Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

How green building rating systems affect indoor thermal comfort

environments design
Yueer He a, b, c, *, Nyuk Hien Wong d, Thomas Kvan e, Meng Liu f, g, Shanshan Tong d
a
School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shenzhen University, 518060, PR China
b
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, 510000, PR China
c
Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Optimizing Design of Built Environment, 518060, PR China
d
College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, 117566, Singapore
e
School of Design, Southern University of Science and Technology, 518055, PR China
f
National Centre for International Research of Low-carbon and Green Buildings, Chongqing University, 400044, PR China
g
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, 400044, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper addresses a controversial issue that Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS) may not necessarily
Indoor thermal comfort design improve user experience, particularly indoor thermal comfort. We conducted detailed theoretical analysis,
Indoor and outdoor thermal interactions simulation and comparison work to understand how the examined GBRSs (LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, Green
Building thermal performance
Mark, ASGB and BEAM Plus) affect the indoor thermal environments design, particularly the impact of energy-
Performance or measure based criteria
saving centric indicators with prescriptive rating path on indoor thermal comfort under free-running conditions.
Prerequisite and weights allocations
We conclude that the GBRS attributes (criteria settings, rating approaches and weights allocations) dominate the
green design and thus affect the performance of the indoor thermal environment in green buildings. The
interaction between different environmental category criteria and indoor thermal environment creation is
analysed; GBRS criteria for indoor thermal comfort creation are identified as performance-based and
prescriptive-based; suggestions for the prescriptive-based criteria for the energy-saving design of building en­
velopes in Green Mark and ASGB are given; the interaction of indoor and outdoor thermal comfort is suggested to
be strengthened; challenges and research directions for the performance path adopted in GBRSs are presented.
The research findings inform the green building designers and consultants in selecting GBRS credits and provide
insights into the development of GBRSs and potential research interests.

1. Introduction certification has been a mandatory requirement. However, recent

research on post-occupancy studies indicates a lower perceived thermal
World Green Building Council identifies that a ‘green’ building is a comfort satisfaction in many green buildings certified in countries such
one that, in its design, construction or operation, reduces or eliminates as the U.S., U.K, Australia and Singapore [3–5].
negative impacts, and can create positive impacts, on our climate and GBRSs consist of prerequisites and credits for each environmental
natural environment [1]. The challenge addressed by green buildings is impact category. Credits are weighted in relation with each other by
not only the technical need to reduce energy use but more fundamen­ varying the number of points available. A certified rating is awarded by
tally in providing a sustainable place for human habitation [2]. Hence, comparing the total number of points achieved against the available
the green building methodology is a well-established and clearly defined points in the rating tool. In this manner, the assessment schemes, criteria
strategy for achieving sustainable environmental impacts in various and weights result in the different achievement of the final scores. To
climates in response to worldwide energy and health problems. Since the achieve a particular level of performance the majority of GBRSs credits
release of the first Green Building Rating System (GBRS), Building can be traded. In this context, this work aims to examine GBRS attributes
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) to address a controversial issue that Green Building Rating System
for the UK, many GBRSs have been initiated worldwide. In many (GBRS) may not necessarily improve user thermal comfort experience.
countries or regions, attaining a certain level of green building This is based on the hypothesis that GBRS attributes (criteria settings,

* Corresponding author. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shenzhen University, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, PR China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109514
Received 21 April 2022; Received in revised form 2 July 2022; Accepted 17 August 2022
Available online 28 August 2022
0360-1323/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

