CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 56, 2017 A publication of The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.aidic.it/cet Guest Editors: Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Peng Yen Liew, Wai Shin Ho, Jeng Shiun Lim Copyright © 2017, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l., ISBN 978-88-95608-47-1; ISSN 2283-9216 Investigation of Green Assessment Criteria and Sub-criteria for Public Hospital Building Development in Malaysia Shaza Rina Sahamir*,a, Rozana Zakariaa, Gamal Alqaifia, Nur Izieadiana Abidina, Raja Rafidah Raja Muhd Rooshdib aFaculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia bFaculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Mara, UiTM, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia rinashaza@gmail.com Malaysia as a developing country has extreme motives towards sustainable development as a lifestyles practice, thus the need to prepare for the change is required. The implementations of sustainability have become important initiatives discussed and undertaken by both private and public sector dealing with residential and non-residential buildings including hospital buildings. A hospital, healthcare facility, has been upgraded from essential to very essential in the context of Sustainable City. Buildings are known as human habitat and shelter. Peoples’ health and the environment condition are highly influenced by the way the buildings have been designed, constructed and operated. Compared to other building types, the 24 hours’ scenario use of healthcare buildings have a particular large impact on the environment. The problems created by rampant urbanisation are among the most important challenges recently. Thus, the development of green hospital is important in order to create a healthy lifestyle that viable economically, environmentally and socially. The investigation of green assessment main criteria and sub criteria for public hospital building development in Malaysia is the primary aim for this research. Healthcare buildings’ essential criteria of existing green rating systems worldwide and the difference between each criterion compared to Malaysian green rating system all are compiled. Guideline and existing tools are thoroughly reviewed, analysed and divided according to similar categories covers all aspect of building design, construction and operation. The data then will be analysed using content analysis in order to identify the various sub criteria to hospital buildings development. The results from the analysis demonstrate a set of assessment criteria for green public hospital building corresponding to Malaysia’s scale. 1. Introduction Green assessment system basically refers to the processes that are environmentally responsible and resource- efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle; from inception to the demolition stage. The ultimate goal for the green assessment system is to generate sustainable building practice that expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, society and environment. Although it has been discussed widely as an initiative to offer many benefits to the buildings recently, yet the issues on effectiveness are still in on-going debate from past to present. This is proven in the study conducted by Newsham et al. (2009), who has reported that Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) - certified buildings, used more energy compared to non-LEED counterparts. It has been followed by Scofield (2013), mentioned that LEED-certified buildings did not show a significant reduction either on the energy consumption or greenhouse gas emission as compared to non-certified LEED buildings. In addition, in the Malaysian context, Huat and Akasah (2011), found that a few accredited green buildings did not perform as per stated design specifications after the post-occupancy assessment. As things stand, there is an initiative taken by Mustapha et al. (2015), who have conducted a study on the improvement of assessment system by using a new tool to assess the greenness and still at the same time the coverage was in the context of using the existing green elements which is similar with existing green assessment systems. A new Green Index has been developed as a quantitative green performance indicator as a result for their study. DOI: 10.3303/CET1756052 Please cite this article as: Sahamir S.R., Zakaria R., Alqaifi G., Abidin N.I.A., Rooshdi R.R.R.M., 2017, Investigation of green assessment criteria and sub-criteria for public hospital building development in malaysia, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 56, 307-312 DOI:10.3303/CET1756052 307 2. Hospital sustainability Hospital industry has known as a relatively complex development. It is sensibly known as complex buildings with many unique requirements from the initial business viewpoints until the types of facilities provided. Healthcare services are water and energy intensive, consume a great deal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials and are responsible for producing polluting emissions. Built environment accounts for 40 % of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in the Netherlands, thus, sustainable building has become an important issue. Hospitals alone count for 4 % of the built environment, hence there is a lot to gain (Kras, 2011). A recent study revealed that sustainable initiatives such as recycling and reducing common wasteful practices can save hospitals a substantial amount of money. In fact, the industry as a whole could save $ 5.4 billion in 5 y and up to $15 billion in 10 y if it adopts sustainable practices (Kaplan et al., 2012). Therefore, it is necessary that hospitals feel the urgency to undertake actions in determining the environmental impact of a hospital building development. The healthcare buildings should aim to make no contribution to climate change through effective design of buildings and land management to support local biodiversity. 