Vol. 9, No. 2, 87-94, https://doi.org/10.22712/susb.

20180009

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
SUSTAINABLE Building Technology and Urban Development

pISSN : 2093-761X

A review of the philippine green building rating system,

BERDE in comparison with G-SEED and LEED
Rudiliza Culiao1, Sungho Tae2* and Rakhyun Kim1
1
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul City, South Korea
2
Department of Architecture & Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan City, South Korea

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Received: 14 May 2018 Different countries create their own green building rating system to be in line with sustainable
Accepted: 21 June 2018 development as a response to the urgent call for solution for Climate Change and degradation of the
environment due to rapid population growth and economic development. This study conducts a critical
review on the Philippine national voluntary green building rating system, BERDE, in comparison with
South Korea’s national voluntary green building rating system, G-SEED and U.S. rating system
LEED. Their categories, building types assessed, and assessment methods were compared side by side
to seek better practice(s) for green building rating assessment for Philippine green building projects.
Keywords: green building rating system; BERDE; G-SEED; LEED

Introduction

Many countries and institutes have been exerting efforts to create policies, and seek ways to minimize or possibly
eliminate the detrimental effects of structural developments and contribute to environmental enhancement and
protection. Since the Rio Declaration’s publication that the environment where we live, and development that we
all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode, are inseparable [1]; policies, organizations, and tech-
nologies emerged to tackle issues. For example, 88 countries have submitted their nationally determined contri-
butions to the Paris Agreement, representing 56% of global emissions; as a result; 45 national and 25 subnational
jurisdictions are putting price carbon emissions [2]. Also, Turner’s 2014 Green Building Market Barometer shows
that interest in Green Globes and other alternative building rating systems is up 250% in two years [3].
The World Commission on Environment and Development’s report [4] explained that the earth “is dominated not
by human activity and edifice but by nature such as a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils; and humanity’s
inability to fit its activities into the nature’s pattern causes changing planetary systems”. In line to this, the United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 set up sustainable
development goals, which could be useful tools in achieving sustainable development [5].
Green building rating systems are one of the tools useful in achieving sustainable development. Green building

Ⓒ International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-
commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
88 ∙ International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018

standards, certifications, and rating systems aimed mitigating the impact of buildings on the natural environment
through sustainable design [6]. According to the U.S. Green building Council [7], buildings account for an average
of 41% of the world’s energy use, responsible for 38% of all CO2 emissions, use 13.6% of potable water, use 40% of
the world’s raw materials, and tons of waste. Similarly, other countries South Korea [8] reports that buildings account
for one third of energy consumption, 40% of resource consumption, 50% of CO2 emissions and 20% to 50% of
waste emissions. Acknowledging these facts, different countries create their own green building rating systems for
responsible building and to evaluate sustainable development in understandable and transparent way. The aim of
this study is to analyse the Philippine green building rating system BERDE in comparison with Korea and U.S
rating system to seek better green rating practice for understandability and transparency.

Methodology

BERDE was compared and contrasted to the Korean G-SEED and American LEED. For the purpose of this
study, the methodology is done in two parts. First, the three green building rating systems were reviewed in terms of
their impact categories, building types, and rating levels. Second, their point system and evaluation methods were
analysed. The similarities and differences of the three green building rating systems were determined and possible
recommendations for improvements of BERDE were suggested. Most of the data came from the websites of the
three green building rating systems.

The Philippine Green Building Rating System, BERDE

The Building Ecological Responsive Design Excellence (BERDE) was established by the Philippine Green
Building Council (PHILGBC) and recognized by the Philippine government, through the Department of Energy
(DOE), as the National Voluntary Green Rating System of the country [9]. It was developed as an appropriate res-
ponse to the Philippine building industry’s need to address the issue of climate change and to facilitate green pro-
jects in the country. Moreover, BERDE is developed as a tool to assess, measure, monitor, and certify the perfor-
mance of green building projects above and beyond existing national and local building and environmental laws,
regulations, and mandatory standards. BERDE Green Building Rating Schemes are made freely available for buil-
ding professionals to use in designing, constructing and operating building projects in a resource-efficient, econo-
mically-viable, and socially-responsible manner. Table 1 summarizes the impact categories BERDE is assessing.
The BERDE-NC (new construction), BERDE-RN (retrofits and renovation), and BERDE-OP (operations) are
applicable to commercial buildings, vertical residential buildings, clustered residential buildings, and educational
buildings. Projects registered in any BERDE scheme will have the following final ratings in Table 2.
 R. Culiao et al. ∙ 89

Table 1. BERDE impact categories and building types

Category BERDE-NC BERDE-RN BERDE-OP
1. Energy Efficiency and Conservation
2. Water Efficiency and Conservation
3. Waste Management
4. Management
5. Use of Land and Ecology
6. Green Materials
7. Transportation
8. Indoor Environment Quality
9. Emissions