rating approaches and weights allocations) dominate the thermal envi­ compared to non-green buildings in most studies [13–15] while LEED
ronment design, thus affecting the performance of the indoor thermal delivering a less thermal satisfactory performance [16]. Based on a data
environment. Although thermal adaptation strategies will affect the set that analysed 11,243 responses from the occupants of 93
perceived thermal comfort, they are not the focus of this study. The rest LEED-certified buildings, Altomonte et al. [17] gave the relationship
of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews existing studies between the points earned in the IEQ category and the occupants’
on GBRSs comparisons and research efforts on bridging the green satisfaction with their indoor environmental quality. Their results
building performance gap between design and practice. Section 3 showed that obtaining a specific IEQ credit did not substantially increase
elaborates on the examined GBRSs and employed research methods. The satisfaction with the corresponding IEQ factors, and the rating level and
reasons for choosing the six GBRSs, namely LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, certified products and versions did not affect workplace satisfaction.
Green Mark and ASGB, are stated. Criteria are examined from all the Similar results were found in BREEAM studies that thermal comfort
environmental impact categories in the selected GBRSs, based on the scores were not significantly different in green and non-green buildings
mechanism of an indoor thermal environment creation. Next, theoret­ [18]. Davies et al. [19] also demonstrated that the IEQ performance of
ical analysis and parametric study are conducted to analyse the impact some green buildings in Britain was lower than expected. A study [20] in
of the relevant criteria in guiding the design of indoor thermal envi­ Australia demonstrated that Green Star buildings generally out­
ronments. Issues such as the reason for examining selected criteria, performed conventional buildings in terms of perceived health, build­
selecting case locations and employing simulation method for para­ ings image, and addressing occupant needs, but some green buildings
metric study were addressed. Results and discussions are presented in underperformed. Khoshbakht et al. [21] conducted a meta-study of
Section 4 and 5, respectively. Section 6 concludes with the main findings literature to examine whether green buildings are more satisfactory than
and the contributions of this work to the body of the knowledge. non-green buildings. They found significant differences between regions
and reported no significant differences in occupant satisfaction between
2. Literature review green and non-green buildings in the Occident (mainly the United States
and the United Kingdom) whereas significantly higher satisfaction with
The reviewed literature involves latest studies on GBRSs comparison, green buildings was reported in the Orient (mainly China and South
the post-occupancy evaluation for the indoor thermal environment of Korea). Lu et al. conducted the latest study on the indoor thermal
green buildings, findings on reasons for the thermal performance gap environmental evaluation of 12 Chinese green buildings [22]. Results
and the possible solutions. showed that indoor temperature and humidity in most of the green
buildings did not meet the standard, and the deviation degree was
2.1. GBRSs comparisons different. But the users were generally satisfied with the indoor envi­
ronment. Elnaklah et al. [23] did not detect any significant improvement
There are many researchers studying how the green concept is in the occupant satisfaction of IEQ metrics by following 120 employees
characterised by each GBRS and comparing the criteria of specific sus­ as they transitioned from four conventional office buildings to a green
tainable issues considered in GBRSs [6]. For instance, Braulio-Gonzalo building, designed to the local Jordanian Green Building Guide.
et al. [7] compare the criteria of eight GBRSs (LEED, BREEAM, CAS­
BEE, Green Star, Green Globes, DGNB, VERDE and LEVELs) from sus­ 2.3. Causes of the thermal performance gap and solutions
tainability dimensions of environmental, social and economic. Shan and
Hwang [8] identify that LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE, Green Star, ASGB, According to current research findings, factors that cause building
and BEAM Plus were the GBRSs that are most frequently used world­ thermal environment performance gap can group into several cate­
wide. They further point out that the investigation of the implementa­ gories. Firstly, it may be due to the imbalance between building energy
tion of GBRSs and project stakeholders’ perceptions of GBRSs need to be efficiency and indoor thermal comfort caused by the GBRSs attributes.
paid attention to in future GBRS research. Mattoni et al. [9] compare the Daives et al. [20] found that green buildings generally used envelope
issues that have more influence on the final performance rate of each with high airtightness for energy-saving purposes, increasing the risk of
system (LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, CASBEE and ITACA) and suggest poor indoor air quality and overheating problem in transition seasons.
aspects related to the outdoor comfort should be taken into account in He et al. [24] discussed that the influence of an energy-oriented GBRS
rating systems. Ding et al. [10] review the GBRSs (LEED, BREEAM, represented by LEED results in the unsustainability of green buildings,
Green Star and ASGB) from the perspective of construction stage with a such as the initial investment, the high embodied energy of new prod­
case study in China, the Shenzhen Vanke project, illustrating that the ucts (e.g. solar PV) and the poor thermal comfort. In practice, many
promotion of effective operating green buildings must combine the LEED buildings perform poorly in meeting occupants’ requirements due
participation of various stakeholders with the concept of sustainable to the emphasis on the energy efficiency in buildings [4,25].
development, life-cycle consideration, and other related concepts. Second, technical factors caused by simulation-aided design tools
From the reviewed literature, the main focuses are on the criteria may attribute the difference. CFD is the most popular method to predict
settings in response to environmental impacts and how different ventilation performance [26], and Building Energy Modelling (BEM) is
assessment schemes will significantly affect the final scores due to the performed at the design stage to decide the most energy-efficient design
issues categories, weights and credits. Additionally, the comparisons of schemes. While the fundamental errors embedded in both CFD models
GBRSs are mostly between two to five schemes involving LEED and/or and BEM programs [27,28]. Besides, input dataset for simulations such
BREEAM. The selected tools in existing comparisons are mainly Euro­ as the weather profile [29,30], occupant behaviours [31,32], and the
pean and North American building environmental assessment tools; for adopted thermal comfort models [33] rise inaccuracies in the
the Asian view, CASBEE is typically the system considered [8,11]. predictions.
Third, building performance management may hinder the actual
2.2. Post-occupancy evaluation on the indoor thermal environment of performance of a building. Many researchers have been studying the
green buildings relationship between the project management process, the subsequent
energy performance and resultant indoor environmental conditions.
As mentioned before, the overall Indoor Environmental Quality Papachristos et al. [34] explored the implications of project partner
(IEQ) evaluation includes the physical environment and indoor air collaboration for operational building performance in the case of a
quality. To rate the IEQ, most of the studies combined the method of recent building project. Wu et al. [35] developed a possible solution to
physical parameters measurement with a subjective satisfaction survey help developers to improve actual building performance from the
[12]. Generally, LEED buildings perceived higher indoor air quality as building management perspective. Afroz et al. [36] pointed out main

2
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

discrepancies in data infrastructure and archiving practices hinder the investigates how and to what extent GBRSs’ attributes could affect the
certified buildings from performing according to their design intent. performance of an indoor thermal environment by influencing the green
They further recommended developing the standardization of data design.
infrastructure and archiving practices to enable data-driven building
operation strategies such as benchmarking, fault detection and diag­ 3. Method and materials
nosis, predictive controls, occupant-centric controls. Wilde [37] criti­
cally reviewed the relevant literature on energy performance gaps in To examine the impact of GBRS attributes on the creation of an in­
buildings and concluded that only through a broad and coordinated door thermal environment, we selected and reviewed six GBRSs. Then,
approach can the performance gap be bridged. This approach shall we sorted out a series of criteria based on the mechanism analysis of the
combine model validation and verification, improved data collection indoor thermal environment creation. Third, we studied the potential
and predictions, better forecasting and a change of industry practices. effects of the screened-out criteria on the creation of an indoor thermal
Other factors may result in the differences in building performance. environment from the perspectives of rating approaches and weights
For example, Khoshbakht et al. [21] interpreted the difference in allocations. Through theoretical analysis and simulated-based case
occupant satisfaction in Occidental and Oriental countries to study to understand how they could affect the performance of indoor
socio-economic backgrounds. They explained that in the United States thermal environments. Fig. 1 shows the framework of this research.
and the United Kingdom, occupant comfort and satisfaction baselines
are high. In contrast, standards for building and service design in Eastern
3.1. Selection and review of GBRSs
countries developed more recently. Hence, the improvements brought
about by aligning with green building standards can significantly
We selected six rating systems, namely LEED V4 for Building Design
improve the design and maintenance standards when the baseline is not
and Construction for the U.S. [39], BREEAM International New Con­
high. In Lu et al.‘s study [38], they found that most measuring points of
struction [40], Green Star for Design & As Built for Australia [41], Green
Chinese green buildings in the Hot-summer and Warm-winter climate
Mark for Singapore [42], and Assessment Standard for Green Building
zones fall above the comfort zone, however, the results of thermal
(ASGB) for China [43], and BEAM Plus New Buildings [44], to examine
environment evaluation through subjective questionnaires indicate that
the assessment of indoor thermal comfort for new constructions in the
occupant thermal sensation and humid sensation is almost within the
current GBRSs. The reason for choosing such GBRSs is derived from our
moderate range. Lu et al. used the forgiveness factor, a value of which
previous work [45], a critical review on the structure of assessment
represents the degree of tolerance of building users to the thermal
schemes, criteria, weights and evaluation methods in various GBRSs.
environment of green buildings, to explain the reasons for the incon­
Thus, we select LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, Green Mark, ASGB and
sistency of the results. It means that the users of green buildings practice
BEAM Plus regarding the features of rating approaches, research un­
their psychological bias toward green buildings and give higher evalu­
derpinnings, worldwide recognition and the global construction market,
ations of green buildings.
contributing to the paucity of research on the use of the latest version of
In summary, lower occupant thermal satisfaction is documented in
Green Mark, ASGB and BEAM Plus. Table 1 presents the general infor­
many post-occupancy evaluation studies, especially for free-running
mation of the mentioned GBRSs.
spaces. Existing research explains the potential reasons from technical
and social perspectives, however, there is a question that remains to be
answered: Are GBRSs effective for creating a comfortable indoor thermal 3.2. Theoretical analysis for criteria identification
environment, especially under free-running conditions? This research
The creation of an indoor thermal environment is to create an

Fig. 1. The framework of this research.

