A Novel framework for integrating United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into sustainable non-residential building assessment and management in Jordan

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

A Novel framework for integrating United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into sustainable non-residential building assessment and management in Jordan

T

Rami Alawneha, Farid Ghazalia, , Hikmat Alib, Ahmad Farhan Sadullaha ⁎

a b

School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Seberang Perai Selatan, P. Pinang, Malaysia Department of Architecture, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 21110, Jordan

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Sustainable building Jordan United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Integrated weight Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Relative importance index (RII)

Across the world, governments have developed strategies to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Sustainable buildings perform a significant function toward achieving the UN SDGs. Currently, there is a lack of information on this subject because no existing sustainable building assessment system describes the relationship between its assessment criteria and the UN SDGs. In this article, a new framework is proposed to integrate the UN SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable nonresidential buildings in Jordan. For this purpose, previous building rating systems were reviewed, and the Delphi technique was applied to identify assessment categories and indicators for sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan. Moreover, the analytic hierarchy process and relative importance index methods were employed to develop an integrated weighting system for assessment indicators based on the significance of sustainability problems in Jordan and contributions to achieve the UN SDGs. Additionally, questionnaire surveys were conducted to construct a classification system and thereafter identify the integration of assessment indicators into project phases. Finally, the proposed framework was validated by conducting a focus group discussion. The findings in this research can potentially assist in the formulation of building assessment tools and achievement of the UN SDGs in countries, such as Jordan.

1. Introduction With the aim of eliminating discrimination, inequality, and poverty as well as overcome climate change by 2030, the 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) formulated the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on September 25, 2015 (United Nations, 2018a, 2018b). The 17 UN SDGs encompassed numerous economic and social–developmental problems, such as health, poverty, hunger, education, gender equality, climate change, water, sanitation, environment, energy, and social justice (United Nations, 2018a, 2018b). As one of the critical areas that necessitates intervention, the building and construction sector provides opportunities to limit environmental impact and contribute to the achievement of the UN SDGs (UNEP, 2018b). In each country, the construction industry is the main contributor to socioeconomic development and the major consumer of energy and natural resources. Therefore, it is essential to take into consideration the involvement of this sector in achieving sustainable development in our society (UNEP-IETC, 2003). It has been reported

⁎

that this sector provides 5–10% of employment at the national level and generates 5–15% of the gross domestic product (GDP) (UNEP, 2018b). Moreover, the relationship between buildings and public health has been verified by numerous studies (Park & Yoon, 2011; Satish et al., 2012). Concurrently, the construction and building sector accounts for 40% of annual energy consumption, up to 30% of all energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, and 12% of all freshwater usage; moreover, it produces up to 40% of annual solid waste (UNEP, 2018b). The built environment has a critical impact on several local and global problems, such as demographic shifts, climate change, water, land use, and other resource scarcity (UNEP, 2018a); consequently, three sustainability key areas, namely, society, environment, and economy are considerably affected (UNEP, 2018a). The importance of conducting building environmental assessments in the construction industry is highlighted by the increasing environmental consideration of their impacts (Tatari & Kucukvar, 2011). The construction industry critically affects the three elements of social development: social progress, economic growth, and successful environmental protection (Sev,

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Alawneh), [email protected] (F. Ghazali).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101612 Received 8 November 2018; Received in revised form 16 May 2019; Accepted 16 May 2019 Available online 23 May 2019 2210-6707/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