Table 2. BERDE rating levels

Rating Score Recognition
★☆☆☆☆ 1 Star 51 to 60 Minimum practice
★★☆☆☆ 2 Stars 61 to 70 Good practice
★★★☆☆ 3 Stars 71 to 80 Exemplar practice
★★★★☆ 4 Stars 81 to 90 World class
★★★★★ 5 Stars 91 and above World leader

After the green project was approved for the BERDE registration, passed in stage 1 certification wherein all the
documents required are assessed, and stage 2 certification which is on-site assessment, a 1-star to 5-star BERDE
ratings will be awarded and recognized as BERDE certified as minimum practice, good practice, exemplar practice,
world class, and world leader depending on the project’s total achieved points out of the 100 total points from the 9
impact categories.

The Korean Green Building Rating System, G-SEED

Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-SEED) is South Korea’s national voluntary green
building rating system established under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation (MOLIT) and
Ministry of Environment (ME) as a rating tool for “green buildings” or “sustainable buildings” throughout their life
cycle. G-SEED aims to achieve sustainable development, save energy, and reduce environmental pollution reduc-
tion from the design, construction, use, end-of-life, to disposal of wastes from the demolition. G-SEED has been
implemented since January 2002 and continuously being revised through researches to ensure being updated to the
best possible practices and related laws. The 2016 G-SEED revision’s impact categories and building types being
assessed are summarized in Table 3.
90 ∙ International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018

Table 3. G-SEED impact categories and building types

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ID
Land Energy Mater- Water Mainte- Ecolo- Indoor Housing Innova-
use and and ials and circul- nance gical environ- Perfor- tive
Building types
traffic environ Resour- ation environ- ment mance Design
mental ces manage- ment Sector
pollution ment
Newly-built General housing ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
residential Apartment house ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
New-built single-family house ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
New General building ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
non-residential Business building ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
School facilities ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Sales facility ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Accommodation ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Existing General housing ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
residential Apartment house ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Conventional General building ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
non-residential Business building ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
School facilities ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Sales facility ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Accommodation ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

All of the building types are being assessed on the first 7 impact categories such as land use and traffic, energy
and environmental pollution, materials and resources, water circulation management, maintenance, ecological
environment, and indoor environment. It is only the newly-built residential under the category of apartment houses
is assessed on the housing performance sector; however, no quantifying measurement is given to this category.
Furthermore, ID innovative design category is a bonus point to a project that possess exemplar practices. G-SEED
certification is being carried out by 10 designated certification authorities and award a Grade 1 to Grade 4 Green
Building certificate according to the total achieved points from a building type category.

U.S. Green Building Rating System, LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is one of U.S. green building rating system devised by
United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to evaluate the environmental performance of a building. It is not
only used in the United States but also actively use in 160 countries around the world. One of its purposes is to
encourage market transformation towards sustainable design. Many countries use LEED as a guide to create their
own green building rating system. Its rating systems, sustainable targets, and building types being assessed are
summarized in Table 4, and impact categories and rating systems in Table 5.
 R. Culiao et al. ∙ 91

Table 4. LEED rating systems and building types

Rating system Types of projects
BD+C New construction and major renovation, Core & Shell, Schools, Retail, Hospitality,
Building Design and Construction Data Centers, Warehouses & Distribution Centers, and Healthcare
ID+C Complete interior fit-out; including Commercial Interiors, Retail and Hospitality
Interior Design and Construction
O+M Existing Buildings, Schools, Retail, Hospitality, Data Centers, and Warehouses &
Building Operations and Maintenance Distribution Centers.
ND New land development projects or redevelopment projects containing residential
Neighborhood Development uses, nonresidential uses, or a mix.
Homes Single family homes, low-rise multi-family (one to three stories), or mid-rise
multi-family (four to six stories)
Cities and Communities Entire cities and sub-sections of a city

Table 5. LEED impact categories and rating systems

Neighborhood Cities and
Category BD +C ID + C O+M Homes
development communities
Integrative process ● ● ●
Location and transportation ● ● ● ●
Sustainable sites ● ● ●
Water efficiency ● ● ● ●
Energy and atmosphere ● ● ● ●
Materials and resources ● ● ● ●
Indoor environmental quality ● ● ● ● ●
Innovation ● ● ● ●
Regional priority ● ● ● ●

Neighborhood Development (ND) was engineered to inspire and help create better, more sustainable,
well-connected neighborhoods; thus, it considers Smart location and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design,
green infrastructure and buildings, innovation and design process, regional priority credit. Cities and Communities
category uses Arc that calculates a performance score out of 100 based on a global data set and action-oriented
strategies across five categories – energy water, waste, transportation, and human experience [10].
Based on the total points achieved, a project is awarded one of the LEED rating levels: Certified (40-49 points),
Silver (50-59 points), Gold (60-79 points), and Platinum (80+ points).