3
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

General information for GBRSs. GBRSs Categories and Criteria attributes The range of rating
GBRSs Categories and Criteria attributes The range of rating weights scale
weights scale
Water use (6%)
LEED Integrative process Prerequisite From Certified, Health and
(1%) requirements and Silver, Gold to wellbeing (20%)
Location and credits for each Platinum Innovations and
transportation category additions (9%)
(23%)
Sustainable sites
(8%) acceptable comfort environment for occupants, here, thermal comfort is
Water efficiency defined as “that condition of mind that expresses satisfaction with the
(9%)
thermal environment” in the globally recognized ASHRAE 55 and ISO
Energy and
atmosphere (27%) 7730 standards for evaluating indoor environments [46]. In this study,
Materials and indicators that directly assess the level of indoor thermal comfort is
resources (11%) classified as direct criteria.
Indoor Indoor environmental conditions are formed by the energy balance
environmental
quality (13%)
of a room. Energy flow to a room happens with indoor heat gain ap­
Innovation (8%) proaches, which result in the indoor thermal and humid environment.
BREEAM Management (11%) Minimum standards by From Unclassified, Indoor heat gain arises from “external disturbances” and “interior dis­
Health and BREEAM rating level Pass, Good, Very turbances.” External disturbances are mainly outdoor meteorological
wellbeing (13%) and credits for each Good, Excellent to
parameters and thermal conditions of adjoining spaces, affecting heat
Energy (17%) category Outstanding
Transport (7%) and moisture in the room through building envelope transfer, ventila­
Water (6%) tion and infiltration. Interior disturbances are primarily due to appli­
Materials (11%) ances, lighting, and occupants. Bearing this in mind, we sort out the
Waste (7%) relevant criteria, identified as indirect criteria, from each category in
Land use and
ecology (9%)
GBRSs. We then study the impact of the criteria attributes (criteria set­
Pollution (9%) tings, rating approaches and weights allocations) on the architectural
Innovation (9%) expression based on thermophysical theory, finding out how and to what
Green Management (13%) Conditional From Zero to Six- extent GBRS attributes could affect the performance of the indoor
Star Indoor environment requirements for star
thermal environment by influencing the green design.
quality (15%) ‘Greenhouse Gas
Energy (20%) Emissions’ and
Transport (9%) ‘Sustainable Sites’ 3.3. Case modelling for parametric study
Water (11%) credits and credits for
Materials (13%) each category From the theoretical analysis, we identify criteria attributes in two
Land Use and
Ecology (5%)
categories: performance-based and measure-based. Details are given in
Emissions (5%) Section 4.1. Some energy efficiency-oriented criteria with emphasis on
Innovation (9%) the building façade design are optional and given in the form of a list of
Green Climate responsive Prerequisite From Gold, measures, especially in Green Mark and ASGB. However, due to the
Mark design (25%) requirements and GoldPLUS to
feasibility and high weights assigned to such criteria, the application
Building energy credits for each Platinum
performance (18%) category ratio in the design practice of green building projects is relatively high.
Resource However, due to the lack of quantitative evaluation of application ef­
stewardship (25%) fects, it is unclear what impact those measures will bring. For example,
Smart and healthy whether an excessive thermal performance of building envelope will
building (18%)
Advanced green
reduce the comfort level of the indoor thermal environment under free-
efforts (14%) running conditions, leading to the need for an air conditioning system,
ASGB Prerequisite Prerequisite from Basic-level, which will bring thermal discomfort and increase energy consumption.
requirements in each requirements and One-star, Two-star Therefore, we attempt to explore the influence of these criteria on in­
category (36%) credits for each to Three-star
door thermal comfort through parametric analysis.
Safety and durability category
(9%) Parametric study with the use of Design Builder was employed to a
Health and comfort validated case model. DesignBuilder is able to predict indoor air tem­
(9%) perature with/without air-conditioner as well as the cooling loads. The
Occupant selected case is a high-rise residential condominium located in south-
convenience (9%)
west Singapore. From the design stage, this building was intended to
Resources saving
(19%) be eco-friendly and has been awarded Green Mark Platinum. The reason
Environment for choosing a physical building is to calibrate and validate the theo­
livability (9%), retical model in DesignBuilder for the subsequent simulation-based
Promotion and
parametric study. The validation of the developed case model in
innovation (9%)
BEAM Integrated design Prerequisite From Bronze, DesignBuilder is presented in Ref. [47]. Three locations, namely
Plus and construction requirements and Silver, Gold to Singapore, Beijing and Shenzhen are chosen for the parametric study
management (16%) credits for each Platinum due to the application scope of the examined criteria. Details are given in
Sustainable site category Section 4.2.
(14%)
Materials and waste
(8%)
Energy use (26%)

4
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

4. Results Table 2
The compulsory and credits criteria for indoor thermal comfort assessment.
4.1. Criteria identification and their impact on the indoor thermal GBRSs Compulsory Scoring
environment creation
Credits Credit Criteria Weights