2.1 Hospital sustainability in Malaysia Sahamir and Zakaria (2014) stated that there is slightly small in number of hospital buildings in Malaysia, particularly the ones that being awarded by Green Building Index (GBI) rating tools. The study has reported only 2 numbers of hospital building were documented as green building for the certification level by GBI in 2014. However, according to recent data, there is an increasing number for hospital buildings receiving certification under the GBI rating tools. Thus, it demonstrates the positive result in term of the development of green hospital building in Malaysia. Besides, there are rating systems specifically created for hospital building by GBI, namely; 1) GBI Non-Residential New Construction (NRNC) for hospital tool V1.0, and 2) GBI Non-Residential Existing Building (NREB) for Hospital tool V1.0. Both contents have no differences in term of points, rating score as well as main criteria from the previous rating version used for GBI NRNC and NREB (Sahamir and Zakaria, 2014). 2.2 Green assessment system for hospital buildings The rating system provides an effective framework for assessing building environmental performance and integrating sustainable development into building and construction processes; as it can be used as a design tool by setting sustainable design priorities and goals, developing appropriate sustainable design strategies; and determining performance measures to guide the sustainable design and decision making processes (Ando et al., 2005). There are hundreds of building assessment schemes worldwide focusing on different areas of sustainable development and are designed for different types of projects. However, only few systems are widely acknowledged and really set a recognisable standard for hospital building assessment. The following three (3) systems were chosen to be reviewed in this paper as they are influential and technically advanced rating tools available for healthcare-specific building: 1. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), 2. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and 3. GREEN STAR. The differences between those three rating systems are shown in Table 1. 3. Methodology This paper has developed a research focusing on green hospital building development. The comparison for different assessment systems is essential for the study in providing further direction of the research. This paper approach was qualitative in nature, using holistic account to fulfil the research aims and objectives. This involves reporting multiple perspectives, identifying many factors involved in a situation and generally sketching the larger picture that emerges. During the process of research, the author may collect and analyse public documents (e.g. newspaper, minute of meetings, official reports and etc.) or private documents (Creswell, 2009). Therefore, this paper has identified some relevant documents in order to obtain rich data for analysis purposes. The different types of green assessment systems were used and analysed. It provides comprehensive criteria and sub-criteria for the regions; provide a whole specific type of building evaluation rather than an evaluation of the general building. Identification of green criteria and sub-criteria for hospital building is imperative to study to look on the pattern of sensitivity of each rating systems for hospital building. 4. Result The study has identified several important criteria related to Green Hospital Building Development (GHBD). Thus, the data has been analysed into 2 different aspects, namely; 1) main criteria and 2) sub-criteria. 308 Table 1: Recognisable green assessment for hospital buildings (Sahamir and Zakaria, 2014). Country/Title Type Versions/Year Elements and points Ratings and level of certification UK BREEAM (new builds, extensions & major refurbishments) Environmental Assessment Healthcare 2008 2008 Management (12), Health and Wellbeing (15), Energy (19), Transport (8), Water (6), Materials (12.5), Waste (7.5), Land Use & Ecology (10), Pollution (10), Innovation (10). Total points = 110 Unclassified <30 Pass ≥30 Good ≥45 V Good ≥55 Excellent ≥70 Outstanding ≥85 US LEED (new construction & major renovations) Environmental Assessment Healthcare v2009 2009 Sustainable Sites (18), Water Efficiency (9), Energy and Atmosphere (39), Materials and Resources (16), Indoor Environmental Quality (18), Innovation In Design (6), Regional Priority Credits (4). Total points = 110 Certified 40-49 Silver 50-59 Gold 60-79 Platinum 80 and above AUSTRALIA Green Star (building at the design phase as well as post construction phase ‘As-Built’) Environmental Assessment Healthcare v1 2009 Management (17), Indoor Environment Quality (32), Energy (29), Transport (12), Water (14), Materials (35), Land use &Ecology (8), Emissions (20), Innovation (5). Total points = 172 Best Practice (4 star) 45-59 Australian Excellence (5 star) 60-74 World Leadership (6 star) 75-100 4.1 Main criteria for green hospital assessment system Table 2 shows there are 10 main criteria that need to be considered for the development of green hospital building. The matrix table has been used in order to investigate the detail differences between