2009). In this regard, a sustainable construction necessitates activities that are safe economically, socially, and environmentally (Illankoon, Tam, & Le, 2016). The Environmental Protection Agency defines “green building” as “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource efficient throughout a building's life cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction. Green building is also known as a sustainable or high-performance building” (EPA, 2018). To avert energy crisis and climate change, governments worldwide have adopted green building as a key policy (Shen, Yan, Fan, Wu, & Zhang, 2017). The World Green Building Council stated that “green buildings can contribute to meeting the sustainable development goals” (World Green Building Council, 2018). Several green rating systems have been developed to assess the degree of being green or sustainable of a building (Wu & Low, 2010); to achieve sustainable development, green building assessment tools can be implemented and applied (Ali & Al Nsairat, 2009). However, a majority of building environmental assessment schemes only focused on the environmental aspect, whereas the economic, social, and cultural aspects were partially neglected. Illankoon et al. (2016) analyzed the effectiveness of eight international green building rating tools in terms of evaluating the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of buildings. The results showed that these tools have widely considered environmental sustainability; however, their economic sustainability was rarely evaluated. Furthermore, all green building rating tools have evaluated social sustainability, which accounts for approximately 20% of the credit points allocated by each rating tool (Illankoon et al., 2016). In 2016, the UN has classified Jordan as a lower-middle-income nation with a per capita GDP of US$4,087.9. Its population has increased from 5,597,000 in 2004 to 9,798,000 in 2016; over 80% of residents are in urban areas. The construction sector of Jordan has contributed 4.4% to the GDP; this is equivalent to an additional 1195.8 million JOD in 2016. Furthermore, this sector provided employment to approximately 6.1% of the total Jordanian labor force. The total number of buildings permits in Jordan was 7576 in 2016 as shown in Fig. 1 (Department of Statistics, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017a, 2017b). In each industry, sufficient water is essential to successfully sustain production activities. In Jordan, however, water scarcity is a severe problem (Hadadin, Qaqish, Akawwi, & Bdour, 2010; Ministry of Water & Irrigation, 2016a, 2016b). Jordan's overdependence on imported energy and its escalating energy demand have become critical problems

to the country's ability to secure a stable energy supply (Al-Bajjali & Shamayleh, 2018; Al-Omary, Kaltschmitt, & Becker, 2018, Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources, 2016). “Jordan has embarked on implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) despite the numerous challenges that Jordan is currently facing” (United Nations, 2018c). According to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Index and Dashboard Report (2017) published by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Jordan has been ranked 80th country worldtwide (Sachs et al., 2017) Therefore, the contribution of sustainable buildings to achieve the UN SDGs is essential. However, a majority of certified green and sustainable buildings under LEED certification system (US Green Building Council, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d; US Green Building Council, 2018e) in Jordan are non-residential, such as office buildings, embassies, and schools. In Jordan, the number of non-residential buildings is rapidly increasing; the average number of permits that were granted to such buildings reached 1003 annually from 2009 to 2016 (Department of Statistics, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017a, 2017b). These types of buildings utilize considerable amounts of water and energy in their daily operations (US Department of Energy, 2018; US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). Hence, there is a growth potential in the construction of sustainable non-residential building in Jordan with a vital business case to be made for water and energy efficiency. At present, there is no existing sustainable building assessment tool that describes the relationship between its assessment criteria for sustainable buildings and the UN SDGs; accordingly, there is a dearth of information and insight on this important subject. Moreover, the contributions of sustainable buildings to achieve the UN SDGs in Jordan have not been previously assessed. Therefore, this research aims to develop a new framework to integrate the UN SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan. The main objectives are as follows: 1. Identify the appropriate categories and indicators for the assessment and management of sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan. 2. Develop an integrated weighting system for the assessment indicators based on the significance of sustainability problems in Jordan and contributions to achieve the UN SDGs. 3. Determine the integration of assessment indicators in the project phases 4. Validate the proposed framework.

Fig. 1. Number of new building permits in Jordan 2009–2016.