4.1.1. Direct criteria LEED EQ EQ: Thermal 1) ASHRAE <1%

PREREQUISITE: comfort Standard
Table 2 analyses the compulsory and credit criteria for the indoor Minimum indoor 55–2010 or ISO
thermal comfort assessment that directly affect the design of indoor air quality and CEN
thermal environment. performance Standards based
Not all the GBRSs have compulsory criteria for the indoor thermal required thermal comfort
design;
comfort. LEED regulates the minimum outdoor air intake flow for me­
AND 2)
chanical ventilation systems and the minimum outdoor air opening and Individual
space configuration requirements for free-running spaces. BREEAM, thermal comfort
Green Star and BEAM Plus do not have a compulsory criterion for the controls for at
indoor thermal comfort. BREEAM sets the prerequisite for reviewing least 50% of
individual
thermal comfort during seasonal commissioning for BREEAM Excellent occupant spaces
and Outstanding certified projects. Green Star has an optional commit­ BREEAM No pre-requisite Hea 04 1) Thermal 2%
ment to indoor environment performance in Management Category: Thermal modelling results
Occupant comfort survey targets, stated as the number of times per year comfort in accordance
with ISO
a questionnaire is completed; HVAC systems maintenance targets, stated
7730:2005
in accordance with recognized standards; and Performance measure­ AND 2)
ment, including at least quarterly reporting, for indoor air quality, Adaptability for a
thermal comfort or lighting comfort. Green Mark only have the pre­ projected climate
requisite for the Green Mark Platinum certification, which regulates the change scenario
AND 3) Thermal
project to comply with a minimum 70% of the selected typical dwelling zoning and
units should have a weighted average wind velocity of 0.6 m/s or within controls
the required PMV range. ASGB regulates indoor thermal design pa­ Green No pre-requisite 14. Thermal At least 80% of 2%
rameters for mechanical controlled spaces and to-do measures such as Star comfort all occupants
degree being satisfied in
reserve available spaces for split air-conditioners for free-running
the space based
spaces. on thermal
For the credits criteria, a quantitative evaluation of the indoor comfort
thermal environment is encouraged. Based on the theory of thermal modelling
comfort, the existing thermal comfort models category into two groups: Green P3. For Green Mark 4.01a) Provision of 1%
Mark Platinum rating, Occupant assisted
the PMV-PPD model [48] for conditioned environments and the adap­ conduct Unit CFD comfort mechanism
tive model [49] for naturally ventilated environments. The employed simulation with equipment for
thermal comfort models in GBRSs follow the rule. But the specific mechanical aid to living rooms
calculation formulas vary with different rating systems, which is related meet thermal only; Or
comfort Provision of 2%
to the factors such as local climate, social, psychological and behav­
requirement. assisted
ioural adaptations of local residents. LEED, BREEAM, Green Star and mechanism
BEAM Plus adopt the most widely accepted international standards for equipment for
thermal comfort: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and living rooms and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard-55 [46], the Interna­ bedrooms
ASGB 5.1.6 Take 5.2.9 Indoor Based on the
tional Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard-7730 [50], the
<1%
measures to create thermal percentage of all
European standard EN15251 [51], and the Chartered Institution of a comfortable environment occupants being
Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) [52]. These international comfort indoor thermal assessment satisfied in the
standards are based on North American and northern European subjects environment, i.e., space
reserve installation
[53]. Green Mark proposed the PMV equation1 based on the charac­
spaces for split air
teristics of tropical humid-hot climate in Singapore. ASGB encourages conditioners for
thermal comfort modelling to comply with the National Evaluation buildings without
Standard for Indoor Thermal Environment in Civil Buildings central heating and
(GB/T50785-2012) [54]. air-conditioning
systems.
In summary, there is no compulsory criterion for the indoor thermal
5.1.8 The main
comfort level, especially for free-running residential buildings. It en­ function room
courages maintaining thermal comfort through active technologies should have a user-
instead. Although the credits criteria put forward specific requirements controlled
thermostat on-site.
for the indoor thermal comfort level, the scoring points for such credits
BEAM No pre-requisite HWB 9 Conducting 1.5%
are relatively low as compared to others (i.e. energy-related ones), Plus Thermal thermal comfort
which affects green building designers and consultants in the final Comfort analysis and
selection. demonstrate that
normally
occupied spaces
4.1.2. Indirect criteria
can fulfil the
Based on the theoretical analysis, we sort out indoor thermal thermal comfort
requirements;
And
1 <1%
PMV = − 11.7853 + 0.4232DBT-0.57889WIND, where DBT is air dry bulb
(continued on next page)
temperature, ◦ C; WIND is airflow velocity, m/s.

5
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

Table 2 (continued )

performance (COP) for

GBRSs Compulsory Scoring

Improve 2% of code
specified minimum
Credits Credit Criteria Weights

air-conditioning
equipment unit
Conducting on-

coefficient of
BEAM Plus
site
measurements to
verify the
thermal comfort

–
performance

Requirements for energy consumptions of HVAC

Code for thermal design of civil building.

Outdoor thermal environment comply with

environment related criteria and then group into building geometry

Requirements for the building geometry

design, building envelope thermal performance, HVAC systems and

Prescriptive compliance: GB 50176-

surrounding environments, shown in Tables 3 and 4.
To indicate the potential guidance of GBRSs in designing indoor
thermal environments, Table 5 scrutinizes the criteria from the rela­
tionship between architectural expression and thermophysical theory at

optimization design.
different levels of detail.

current standards.
From the comparison at the aspects of building scale (building ge­
ometry, building envelope performance design and HVAC systems) and

systems.
micro-scale (surrounding environments), we find that the evaluation

ASGB
methods of relevant criteria can be grouped into two categories: 1)
quantifying the increase of the potential performance due to design
strategy, techniques and improvements over the relevant baseline

system efficiency of air-

thermal transmittance

conditioning systems
for all dwelling units
model, mainly relying on simulated results. We define this rating

minimum green plot

residential envelope

value (RETV) of the

ration or integrated
Requirements for

Requirements for

Requirements for
approach and these types of criteria as performance path and

landscape and
performance-based criteria, respectively; 2) reviewing whether a spec­

Green Mark

waterscape
ified measure has been applied or whether an indicator has reached a

building
specific limit. We define this rating approach and these types of criteria
as prescriptive path and feature- or measure-based prescriptive criteria.

–
For criteria at the building scale, the employment of the two paths in

must be met in order for the

reference building, building

the six GBRSs mainly differs in the thermal performance design of the A conditional requirement

database, or prescriptive
project to be eligible for
building envelope. Building envelope has been regarded as the greatest

Provide 5 recognized

comparison with the

influence on the environmental impact of buildings [55]. Thus it’s

energy consumption
pathways through
necessary to explore the guidance of such criteria on the indoor thermal
environment design. The performance path, used in LEED, BREEAM,

compliance.
Green Star.
Green Star

Green Star and BEAM Plus, is designed to simulate heating and cooling
loads or building energy consumption of the project. Although
simulation-aided design can quantify the performance of each building

–
design scheme, the accuracy of simulations is challenging. The pre­
operational Energy demand, Primary

emissions for BREEAM Excellent and

calculation software to demonstrate

scriptive path, mainly adopted in ASGB and Green Mark, encourages to

Use of approved building energy

apply specific features and measures to projects. Heavy weights are

building designed to minimize

energy consumption and CO₂

allocated to feature/measure based criteria about the building façade

passive design. Taking residential buildings as an example, ASGB spec­
ifies three grades of heat transfer coefficient values of opaque walls and
glass windows of buildings in Cold-winter climate zones and SHGC of
glass windows associated with WWR for buildings in Hot-Summer and
Outstanding
Compulsory criteria in relation to indoor thermal environments.

Warm-winter climate zones. Green Mark regulates the average thermal

BREEAM

transmittance (U value) for the gross area of the building’s roof, and
RETV of the buildings. The above indicators are derived from the
–

consideration of building energy conservation, which will affect the

Pathways 1: Whole-Building Energy

Pathways 2: Comply with the HVAC

strategies and recommendations by

types and system efficiency, design

creation of indoor thermal environment. In the Green Mark Gold rating,

climate zone in ANSI/ASHRAE/

RETV shall not exceed 25 W/m2; Green Mark GoldPLUS rating is 22

Minimum energy performance:

W/m2; Green Mark Platinum rating is 20 W/m2. The RETV formula is

IESNA Standard 90.1–2010

shown in Eq. (1).