Discussion

Each of the green building rating systems’ assessment method and point systems are plotted and discussed in the
following figures.
92 ∙ International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018

Figure 1. BERDE’s assessment method and point system.

Figure 1 explains the evaluation method and point system of BERDE. Each building rating scheme evaluates all
the impact categories but designate not necessarily the same scores. Each category impact is scored according to its
weight contribution to the environmental issues of the country. Energy Efficiency and Conservation, and Water
Efficiency and Conservation were held in constant value in all rating schemes. In Renovations, Use of Land and
Ecology have the highest score (20%). In Operations, Energy Efficiency and Conservation gets the highest score
(16%). In New Construction, Energy Efficiency and Conservation, and Use of Land and Ecology get the highest
score (16%). Emissions and Green Materials have closely similar weight in all the rating schemes (8-9%).

Figure 2. G-SEED’s assessment method and point system.

 R. Culiao et al. ∙ 93

Figure 2 describes the assessment method and point system of G-SEED. Energy and Environmental Pollution has
the highest weight consistently in the all the rating schemes except in Newly-built Residential, and Conventional
non-residential wherein Indoor Environment gets the highest point. Indoor Environment has the second place in all
the rating systems except in Newly-built Residential which considers Ecological Environment and Energy and
Environmental Pollution as second priority; and Existing Residential which takes Ecological Environment.
Innovative Design is set also as second highest priority in New-non Residential, and 3rd in Newly-built residential.

Figure 3. LEED’s assessment method and point system.

Figure 3 showed that Energy and Atmosphere weighs the heaviest point (33-38%) consistently in all rating
schemes in LEED evaluation. However, each rating scheme values the 2nd priority differently. Building Design and
Construction scores Location and Transportation, and Indoor Environmental Quality as second. Interior Design and
Construction sets Location and Transportation as second. While Building Operations and Maintenance, and Homes
set Indoor Environmental Quality as second. Regional Priority and Innovation are scored constant for all the rating
schemes.

Conclusion

BERDE, G-SEED, and LEED are all unique in their assessment methodology as well as emphasis; however, they
share common purpose that is to lessen the negative effects of buildings such emissions of greenhouse gas through
energy consumption. This study has the following key findings:
First, all the three green building rating systems put heavy weight on Energy Efficiency; this is supported by the
report that 70% of the buildings reduced their energy consumption [11] using green building design. Furthermore, it
explains that most GHG comes from the consumption of energy in the building’s life cycle.
Second, both G-SEED and LEED placed Indoor Environment Quality as second priority while BERDE put
94 ∙ International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018

Water Efficiency and Conservation as second. This result explains the priority of the rating systems which is may
be influenced by the building types and climate. Philippines is a tropical country that no heating equipment is
needed and natural ventilation is encouraged; whereas South Korea and U.S. have winter that require insulation,
and heating and air conditioning. Also, both South Korea and U.S. are developed countries and highly industrial
countries; thus jobs are usually indoors (such as offices, factories, and others). A study conducted estimated that
Americans spend 87% of their time indoors [12], which is similarly the scenario of South Korea.
Third, BERDE evaluates Emissions, and Waste Management; whereas, both LEED and G-SEED don’t. This
explains that G-SEED and LEED has integrated the Emissions and Waste Management in other categories possibly
in Materials and Resources as both use life cycle assessment LCA. LCA is under Materials option in LEED v4
whilst G-SEED has LCA in its Innovative Design option.
Finally, both LEED and G-SEED have Innovation category but BERDE doesn’t have. Innovative Design
encourages the building designers to consider the best latest design through in-depth researches. Further study on
the possible reclassification of BERDE categories can help a more concise and clear quantification of
environmental impacts of the buildings.

References

[1] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Rio declaration on envi-
ronment and development. Environment and Development, 1992.
[2] The World Bank. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. International Bank of Reconstruction and Development,
2018.
[3] Green Building Initiative (GBI). Available at https://www.thegbi.org/about-gbi/press-room/article/green-building-
market-study-shows-250-growth-in-alternative-rating-systems, 2014.
[4] United Nations (UN). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1998.
[5] E. Holden, K. Linnerud, and D. Banister. Sustainable development: our common future revisited. Global En-
vironmental Change, 26(5) (2014), pp. 130-139.
[6] Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). Available at https://www.wbdg.org/resources/green-building-standards-
and-certification-systems, 2016.
[7] USGBC. Available at https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-facts, 2017.
[8] G-SEED. Available at http://gseed.greentogether.go.kr, 2018.
[9] BERDE. Available at http://berdeonline.org/#about-berde, 2018.
[10] Arc. Available at http://www.arcskoru.com, 2018.
[11] Energy Star. Available at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/buildings/tools/DataTrends_Savings_
20121002.pdf, 2012.
[12] T. Roberts. We spend 90% of our time indoors. Building Green, 2016.