2

USA, 1998

1. Location and transport 2. Sustainable sites 3. Water efficiency 4. Energy and atmosphere 5. Material and resources 6. Indoor environment quality 7. Innovation 8. Regional priority 9. Integrative process

New Construction and Major Renovation, Core and Shell Development, Schools, Retail, Warehouses and Distribution Centers, Hospitality, Healthcare

Certified (40–49) Silver (50–59) Gold (60–79) Platinum (80–110)

USGBC (2016)

Location, year

Building type

Rating system

References

USGBC

Developer

Assessment categories

LEED Building Design and Construction (BD + C)

Items for comparison

Malaysia, 2010

3 BREEAM (2016)

GBCA (2017)

CASBEE (2014)

BCA (2013)

GBI (2011)

Certified (50–65 points) Silver (66–75) Gold (76–85) Platinum (86–100) Green Mark Gold (> 50 to < 60) Green Mark Gold Plus (60 to < 70) Green Mark Platinum (70 and above) Poor/C (BEE ≤ 0.5) Fairy Poor/B− (BEE = 0.5–1) Good/B+ (BEE = 1–1.5) Very Good/A (BEE = 1.5–3.5) or (BEE ≥ 3 and Q < 50) Excellent/S (BEE ≥ 3 and Q ≥ 50)

1 Star Minimum Practice (10–19) 2 Star Average Practice (20–29) 3 Star Good Practice (30–44) 4 Star Best Practice (45–59) 5 Star Australian Excellence (60–74) 6 Star World Leadership (75–100)

Unclassified (< 30 points) Pass (≥30 points) Good (≥45 points) Very good (≥55 points) Excellent (≥70 points) Outstanding (≥85 points)

1. Energy efficiency 2. Indoor environment quality Sustainable site planning and management 4. Material and resources 5. Water efficiency 6. Innovation

Factories, Offices, Hospitals, Universities, Colleges, Hotels, Shopping complexes.

Energy efficiency Water efficiency Environmental protection Indoor Environment quality Other green features

Singapore, 2005 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

PAM (Malaysian Institute of Architects) and ACEM (Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia

Green Building Index (NonResidential)

Commercial buildings (office, retail, and hotel), Industrial and Institutional buildings, Hawker centers, Healthcare facilities, Laboratory buildings, Schools.

Indoor environment (Q) Quality of services (Q) Outdoor environment (Q) Energy (L) Resources and materials (L) Off-site environment (L)

BCA (Building and Construction Authority)

Green Mark (New Non-Residential Buildings version 4.1)

Offices, Schools, Retailers, Restaurants, Halls, Factories, Hospitals, Hotels, Apartments

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Japan, 2001

JSBC (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium)

CASBEE (for buildings—new construction)

Schools, Offices, Universities, Industrial facilities, Public buildings, Retail centers, Hospitals

1. Management 2. Indoor environment quality 3. Energy 4. Transport 5. Water 6. Material 7. Land use and ecology 8. Emissions 9. Innovation

Australia, 2003

GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia)

Green Star (Design & As Built v1.2)

Residential, Commercial (Offices, Industrial, Retail), Education

1. Management 2. Health and well-being 3. Energy 4. Transport 5. Water 6. Material 7. Waste 8. Land use and ecology 9. Pollution 10. Innovation

UK, 1990

BRE

BREEAM (International New Construction, 2016)

Table 1 Main features of BREEAM, LEED, Green Star, CASBEE, Green Mark, and GBI.

R. Alawneh, et al.

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Fig. 2. Comparison between each key credit criteria. Source: Illankoon et al. (2017). Table 2 Identified key assessment categories in recent studies. Assessment categories

Ali and Al Nsairat (2009) Jordan

Alyami et al. (2013) Saudi Arabia

Yu et al. (2015) China

Banani et al. (2016) Saudi Arabia

Zarghami et al. (2018) Iran

Kamaruzzaman et al. (2018) Malaysia

Energy Indoor environment quality Water Waste Material Transport Management Quality of services Sustainable site Pollution Innovation Economics Social Cultural

√ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √

Subsequent to this introduction, an overview on the key assessment categories in the existing sustainable building assessment tools is discussed in Section 2. In Section 3, the methods performed in this research are outlined. Section 4 presents the results and discussion. Finally, Section 5 provides the conclusion.