RETV = 3.4(1-WWR) Uw+1.3(WWR) Uf+58.6 (WWR)(CF)(SC) (1)

Where RETV is residential envelope transmittance value (W/m2);

Simulation;

Window-To-Wall Ratio (WWR) is the ratio of the fenestration area to

GBRSs

LEED

gross area of the exterior wall; Uw is thermal transmittance of opaque

–

wall (W/m2K), Uf is thermal transmittance of fenestration (W/m2K), CF

is correction factor for solar heat gain through fenestration, and SC is
environments
performance

HVAC systems

shading coefficients of fenestration.

Surrounding
geometry

envelope
Categories

Although an energy-efficient building’s façade plays an important

design

design
Building

Building
Table 3

role in energy-saving in buildings, blindly enhancing the thermal per­

formance of building envelopes in Singapore and China will not further

6
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

Table 4
Credits criteria in relation to indoor thermal environments.
Categories GBRSs (Weights)

LEED BREEAM Green Star Green Mark ASGB BEAM Plus

Building geometry EA Credit: Optimize Ene 01 Reduction of Credit 15: 5.01a Passive design 5.2.10 Optimized building EU 1 Low carbon passive
design energy performance energy use and Greenhouse gas strategies (2%) layout for enhanced indoor design (4%)
(18%) carbon emissions emissions (18%) natural ventilation (7%) EU 2 Reduction of CO2
Building envelope (9%) 1.03a Tropical 7.2.4 Optimize building envelop emissions (10%)
performance Ene 04 Low carbon façade performance energy performance (14%) EU 3 Peak electricity
design design (2%) (4%) demand reduction (2%)
1.03b Internal 5.2.11 The application of HWB 4 Enhanced
organisation (1%) adjustable external shading ventilation (3%)
1.03c Ventilation devices (8%)
performance (7%)
HVAC systems 2.0.1a Air 7.2.5 The energy efficiency of
conditioning system HVAC systems is superior to the
efficiency (4%) current national standard GB
50189 (9%)
Surrounding Heat island – 25 Heat island 1.02a Sustainable 8.2.8 Well-designed wind SS 8 Urban heat island
environments reduction (2%) effect (1%) urbanism (4%) environment around the mitigation (4%)
1.02b Integrated building (9%) SS 9 Immediate
landscape and neighbourhood wind
waterscape (4%) environment (<1%)
4.2.7 Heat island effect SS 10 Outdoor thermal
mitigation measures (9%) comfort (<1%)

expand the energy-saving benefits brought by passive design [47–56]. It 47.5% for the case with a WWR of 0.8. As shown in Fig. 3 (a) and (c), the
raises a question: what are the potential impacts of choosing such thermal performance of windows has different effects on passive indoor
energy-oriented criteria at the design stage, i.e., lowering U value and thermal comfort in the window-closed scenario. The U-values of the
SHGC, on the indoor thermal comfort level under free-running condi­ exterior wall used in base cases (WWR = 0.8/0.4) are the same. The
tions? To answer this question, a numerical model is established in window type of the base case under the WWR = 0.8 scenario is the same
DesignBuilder and verified well for a parametric study. The examined as Type 2 in the context of WWR = 0.4. In other words, to meet the
scenarios and results are presented in the Appendix and Section 4.2, control of RETV = 25 W/m2, the window’s SHGC for the base case under
respectively. the WWR = 0.8 scenario increases by 34.5% compared to that of WWR
For criteria at the micro-scale, current criteria evaluate the thermal = 0.4. In the context of WWR = 0.8, we change the thermal performance
effect of surrounding environments on the indoor thermal environment of windows in two different ways: Type 1 further improves SHGC tar­
by applying UHI mitigation measures to the case, such as greenery, geting a RETV of 22 W/m2; Type 2 further decreases the U-value of
shaded parking, and reflectance of building and adjacent surfaces. The windows to achieve a RETV of 20 W/m2. The U-value of Type 1 is 2.2
effectiveness of rewarded UHI mitigation measures is not quantified on times that of type 2, but the SHGC of type 1 is 13% higher than that of
the thermal and energy performance improvements. Although the type 2. The results show that both methods increase the acceptable in­
simulation analysis can perform at a microscale, results from modelling door thermal comfort time compared to the base case. But improving
are of questionable accuracy. Due to multiple physical processes of SHGC has a more significant effect than reducing the U value of the
regional climate, urban climate, building and pavement material prop­ exterior wall, although the overall RETV value under Type 2 application
erties, and anthropogenic heat, the urban microclimate is very dynamic. is lower than Type 1 application. Another finding is, when ventilation is
However, a full-scale simulation from the regional to mesoscale and enhanced by opening a window, the lower RETV, the better the indoor
further down to microscale is almost impossible due to the complexity of thermal comfort. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 3 (b) and (d), when
multiple physical processes, inaccessible data, and limited computation the RETV is reduced from 25 W/m2 to 20 W/m2 by improving the U-
resources [26, 57-58]. To the best of our knowledge, most CFD simu­ value of exterior walls, the ratio of acceptable indoor thermal comfort
lations performed for outdoor urban environments focus on ventilation hours decreases up to 18.6% for the case with a WWR of 0.4; and to
studies and pollutant dispersion, without considering solar heat and 64.8% for the case with a WWR of 0.8.
anthropogenic heat. In the Shenzhen example, the percentage of year-round acceptable
indoor thermal comfort hours increases with the improvement of win­
dow SHGC (Fig. 3). It shows positive impact in summer while adverse
4.2. Parametric study results
impact in winter. The influence trend of different orientations is
consistent, but the degree of influence varies. East-west orientation is
In Singapore, although the values of U or SHGC can be adjusted to
more sensitive to SHGC than north-south orientation.
make the value of RETV the same, the effectiveness of changing U or
The effectiveness of improving SHGC performs much better for
SHGC differs (Fig. 2). Generally, increasing the SHGC of windows is
window-closed scenarios. The extent of improvement increases
more effective than reducing the U-value of external windows and
dramatically when the WWR changes from 0.1 to 0.4. The average in­
external walls. It may cause adverse effects if the RETV is reduced only
crease rate of acceptable indoor thermal comfort hours with a WWR of
by reducing the U value of external walls, indicating that blocking solar
0.1 is 2% (ranges from 0.14% to 5.26%); while the average increase rate
radiation from entering the room is essential for improving the indoor
with a WWR of 0.4 is 10% (ranges from 0.09% to 25.7%). When the
thermal environment. The results also indicate natural ventilation is
WWR is 0.4 (the upper limit for Shenzhen), the efficacy of improving
important to indoor thermal comfort; the greater the window-to-wall
SHGC on the south-facing window is 1.2–1.6 times that of other orien­
ratio, the greater the sensitivity of indoor thermal comfort to the
tations. When the WWR is 0.1, the efficacy of improving SHGC on the
RETV value.
east-facing window is slightly better than that of other orientations, and
When the RETV decreases from 25 W/m2 to 20 W/m2 by improving
the south is the lowest.
the SHGC, the acceptable indoor thermal comfort hours’ ratio increases
For Beijing, when the U values of east-facing and south-facing
0.94%–23.8% for the case with a WWR of 0.4; and from − 4.36% to