each assessment system. Figure 1 has summarised each preferred criterion that will be used against selected factors, namely; 1) economic, 2) environment and 3) social. These factors are significant elements to be measured in green assessment issues. Thus, he summary is significant to examine in order to determine which criteria belong to the stated factors for the upcoming study. Figure 1: Summary of main factor against main criteria Green Hospital Building Development (GHBD) Economic 1. Energy Efficiency 2. Indoor Environmental Quality 3. Sustainable Site Planning and Management 4. Materials and Resources 5. Water Efficiency 6. Innovation 7. Transport 8. Land Use and Ecology 9. Pollution / emissions 10. Waste Management Environment 1. Energy Efficiency 2. Indoor Environmental Quality 3. Sustainable Site Planning and Management 4. Materials and Resources 5. Water Efficiency 6. Innovation 7. Transport 8. Land Use and Ecology 9. Pollution / Emissions 10. Waste Management Social 1. Energy Efficiency 2. Indoor Environmental Quality 3. Sustainable Site Planning and Management 4. Materials and Resources 5. Water Efficiency 6. Innovation 7. Transport 8. Land Use and Ecology 9. Pollution / Emissions 10. Waste Management 309 4.2 Sub criteria for hospital green assessment system The tabulation methods have been used in order to gather, separate and coding the sub-criteria according to the main criteria of hospital building development. Table 3 were used to show the example of tabulation method specifically for energy efficiency (stated as main criteria – C1 in Table 4). The tabulation is a vital proses in analysing the detail sub-criteria from each existing green assessment systems. Hence, the sub-criteria that have been extracted from the green assessment systems into the main criteria table is shown in Table 4, 5 and 6. Table 2: Comparison of major elements consisted in Green rating system worldwide. NO GBI BREEAM LEED GREEN STAR 1 Energy efficiency Energy Energy and atmosphere Energy 2 Indoor environmental quality Health and wellbeing Indoor environment quality Indoor environment quality 3 Sustainable site planning & management Management Sustainable sites Management 4 Materials & resources Materials Materials & resources Materials 5 Water efficiency Water Water efficiency Water 6 Innovation Innovation Innovation in design Innovation 7 - Transport - Transport 8 - Land use and ecology - Land use and ecology 9 - Pollution - Emissions 10 - Waste - - Table 3: The tabulation of green assessment sub-criteria for hospital buildings in term of energy efficiency Green assessment index GBI NREB GBI NRNC BREEAM LEED GREEN STAR Main criteria Energy efficiency Energy efficiency Energy Energy and atmosphere Energy Sub- Criteria Minimum EE performance Minimum EE performance Low or zero carbon technologies Optimise energy performance Peak energy demand reduction Lighting zone Lighting zone - - Lighting zoning Electrical sub -metering Electrical sub - metering Energy sub- metering - Energy sub-metering Renewable energy Renewable energy - On-site renewable energy - Advanced or improved EE performance - BEI Advanced EE performance - BEI Energy efficient building systems Green power - Enhanced or Re- commissioning Enhanced commissioning - Enhance commissioning - On-going post occupancy commissioning Post Occupancy Commissioning - - - EE monitoring & improvement EE Verification - - - Sustainable maintenance Sustainable maintenance - - - - - CO2 emissions - Greenhouse gas emissions - - - Enhance refrigerant management - - - - Measurement and verification - - - - Community contaminant prevention – airborne releases - - - - - Car park ventilation - - - - Efficient external lighting 310 Table 4: The tabulation of green assessment sub-criteria C1, C2 and C3. C1: Energy Efficiency (EE) C2: Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) C3: Sustainable site planning and management 1) Minimum Energy Efficiency (EE) performance 2) Lighting Zoning 3) Electrical sub-metering 4) Renewable energy 5) Advanced or improved EE performance 6) Enhanced, commissioning or Re- commissioning 7) Post occupancy commissioning / On-going post occupancy commissioning 8) EE monitoring & improvement 9) Sustainable maintenance 10) Greenhouse gas emissions 11) Enhance refrigerant management 12) Measurement and verification 13) Community contaminant prevention – airborne releases 14) Car park ventilation 15) Efficient external lighting 16) Sub-metering of high energy load and tenancy areas 17) Provision of Energy Efficiency Equipment 18) CHP community energy 1) Minimum Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) performance 2) Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control 3) Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control 4) Volatile organic compounds (VOC) monitoring 5) Indoor Air Pollutants 6) Indoor chemical and pollutant source control 7) Mould Prevention 8) Thermal comfort: design & controllability of systems 9) Air Change Effectiveness 10) Daylighting 11) Daylight glare control 12) Electric lighting levels 13) Controllability of systems: lighting 14) Internal and external lighting levels 15) High frequency ballasts 16) External views 17) Internal noise levels / Acoustics environment 18) IAQ before/during occupancy 19) Occupancy / Post occupancy comfort survey: verification 20) Hazardous material removal or encapsulation 21) Low-emitting materials 22) Formaldehyde minimization (*Formaldehyde is one of the most toxic chemicals that can invade the human body. It is a known carcinogen and tissue irritant.) 