√

√

2014); Green Star (GBCA, 2017); Green Mark (BCA, 2013); GBI (Green Building Index, 2011). Each of the aforementioned building assessment tools has similar and different sustainability assessment categories. In Table 1, the different and similar categories of LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE, Green Star, Green Mark, and GBI are summarized. It should be noted that some terms used to describe the same category may vary in these tools; nevertheless, there are some key categories that are included in all the assessment tools. However, the weight assigned to each assessment category and each indicator differs based on the local conditions in order to consider the importance of each indicator for a particular country (Ding, 2008). Illankoon, Tam, Le, and Shen (2017) reviewed and compared eight international green building rating tools and established seven key credit criteria for these rating tools as follows: (1) site, (2) energy, (3) water, (4) indoor environment quality, (5) materials, (6) waste and pollution, and (7) management. Fig. 2 shows that among these key criteria, “energy” is the most widely considered, followed by “indoor environment quality” and “water.” The social and economic problems in developing countries are more significant than those in the developed world (Cole, 2005). Therefore, a comprehensive review (Table 2) was conducted in several recent studies, which are related to the development of sustainable building assessment tools in developing countries (Ali & Al Nsairat, 2009; Alyami and Rezgui, 2012; Alyami et al., 2013; Banani et al., 2016; Kamaruzzaman et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2015; Zarghami et al., 2018). The

2. Key assessment categories in literature and among international green building rating tools Several recent studies suggest that the development process of new assessment methods for sustainable buildings should begin with a comparative study of the international building sustainability assessment tools (Ali & Al Nsairat, 2009; Alyami & Rezgui, 2012; Alyami, Rezgui, & Kwan, 2013; Banani, Vahdati, Shahrestani, & ClementsCroome, 2016; Kamaruzzaman, Lou, Wong, Wood, & Che-Ani, 2018; Yu, Li, Yang, & Wang, 2015; Zarghami, Azemati, Fatourehchi, & Karamloo, 2018). Therefore, this study selected and reviewed six of the assessment tools that are widely used in various countries in five regions (America, Europe, Asia–Pacific, Africa, and Middle East and North Africa) to generate a preliminary list of assessment categories (main theme) and indicators (sub-theme). These assessment tools are as follows: BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) (BREEAM, 2016); LEED v4 (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) (USGBC, 2014); CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency) (CASBEE, 4

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Fig. 3. Research methodology flow chart.

list of assessment categories and indicators was obtained from these studies and thereafter compared and merged with those in the six selected international assessment tools; this consolidation ensured that all related and latest categories and indicators were identified. Accordingly, a preliminary list that contained 12 and 79 assessment categories and indicators, respectively, was generated. The proposed assessment categories are as follows: management, sustainable site, transport, indoor environment quality, water, waste, material, energy, pollution, innovation, economics, social, cultural, and service quality. This list was generated with the aim of providing a basis for the Delphi panel experts for brainstorming and thereafter formulating a new list of assessment categories and indicators that are suitable for developing sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan.

building rating systems and related researches were reviewed to generate a preliminary list of assessment categories and indicators, the Delphi technique was applied to identify assessment categories and indicators for sustainable non-residential building in Jordan. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and relative importance index (RII) methods were applied to develop integrated weighting system for assessment indicators based on Jordan significance of sustainability issues and contributions to UN SDGs. Additionally, questionnaire surveys were conducted to construct a classification system and identify the integration of assessment indicators in project phases. Finally, the proposed framework was validated by focus group discussion. In Fig. 3, the methods used in this research are presented. Pilot studies were conducted prior to surveys to test the comprehensibility and suitability of the questionnaires. Pilot studies involved a team of two professors (academia), three associate professor (academia), and five experts (contracting company, consultancy firm and government authorities). All have experience with Jordan's built environment and sustainable buildings. Questionnaires were finalized based on feedback from pilot studies.