7
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

Table 5 Table 5 (continued )

The potential guidance on building design due to GBRSs. Architectural expression Thermophysical Approaches
Architectural expression Thermophysical Approaches expression
Level I Level II Level III
expression
Level I Level II Level III
Coverage
Building- Building Orientation I,V CFD & BEM ratio
scale geometry and layout calculation
design Building V CFD & BEM Roof with U, I LEED &
disposition vegetation and BREEAM &
Building V CFD & BEM a growing Green Star
permeability medium, solar & ASGB &
Building Window to U, I, V LEED: CFD & hot water and BEAM Plus:
envelop wall ratio BEM; Or photovoltaic Coverage
performance prescriptive panels, cool ratio
design compliance materials calculation;
BREEAM & Green Mark:
Green Star Prescriptive
& BEAM compliance
Plus: CFD & for RETV
BEM HVAC systems Cooling and Energy BEM; Or
Green Mark: heating loads efficiency, Q prescriptive
Less than 0.8 compliance
ASGB: Set Micro- Surroundings Greenery Tout, U, I, V Measure-
thresholds scale design Shaded Tout, U, I, V checklist
for each parking
climate zone Reflectance of Tout, U, I, V
in China building and
Opaque U, I LEED: CFD & adjacent
building BEM; Or surfaces
envelope prescriptive materials
characteristics compliance
Note:U: Heat transfer coefficient; I: Solar irradiation; V: Air ventilation rate; Tout:
BREEAM &
Green Star Outdoor air temperature; Q: Heating and cooling loads; BEM: Building energy
& BEAM modelling.
Plus: CFD & RETV: Residential envelope transmittance value (W/m2). It is proposed in Green
BEM Mark, taking into consideration the three basic components of heat gain through
Green Mark: the external walls and windows of a building.
Prescriptive
compliance
for RETV exterior walls and windows improve by 5% in window-closed scenarios
ASGB: Set with a WWR of 0.3, the percentage of acceptable indoor thermal comfort
threshold for hours increases from 2% to 8%; while the adverse impacts exist in the
each climate
rest of scenarios (Fig. 4). It concludes that, on the basis of the existing
zone in
China
energy-saving standard requirements, further improving the U value of
Glazing U, I, V LEED: CFD & the building envelope in such a climate zone will have an adverse impact
characteristics BEM; Or on the indoor thermal environment in most scenarios, especially in
prescriptive summer.
compliance
BREEAM &
Green Star& 5. Discussion
BEAM Plus:
CFD & BEM The findings of this study clearly show why there is a gap between
Green Mark:
the GBRS and the resulting thermal environment. The research findings
CFD & BEM;
&
could inform the green building designers and consultants on how
Prescriptive GBRSs affect indoor thermal comfort environments design, particularly
compliance the impact of energy-saving centric indicators with prescriptive rating
for RETV path on indoor thermal comfort under free-running conditions,
ASGB: The
providing insights into the future research directions of GBRSs.
projection
area of Our findings conclude that GBRS affects the performance of an in­
adjustable door thermal environment due to criteria settings, rating approaches
external and weights allocations. First, the rating of indoor thermal comfort in
shading the reviewed GBRS is not a mandatory requirement and is given a low
devices to
the glazing
weight as a scoring item. GBRSs adopt a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach
area & Solar to rate a project. This means that the majority of GBRS credits can be
Heat Gain traded to achieve a particular level of performance. Second, we identi­
Coefficient fied direct and indirect criteria for indoor thermal comfort creation and
(SHGC)
classified them as performance-based and perspective-based. We further
Vertical U, I LEED &
greenery BREEAM & examined the potential impact of the two types of criteria on creating a
Green Star comfortable indoor thermal environment, especially under free-running
& ASGB & conditions. The results suggest the building envelope performance
BEAM Plus: design-related ones in Green Mark and ASGB may adversely affect the
CFD & BEM;
Green Mark:
indoor thermal comfort and propose revisions for such criteria. Many
studies point out that the imbalance between building energy efficiency

8
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

Fig. 2. Results under Singapore scenario.

Fig. 3. Results under Shenzhen scenario.

Fig. 4. Results under Beijing scenario.

and indoor thermal comfort might be one of the causes of the thermal thermal comfort, prioritizing the credits for designing green. On the
comfort performance gap. This work digs deep into how and to what other hand, although we suggest that the performance-based criterion is
extent GBRS attributes affect the performance of indoor thermal com­ more conducive to the judgment of the effectiveness of the measures and
fort. Third, we conclude that current GBRSs should strengthen the the free play of the designer, the accuracy and computational expen­
interaction between indoor and outdoor thermal environments. siveness of the simulation is a huge challenge, especially when the scale
In this study, we conducted detailed theoretical analysis, simulation of the simulation is upgraded from indoor to external environments.
and comparison work to explore the reason that a lower perceived This is what many POE studies have identified as the cause of the gap
thermal comfort satisfaction was observed in many green buildings from between design thermal comfort performance and actual thermal com­
the perspective of GBRS attributes. Next stage, it encourages to conduct fort performance [26–33]. Even if some GBRSs such as BEAM Plus have
a synergistic analysis of the performance of energy saving and indoor detailed regulations on the settings of simulation conditions to improve

9
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

the accuracy as much as possible, they still face difficulties in imple­ context.
mentation. With the increasing availability of large amount of data, data
driven models are starting to be investigated to either replace, improve, CRediT authorship contribution statement
or aid CFD simulations [59]. For instance, Warey et al. [60] use deep
learning models as surrogate models to quantify the thermal comfort of Yueer He: Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology,
indoor vehicle cabins based on faster prediction for different boundary Conceptualization. Nyuk Hien Wong: Supervision, Conceptualization.
conditions of air temperature, air velocity, humidity, glazing conditions, Thomas Kvan: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Meng
etc. Ding et al.[61] develop a data driven regression model for coupled Liu: Writing – review & editing. Shanshan Tong: Writing – review &
indoor-outdoor flow analysis together with CFD simulations. As rec­ editing, Software.
ommended by Calzolari and Liu [59], new potential methods as surro­
gate modelling for fast and inexpensive predictions, such as physics
informed deep learning modelling, turbulence model enhancement with Declaration of competing interest
different techniques, and super-resolution techniques are the most
promising methods that are largely yet to be explored in the built The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
environment, for both indoor and outdoor simulations. Breakthroughs interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
in these methods might solve the current limitations of simulation-based the work reported in this paper.
ratings. GBRSs should follow the development in this research field and
further improve the rating system. Data availability