23) Individual thermal comfort control 24) Exhaust riser 25) Air distribution system 26) Outdoor pollutant control 27) Places of respite 28) Thermal Zoning 29) Potential for natural ventilation 1) Green Index rated design & construction 2) Building exterior management 3) Integrated pest management, erosion control & landscape management 4) Greenery & roof 5) Building user manual 6) Commissioning clauses 7) Construction site impacts 8) Security 9) Site selection 10) Stormwater design: quantity and quality control 11) Development density and community connectivity 12) Brownfield redevelopment 13) Site development – protect or restore habitat 14) Site development – maximize open space 15) Connection to the natural world - places of respite 16) Connection to the natural world – direct exterior access for patients 17) Building tuning 18) Independent commissioning agent 19) Environmental management 20) Waste management 21) Building management systems 22) Maintainability 23) Construction indoor air quality plan 24) Sustainable procurement guide 25) Earthwork - construction activity pollution control 26) Workers' site amenities 27) Green vehicle priority 28) Considerate constructors 29) Consultation 30) Shared facilities 31) Good corporate citizen Table 6: The tabulation of green assessment sub-criteria C7, C8, C9 and C10. C7: Transport C8: Land use and ecology C9: Pollution C10: Waste 1) Public transport network connectivity 2) Commuting mass – transport 3) Pedestrian and cyclist facilities 4) Access to amenities 5) Travel plans and information 6) Provision of car parking 7) Fuel-efficient transport 8) Transport design and planning 9) Travel information point 10) Deliveries and Manoeuvring 1) Site selection 2) Protection of ecological features 3) Mitigation / enhancement of ecological value 4) Topsoil 5) Re-use of land 6) Reclaimed contaminated land 7) Long term impact on biodiversity 1) Refrigerant Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) 2) Refrigerant Global Warming Potential (GWP) 3) Refrigerant use and leakage 4) Insulant ODP 5) Flood risk 6) Stormwater 7) Watercourse pollution 8) Discharge to sewer 9) External light and noise pollution 10) Legionella 11) Trade Waste Pollution 12) NOx (mono-nitrogen oxides) emissions 13) Noise attenuation 1) Construction waste 2) Recycled aggregates 3) Recycling facilities 311 Table 5: The tabulation of green assessment sub-criteria C4, C5 and C6. C4: Materials and resources C5: Water C6: Innovation 1) Materials reuse and selection 2) Recycled content materials 3) Sustainable timber 4) Sustainable purchasing policy 5) Storage, collection & disposal of recyclables 6) Refrigerants & clean agents 7) PBT source reduction 8) Construction waste management 9) Recycling waste storage 10) Furniture and medical furnishings 11) Resource use – design for flexibility 12) Design for disassembly 13) PVC minimization 14) Concrete, steel, PVC, timber 15) Flooring, joinery, ceilings, walls, partitions 16) Regional materials 17) Materials specification (major building elements) 18) Hard landscaping and Boundary protection 19) Reuse of building structure 20) Insulation 21) Responsible sourcing of materials 22) Designing for robustness 1) Rainwater harvesting 2) Water recycling 3) Water efficient – irrigation / landscaping 4) Water efficient fittings 5) Metering and leak detection system 6) Water consumption 7) Water use reduction 8) Minimize potable water use for medical equipment cooling 9) Heat rejection water 10) Fire system water 11) Sanitary supply shut off 1) Innovation & environmental initiatives 2) Accredited facilitator / professional 3) Exemplary performance levels 4) New technologies and building processes 5) Integrated project planning and design 6) Innovation in design 7) Exceeding green index benchmarks 5. Conclusions As a conclusion, there are 151 numbers of sub-criteria that have been identified in this study (Table 4, 5 and 6). Each of the sub-criterion has been divided into preferred main criteria (C1 – C10) in order to designate the association issues between them. The identification of sub-criteria is an imperative process as it will be used for further study in developing the comprehensive assessment rating system. References Ando S., Arima T., Bogaki K., Hasegawa H., Hoyano A., Ikaga T., 2005, Architecture for a sustainable future. Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. Creswell J.W., 2009, Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, US. Huat N.B., Akasah Z.A., 2011, Building performance analysis model using Post Occupancy Evaluation for energy-efficient building in Malaysia: A review, NPC 2011. DOI:10.1109/NatPC.2011.6136351. Kaplan S., Sadler B., Little K., Franz C., Orris P., 2012, Can Sustainable Hospitals Help Bend the Health Care Cost Curve?, The Commonwealth Fund 29, 1-14. Kras I., 2011, Sustainable hospital building. Faculty of Architecture, Urbanism and Building Science, Technical University of Delft, Delft, Netherlands. Mustapha M.A., Manan Z.A., Wan Alwi S.R., 2015, A new green index as an overall quantitative green performance indicator of a facility, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 45, 445-450. Newsham G.R., Mancini S., Birt B.J., 2009, Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but…, Energy and Buildings, 41, 897–905. Scofield J.H., 2013, Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission for large New York City office buildings, Energy and Buildings, 67, 517–524. Sahamir S.R., Zakaria R., 2014, Green Assessment Criteria for Public Hospital Building Development in Malaysia, Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 106–115. 312