GB2 2 2 2

GB3 2 2 2

GB4 2 2 2

GB5 2 2 2

GB6 2 1 2

GB7 2 2 2

GB8 2 2 2

GB9 2 2 2

GB10 2 2 2

GB11 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 30

2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 29

2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 30

2 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 29

2 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 27

2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 29

2 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 27

2 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 27

2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 26

2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 26

83

81

83

81

75

81

75

75

72

72

GB12 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 26 72

and socio-cultural sustainable design principles have

assessed on a 132 point basis, but SDP were also

been implemented to a great extent in the LEED certi-

changed on a 100 point basis for comparing. CP of the

fied buildings that were studied.

sampled buildings were between 84 and 49, SDP were

Certification Points (CP) and sustainable design

between 94 and 70 on a 100 point basis. Upon compari-

points (SDP) of the sampled buildings are compared on

son of the CP and SDP of LEED certified buildings, it

a percentage basis in Table 6. CP of the LEED certified

could be seen that the building ranking does not change.

new buildings were assessed on a 110 point basis, but

Therefore, it can be said that LEED certified buildings

CP were changed on a 100 point basis for comparision.

apply sustainable design principles. However, there is a

As 66 criteria were set out as sustainable design criteria

difference between LEED assessment and sustainable

for the assessment, SDP of the sampled buildings were

design criteria points. Although the ranking stays the

Table 5. Assessment of the sample in terms of socio-cultural sustainable design S. No 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

1552

Sample SCSD 1.1 SCSD 1.2 SCSD 1.3 SCSD 1.4 SCSD 2.1 SCSD 2.2 SCSD 2.3 SCSD 2.4 P (../16) P (.../100)

GB1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

GB12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 100

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 Table 6. Assessment of the sample S. No 1.

2.

3.

4.

Sample

GB1

GB2

GB3

GB4

GB5

GB6

GB7

GB8

GB9

GB10

GB11

GB12

CP (…/110) CP (…/100) SDP (…/132) SDP (…/100)

92 84 124 94

82 75 113 86

79 72 107 81

76 69 105 80

75 68 104 79

72 65 101 77

72 65 99 75

70 64 96 73

66 60 95 72

60 55 94 71

56 51 93 70

54 49 92 70

same, it is observed that each building has scored higher

saving. All the buildings have been designed with the

on sustainable design criteria on a 100 point basis, and

environment and human health in mind, and the design

that they satisfy sustainable design principles to a great

is based on the light and transparency.

extent.

Mechanic systems make up the superior features of the buildings which have achieved high scores. For

DISCUSSION

example, Eser Holding Headquarters has created a clean

LEED assessment criteria attach a great deal of

air feed system by installing CO2 sensors. Temperature

importance to mechanical features. This makes it clear

control systems have been installed. Sun tubes have

as to why score distribution in the criteria is different.

been used for the roof floor. Variable-Refrigerant-

While buildings are assessed for energy and atmos-

Volume (VRV) system has been used as the heating-

phere, materials and resources, indoor air quality, sus-

cooling medium. Earth source heat pumps and cogener-

tainable sites, water efficiency, and innovation and de-

ation units have been installed.

sign criteria in LEED assessment system; sustainable

The implementation of sustainable design prin-

design criteria additionally assess the form of the build-

ciples make it possible to construct ecologically, eco-

ing, efficient use of resources, spatial organization,

nomically and socio-culturally sustainable buildings.

building envelope and low building utilization cost.

Buildings successful in implementing sustainable design

These criteria make up 27% of the assessment for sus-

principles are successful in terms of certification sys-

tainable design criteria.

tems too. With the decisions of architects at the design

The sampled buildings have been designed with

stage, buildings that provide the necessary comfort

the objective of less energy consumption. Solar control

conditions and consume low energy can be designed.

has been ensured through façade design features. These

However, it is an important fact that the selection of

design features include horizontal glass sunshades, a

mechanical systems takes a large part of the success in

second façade, and solar panels. Special attention has

certification scores and therefore increases the score of

been paid to recyclable and local material use in design.

the building.