6. Conclusions I have included the data in the attached files

The environmental performance of a building development shall be Acknowledgement

determined by the numerical scores achieved in accordance with the
applicable criteria using the scoring methodology and prerequisite re­ This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
quirements on the level of building performance as specified in GBRSs. of China [grant number 52178020], the Shenzhen Science and Tech­
Under the assessment framework, the feasibility and allocated weights nology Innovation Committee [grant number 20200810144726001]
to credits affect the green building design group on the selection of and the State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science [grant
GBRSs credits. In this context, many post-occupancy evaluation studies number 2022ZB10]. Model development and field measurements for the
showed lower perceived thermal comfort satisfaction in green buildings. case study are supported by the research project Energy Efficient
Hence, we conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis based on six Building Facades for Thermal Comfort Environment [WBS: R-296-000-
selected green building rating systems to examine the influence of 169-490] funded by the Government of Singapore Building and Con­
GBRSs’ attributes, such as criteria, rating approaches and weights allo­ struction Authority (BCA) - Green Buildings Innovation Cluster (GBIC).
cations for creating a comfortable indoor thermal environment. The
primary findings are: Appendix A. Supplementary data
First, not all the GBRSs have compulsory criteria for the indoor
thermal comfort. It encourages maintaining thermal comfort through Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
active technologies instead. Although the credits criteria put forward org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109514.
specific requirements for the indoor thermal comfort level, the scoring
points for such credits are relatively low as compared to others (i.e. References
energy-related ones), which affects decision makers and green building
consultants in the final selection. [1] https://www.worldgbc.org/what-green-building. (Accessed 15 July 2020).
[2] D. Zhao, B. He, C. Johnson, et al., Social problems of green buildings: from the
Second, we concluded that the GBRSs guides the formation of an humanistic needs to social acceptance, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015)
indoor thermal environment from the four dimensions of building ge­ 1594–1609.
ometry, building envelope, HVAC systems and surrounding environ­ [3] G.R. Newsham, B.J. Birt, C. Arsenault, et al., Do ‘green’ buildings have better
indoor environments? New evidence, Build. Res. Inf. 41 (4) (2013) 415–434.
ments. Among them, the six GBRSs adopt simulation methods to assess
[4] S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus, D. Lehrer, et al., Occupant satisfaction with indoor
the design of building geometry and HVAC systems. LEED, BREEAM, environmental quality in green buildings, Proc. Healthy Build. III (2006) 365–370.
Green Star and BEAM Plus adopt the performance-based method to https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9rf7p4bs.
assess the thermal performance of building envelopes associated with [5] T. Cheung, S. Schiavon, L.T. Graham, et al., Occupant satisfaction with the indoor
environment in seven commercial buildings in Singapore, Build. Environ. 188
heating and cooling loads while ASGB and Green Mark use the (2021), 107443.
prescriptive-based approach. However, the contribution of the thermal [6] I.Y. Wuni, G.Q.P. Shen, R. Osei-Kyei, Scientometric review of global research
performance of building envelopes should be reconsidered. We found trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018, Energy
Build. 190 (2019) 69–85.
that existing compulsory and credits criteria assigned with high weights [7] M. Braulio-Gonzalo, A. Jorge-Ortiz, M.D. Bovea, How are indicators in green
that minimize the heat transfer coefficient or the shading coefficient building rating systems addressing sustainability dimensions and life cycle
may not further expand the energy-saving benefits brought by passive frameworks in residential buildings? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 95 (2022),
106793.
design but decrease the acceptable indoor thermal environment hours [8] M. Shan, B.-G. Hwang, Green building rating systems: global reviews of practices
under free-running mode. Besides, we strongly suggest that the next and research efforts, Sustain. Cities Soc. 39 (2018) 172–180.
generation of GBRSs enhance the interaction and integration of indoor [9] B. Mattoni, C. Guattari, L. Evangelisti, et al., Critical review and methodological
approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating
and outdoor thermal environments, improving the accuracy and time­ tools, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 950–960.
liness of BEM and CFD simulations with the use of new methods such as [10] Z. Ding, Z. Fan, V.W.Y. Tam, et al., Green building evaluation system
data driven surrogate modelling. However, the challenge will be data implementation, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 32–40.
[11] Y. He, T. Kvan, M. Liu, et al., How green building rating systems affect designing
access for the surrounding urban context and the feasibility of dynamic
green, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 19–31.
weather prediction and calculation down from regional scale to building [12] Y. Geng, W. Ji, Z. Wang, et al., A review of operating performance in green
scale. buildings: energy use, indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction,
Finally, we note that the establishment of architectural prototypes is Energy Build. 183 (2019) 500–514.
[13] M.H. Issa, J.H. Rankin, M. Attalla, et al., Absenteeism, performance and occupant
of importance as well. These can help examine the effectiveness of a satisfaction with the indoor environment of green toronto schools, Indoor Built
specific feature or measure in a certain climate zone and surrounding Environ. 20 (5) (2011) 511–523.