3. Methodology This research is designed to develop a framework for integrating the UN SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan. For this purpose, previous sustainable 5

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 3 Demographics of Delphi panel. Items

Category

Consultants

Contractor

No.

No.

%

%

Government authorities

Universities and institutions

Overall

No.

No.

No.

%

%

%

Gender

Female Male

6 8

43 57

3 6

33 67

7 8

47 53

3 4

43 57

19 26

42 58

Age

20–30 years 31–40 years > 40 years

2 9 3

14 64 21

2 5 2

22 56 22

2 6 7

13 40 47

2 5

0 29 71

6 22 17

13 49 38

Education

Bachelor Master or PhD

10 4

71 29

7 2

78 22

9 6

60 40

7

100

26 19

58 42

Designation

Architect Senior architect Senior civil engineer Senior mechanical engineer Senior electrical engineer Project manager Senior technical advisor Senior manager Managing director Assistant professor Associate professor

1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

7 21 7 14 14 7 7 14 7

1 2 1 1 2

11 22 11 11 22

1 2 3 2 2

7 13 20 13 13

2

22

1 2 2

7 13 13

3 4

43 57

2 6 6 5 5 3 2 6 3 3 4

4 13 13 11 11 7 4 13 7 7 9

≤5 years 5–10 years > 15 years

1 5 8

7 36 57

1 5 9

7 33 60

2 3 2

29 43 29

4 16 25

9 36 55

Experience

3 6

0 33 67

Fig. 4. Combined integrated weight of AHP–RII methodology.

3.1. Delphi method

were selected based on their experiences in the building construction industry and building sustainability assessment, involvement in Jordan Green Building Council, and willingness to participate in the Delphi process. Moreover, these experts were selected from different backgrounds to obtain diverse perspectives from a variety of professions: 31% from consultant companies, 33% from government authorities, 20% from contracting companies, and 16% from institutions and universities; these are summarized in Table 3 together with the demographics of the panel. A questionnaire was formulated to elicit perspectives on the 12 assessment categories and 79 assessment indicators that were identified in the literature review. A pilot study was then conducted prior to the survey to check whether the questionnaire is suitable and comprehensive. The pilot study involved a team of five professors (three of whom are associate professors (academia)) and five experts (from consultancy firm, contracting company and government authorities). All participants have experiences in the built environment and sustainable buildings in Jordan. The questionnaire was finalized based on the feedback obtained from the pilot study. The Delphi consultation process involves three rounds. In the first, second, and third rounds, 41, 36, and 34 experts have participated, respectively. The responses were collected on a Likert 5-point scale, ranging from “not important” to “very important.” In the first round, after a brief description, experts were asked to modify or add categories and indicators, or approve a list of rank assessment categories and indicators. Based on mean ranks, an introductory priority rank was established. Thereafter, a new questionnaire for round two was

The Delphi consultation technique was adopted to determine assessment categories and indicators that are appropriate for the assessment and management of sustainable non-residential building projects in Jordan. The method, which was established in the 1950s (Linstone & Turoff, 2002), attempts to establish an agreement among experts regarding a specific topic (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). This approach was selected for this study because the building assessment criteria are considered multidimensional; it is also a consensus-based approach (Chew & Das, 2008). Moreover, Delphi requires several rounds of surveys, which are conducted with experts in the field of research; through these iterative processes, experts can gain further insights. Furthermore, the Delphi method has been successfully implemented in studies on green and sustainable buildings (Alyami et al., 2013; Kamaruzzaman et al., 2018). The size and arrangement of the panel are imperative to successfully employ the Delphi method (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1973; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004; Rowe & Wright, 1999, 2011; Schmidt, Lyytinen, Keil, & Cule, 2001). Each panel must be sufficiently large to generate a diversity of perspectives (Delbecq et al., 1973); it may consist 10–50 experts. The Delphi experts are selected according to their knowledge, experience, professional qualification, and background in the field of research (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). In addition, the willingness of experts to participate is one of the important considerations because a few rounds of surveys are required for them to reach a consensus. Thus, in this study, 45 Jordanian experts 6