Perforated metal meshes, façade panels and glass materials have been used for the façade and roof. Spaces in

CONCLUSION

the buildings have been designed to receive the best

The number of LEED certified buildings in-

sunlight. Use of renewable energy resources is on the

crease significantly each year. According to Turkish

forefront; solar power is used for water heating, and

Green Building Council (CEDBIK) data, while Turkey

wind energy for ventilation and cooling. Only local

had 76 certified buildings and 230 certification candi-

plants have been used in landscape design. The build-

dates in November 2014, there were 172 certified build-

ings have green roofs. Rainwater is recovered and used

ings and 404 certification candidates in Turkey at

for irrigation. The water systems in use enable water

August 2016 (CEDBIK, 2016). There are 802 LEED

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

1553

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 certified buildings in Turkey today (March 28th, 2018)

Bavilolyaei BF. 2012. Green school design criteria in-

(USGBC, 2018). This result showed that the demand for

ternational Leed evaluation certificate and application.

the rating systems is rapidly increasing and green build-

Master’s Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Sciences.

ing rating system has become a sector. Therefore, it is important that architects, one of the most important actors of the construction process, have sufficient knowledge of sustainable design and rating systems.

If there are sustainable design courses in under-

Bynum P, Issa RRA and Olbina S. 2013. Building information modeling in support of sustainable design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(1): 24-34.

graduate education, this will to help form a new archi-

Cohen A and Snell C. 2018. Climate change and the

tectural perspective and consolidate the understanding

bottom line: delivering sustainable buildings at market

of green buildings for architects. Hence, applied design

rate. Architectural Design, 88(1): 110-115.

trainings could be added to undergraduate architectural curriculum, and elective courses may be opened. Architects who are trained with this awareness in mind, would approach certification assessment criteria and

Grace KC Ding. 2008. Sustainable construction - the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3): 451-464.

sustainable design principles in a holistic manner, and

Doan T, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Naismith N, Zhang T,

would create widely recognized certified building de-

Ghaffarianhoseini A and Tookey J. 2017. A critical

signs. Therefore, the environmental impact of buildings

comparison of green building rating systems. Building

would be diminished with the construction of buildings

and Environment, 123: 243-260.

which use low energy and consume little water, have waste management, have minimum impact on the ecosystem and which are constructed with environmentallyfriendly materials.

El-Halwagi, M.M. (2017). Sustainable design through process integration. 2st ed. USA. 618 p.

Guler M. 2016. Sustainable design criteria and analysis comparison of green office building in the context. Mas-

REFERENCES Afacan G. 2017. Examination of tourism buildings in Seferihisar in accordance with sustainable design principles. Master’s Thesis, Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Sciences.

Ahn YH, Pearce AR, Wang Y and Wang G. 2013.

Drivers and barriers of sustainable design and construction: the perception of green building experience.

International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4(1): 35-45.

Azhar S, Carlton WA, Olsen D and Ahmad I. 2011.

Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis. Automation in Construction, 20(2): 217-224.

1554

ter’s Thesis, Selcuk University, Institute of Sciences.

Hu M, Cunningham P and Gilloran S. 2017.

Sustainable design rating system comparison using a life-cycle methodology. Building and Environment, 126: 410-421 Karakhan AA and Gambatese JA. 2017. Integrating worker health and safety into sustainable design and construction: designer and constructor perspectives.

ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

143(9).

doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-

7862.0001379.

Kibert CJ. 2016. Sustainable construction green building design and delivery. 4th Edition. Canada: John Wiley Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Celik and Bostancioglu, 2018 and Sons, Inc. 600 p.

https://www.usgbc.org/projects?keys=Turkey.

Mattoni B, Guattari C, Evangelisti L, Bisegna F, Gori P and Asdrubali F. 2018. Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82(1): 950-960.

Palliyaguru R, Karunasena G and Ang S. 2018.

Review on sustainable building design and construction in the rural context: the case of building Ampara, Sri Lanka. Chapter, The book of Sustainable development research in the Asia-Pacific region. Conduction. 493507 p.

Suzer O. 2012. Sustainable design criteria of mixed-use residential high-rise buildings. Doctoral Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences.

Tonguc B. 2012. Examining the sustainable design in the instance of preschool building. Master’s Thesis, Kocaeli University, Institute of Sciences.

Wu SR, Greaves M, Chen J and Grady SC. 2017.

Green buildings need green occupants: a research framework through the lens of the theory of planned behaviour. Architectural Science Review, 60(1): 5-14.

Yavasbatmaz S. 2012. Evaluation of tall buildings within the context of sustainable design criteria. Master’s Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Sciences.

Zhou J and Wong JKW. 2015. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: a review. Automation in Construction, 57: 156-165.

[Internet]. [CEDBIK] Turkish Green Building Council [cited 2016 August 14]. Available from: http:// www.cedbik.org/.

[Internet]. [USGBC] The U.S. Green Building Council [cited 2018 March 28]. Available from: Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(1): 1545-1555

Submit your articles online at ecologyresearch.info Advantages

     

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

submit@ecologyresearch.info www.ecologyresearch.info/Submit.php.

1555