10
Y. He et al. Building and Environment 224 (2022) 109514

[14] S.-K. Kim, Y. Hwang, Y.S. Lee, et al., Occupant comfort and satisfaction in green [38] S. Lu, Y. Liu, Y. Sun, et al., Indoor thermal environmental evaluation of Chinese
healthcare environments: a survey study focusing on healthcare staff, J. Sustain. green building based on new index otcp and subjective satisfaction, J. Clean. Prod.
Dev. 8 (1) (2015) 156. 240 (2019), 118151.
[15] Y.S. Lee, S.-K. Kim, Indoor environmental quality in LEED-certified buildings in the [39] U.S. Green Building Council, LEED V4 for building design and construction,
us, J. Asian Architect. Build Eng. 7 (2) (2008) 293–300. Retrieved from, http://leed.usgbc.org/leed.html?gclid=CJKogbyd1cgCFQqav
[16] S. Altomonte, S. Schiavon, Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified AodDlENAw. (Accessed 15 July 2020).
buildings, Build. Environ. 68 (2013) 66–76. [40] BRE Group, BREEAM international new construction, Retrieved from, https://
[17] S. Altomonte, S. Schiavon, M.G. Kent, et al., Indoor environmental quality and bregroup.com/products/breeam/. (Accessed 15 June 2022).
occupant satisfaction in green-certified buildings, Build. Res. Inf. 47 (3) (2019) [41] Green Building Council of Australia, Green Star Design & as Built V1, vol. 2, 2018.
255–274. Australia.
[18] S. Altomonte, S. Saadouni, S. Schiavon, Occupant satisfaction in LEED and [42] Building and Construction Authority. Green Mark for Residential Buildings: 2016
BREEAM-certified office buildings, in: Proceedings of PLEA 2016–36th Criteria, Singapore, 2016.
International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture: Cities, [43] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
Buildings, People: towards Regenerative Environments, 2016. China, Assessment Standard for Green Building GB/T 50378, China Architecture &
[19] M. Davies, T. Oreszczyn, The unintended consequences of decarbonising the built Building Press, Beijing, China, 2019.
environment: a UK case study, Energy Build. 46 (2012) 80–85. [44] HKGBC, BEAM Plus New Buildings Version 2.0, 2021, BEAM Society Limited,
[20] A. Leaman, L. Thomas, M. Vandenberg, ‘Green’ buildings: what Australian users 2021.
are saying, EcoLibrium (R) (2007). [45] Y. He, T. Kvan, M. Liu, et al., How green building rating systems affect designing
[21] M. Khoshbakht, Z. Gou, Y. Lu, et al., Are green buildings more satisfactory? A green, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 19–31.
review of global evidence, Habitat Int. 74 (2018) 57–65. [46] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard55, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human
[22] S. Lu, Y. Liu, Y. Sun, et al., Indoor thermal environmental evaluation of Chinese Occupancy, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning
green building based on new index otcp and subjective satisfaction, J. Clean. Prod. Engineers. Inc., Atlanta, 2004, 2004.
240 (2019), 118151. [47] S. Tong, J. Wen, N.H. Wong, et al., Impact of façade design on indoor air
[23] R. Elnaklah, I. Walker, S. Natarajan, Moving to a green building: indoor temperatures and cooling loads in residential buildings in the tropical climate,
environment quality, thermal comfort and health, Build. Environ. 191 (2021), Energy Build. 243 (2021), 110972.
107592. [48] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental
[24] Y. He, T. Kvan, M. Liu, et al., How green building rating systems affect designing Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1972.
green, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 19–31. [49] G.S. Brager, R.J. De Dear, Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a literature
[25] Y. Hua, Ö. Göçer, K. Göçer, Spatial mapping of occupant satisfaction and indoor review, Energy Build. 27 (1) (1998) 83–96.
environment quality in a leed Platinum campus building, Build. Environ. 79 (2014) [50] Iso, Standard 7730, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment – Analytical
124–137. Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the
[26] Q. Chen, Ventilation performance prediction for buildings: a method overview and PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria, International Standard
recent applications, Build. Environ. 44 (4) (2009) 848–858. Organization, Geneva, 2005.
[27] G.R. Newsham, S. Mancini, B.J. Birt, Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, [51] Bs/En, Standard-15251, Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and
but…, Energy Build. 41 (8) (2009) 897–905. Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality,
[28] A.C. Menezes, A. Cripps, D. Bouchlaghem, et al., Predicted Vs. Actual energy Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics, British/European Standard,
performance of non-domestic buildings: using post-occupancy evaluation data to London, 2007.
reduce the performance gap, Appl. Energy 97 (2012) 355–364. [52] CIBSE. Guide-A, Environmental Design, CIBSE – Chartered Institution of Building
[29] X. Yang, L. Zhao, M. Bruse, et al., An integrated simulation method for building Services Engineers, London, 2006.
energy performance assessment in urban environments, Energy Build. 54 (2012) [53] B.W. Olesen, K.C. Parsons, Introduction to thermal comfort standards and to the
243–251. proposed new version of EN ISO 7730, Energy Build. 34 (6) (2002) 537–548.
[30] C.Y. Yi, C. Peng, Microclimate change outdoor and indoor coupled simulation for [54] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
passive building adaptation design, Procedia Comput. Sci. 32 (2014) 691–698. China, Evaluation Standard for Indoor Thermal Environment in Civil Buildings GB/
[31] P. Ponterosso, M. Gaterell, J. Williams, Post occupancy evaluation and internal T 50785-2012, China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, China, 2012.
environmental monitoring of the new breeam “excellent” land rover/ben ainslie [55] A. Alwisy, S. Buhamdan, M. GüL, Criteria-based ranking of green building design
racing team headquarters offices, Build. Environ. 146 (2018) 133–142. factors according to leading rating systems, Energy Build. 178 (2018) 347–359.
[32] J. Liang, Y. Qiu, M. Hu, Mind the energy performance gap: evidence from green [56] Y. He, Y. Ding, M. Liu, Analysis of energy efficiency of green buildings in hot-
commercial buildings, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141 (2019) 364–377. summer and cold-winter zone in China, J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 40 (2018) 113–121.
[33] Y. He, M. Liu, T. Kvan, et al., An enthalpy-based energy savings estimation method [57] B. Blocken, Computational fluid dynamics for urban physics: importance, scales,
targeting thermal comfort level in naturally ventilated buildings in hot-humid possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and reliable
summer zones, Appl. Energy 187 (2017) 717–731. simulations, Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 219–245.
[34] G. Papachristos, N. Jain, E. Burman, et al., Low carbon building performance in the [58] G.F. Garuma, J.-P. Blanchet, É. Girard, et al., Urban surface effects on current and
construction industry: a multi-method approach of project management operations future climate, Urban Clim. 24 (2018) 121–138.
and building energy use applied in a UK public office building, Energy Build. 206 [59] G. Calzolari, W. Liu, Deep learning to replace, improve, or aid cfd analysis in built
(2020), 109609. environment applications : a review, Build. Environ. (2021) 206.
[35] X. Wu, B. Lin, G. Papachristos, et al., A holistic approach to evaluate building [60] A. Warey, S. Kaushik, B. Khalighi, et al., Data-driven prediction of vehicle cabin
performance gap of green office buildings: a case study in China, Build. Environ. thermal comfort: using machine learning and high-fidelity simulation results, Int.
175 (2020), 106819. J. Heat Mass Tran. 148 (2020), 119083.
[36] Z. Afroz, H. Burak Gunay, W. O’brien, A review of data collection and analysis [61] C. Ding, K.P. Lam, Data-driven model for cross ventilation potential in high-density
requirements for certified green buildings, Energy Build. 226 (2020), 110367. cities based on coupled cfd simulation and machine learning, Build. Environ. 165
[37] P. De Wilde, The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of (2019), 106394.
buildings: a framework for investigation, Autom. ConStruct. 41 (2014) 40–49.

11