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 4 (continued)

Table 4 Standard deviations of main categories and indicators of assessment framework for sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan. Assessment categories

Assessment indicators

Water (standard deviation = 0.42)

Potable water consumption Water leak detection and prevention Water-efficient fixtures Graywater recycling Water metering and monitoring Water-efficient landscape (external) Rainwater harvesting

0.46 0.61

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system Building envelope performance Renewable energy technology Natural lighting Hot water system CO2 mitigation strategy Energy-efficient equipment Energy metering and monitoring Energy management system External and internal lighting

0.63

Thermal comfort and control Daylight Illumination level Glare control Mechanical ventilation Natural ventilation Air quality sensors; CO2 monitoring Acoustic and noise control Volatile organic compound (VOC) level Formaldehyde level Dust control Smoke Control View out (link with surrounding area)

0.61 0.69 0.61 0.60 0.64 0.60 0.61

Sustainable site (standard deviation = 0.64)

Site selection Community connectivity Development density Minimization of impact on existing site ecology Biodiversity protection

0.51 0.61 0.53 0.56

Transportation (standard deviation = 0.59)

Low-emission vehicles Car park capacity Travel plan Public transport accessibility

0.51 0.68 0.69 0.52

Materials (standard deviation = 0.58)

Local and regional materials Use of recycled materials Use of renewable materials Reliable source of materials Use of low-emission materials

0.69 0.45 0.53 0.60 0.68

Management (standard deviation = 0.61)

Integrated planning for design and construction processes Comprehensive project definitions Supply chain management Prequalification of contractors Management plan commission Documentation for building management Building occupants’ guide, awareness, and education Sustainability aspects at tender stage Involvement of stakeholders Operation management plan Maintenance management plan

0.56

Energy (standard deviation = 0.31)

Indoor environment quality (standard deviation = 0.51)

Standard deviation

Assessment categories

Assessment indicators

Pollution (standard deviation = 0.66)

Pollution caused by construction activities CO2 emissions Night light pollution Noise pollution Heat island effect Watercourse pollution Refrigerant impact (ODP and GWP) NOX emissions

0.64

Waste management (standard deviation = 0.68)

Construction waste management Waste recycling facilities Operational waste management

0.64

Economics (standard deviation = 0.56)

Life cycle cost Operation and maintenance cost

0.28 0.35

Social and cultural value (standard deviation = 0.52)

Compatibility of design and cultural values with consideration of local context and character Preservation of heritage values Building amenities

0.40

0.53 0.55 0.69 0.73 0.72

0.56 0.28 0.71 0.73 0.69 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.61

Quality of service (standard deviation = 0.55)

0.62 0.47

Functionality and usability Durability and reliability Design with maintenance consideration Flexibility and adaptability for future changes

Standard deviation

0.54 0.55 0.61 0.35 0.55 0.56 0.61

0.56 0.54

0.42 0.69 0.59 0.65 0.73 0.56

formulated based on the results obtained from round one. The secondround questionnaire survey was administered to experts, who revised and re-evaluated their initial opinions and judgements before checking the consensus. The feedback analyses exhibited that there were minimal changes in the opinion of each expert between the first and second rounds. Subsequently, a new questionnaire for round three was formulated based on the results obtained from round two; it contained assessment categories and indicators that are similar to the secondround questionnaire. In the third round, the results first and second-round questionnaires were summarized in order to obtain the experts’ perspectives as a “statistically-obtained group response” (mean or median). Thereafter, the questionnaire was administered to the Delphi panel for final judgements regarding the importance of the criteria, and analysis and consensus measurement were conducted afterwards. In this study, the mean and standard deviation approaches were selected to measure the consensus (AlQahtany, Rezgui, & Li, 2014; Vidal, Marle, & Bocquet, 2011; Von der Gracht, 2012).

0.48 0.68 0.35 0.55

0.51

3.2. AHP implementation

0.64

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was adopted in this study to develop the weights of assessment categories and indicators, which were determined by the Delphi consultation method; this reflects the local significance of sustainability problems in Jordan. Several studies have used the AHP as a research method to develop sustainable building assessments and thereby determine the importance of weightings of assessment categories and indicators (Alyami et al., 2013; Alyami, Rezgui, & Kwan, 2015; Banani et al., 2016; Kamaruzzaman et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2015; Zarghami et al., 2018). This method establishes varying levels of hierarchy (Saaty, 1990). In this study, the highest level (or goal) pertains to sustainable non-residential buildings; the two lower levels represent 12 categories and 75 indicators for the assessment of sustainable non-residential buildings in

0.67 0.69 0.73 0.69 0.56 0.68 0.69 0.66 0.67

7

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 5 Local and global weights of assessment indicators of sustainability significance in Jordan obtained by AHP. Category

Local weight category

Indicators

Local weight indicators

Global weight

Energy

0.177

Building envelope performance HVAC system Renewable energy technology Energy management system External and internal lighting Natural lighting Hot water system Energy efficient equipment Energy metering and monitoring CO2 mitigation strategy

0.167 0.153 0.142 0.12 0.098 0.085 0.072 0.066 0.055 0.042

0.030 0.027 0.025 0.021 0.017 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.007

Water

0.158

Potable water consumption Water-efficient fixtures Water leak detection and prevention Rainwater harvesting Graywater recycling Water metering and monitoring Water-efficient landscape (external)

0.237 0.195 0.165 0.133 0.11 0.087 0.072

0.037 0.031 0.026 0.021 0.017 0.014 0.011

Indoor environment quality

0.123

Thermal comfort and control Mechanical ventilation Natural ventilation Air quality sensors; CO2 monitoring Daylight Illumination level Glare control Smoke control Acoustic and noise control VOC level Formaldehyde level Dust control Outside view (link with surrounding)

0.121 0.114 0.107 0.103 0.09 0.083 0.074 0.069 0.06 0.054 0.049 0.042 0.035

0.015 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004

Material

0.109

Local and regional materials Use of low-emission materials Use of recycled materials Use of renewable materials Reliable source of materials

0.297 0.25 0.193 0.148 0.112

0.032 0.027 0.021 0.016 0.012

Sustainable site

0.084

Site selection Development density Community connectivity Minimization of impact on existing site ecology Biodiversity protection

0.31 0.234 0.2 0.136 0.121

0.026 0.020 0.017 0.011 0.010

Transportation

0.072

Low-emission vehicles Public transport accessibility Car park capacity Travel plan

0.378 0.332 0.175 0.116

0.027 0.024 0.013 0.008

Management

0.065

Integrated planning for design and construction processes Comprehensive project definitions Sustainability aspects at tender stage Involvement of stakeholders Supply chain management Prequalification of contractors Management plan commission Operation management plan Maintenance management plan Documentation for building management Building occupants’ guide, awareness, and education

0.159 0.134 0.122 0.112 0.099 0.087 0.075 0.066 0.055 0.048 0.043

0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003

Waste management

0.058

Construction waste management Operational waste management Waste recycling facilities

0.388 0.332 0.28

0.023 0.019 0.016

Pollution

0.049

Pollution caused by construction activities CO2 emissions Refrigerant impact (ODP and GWP) NOX emissions Heat island effect Watercourse pollution Night light pollution Noise pollution

0.189 0.175 0.161 0.135 0.105 0.088 0.076 0.071

0.009 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003

Economics

0.038

Life cycle cost Operation and maintenance costs

0.573 0.427

0.022 0.016

(continued on next page)

8

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 5 (continued) Category

Local weight category

Indicators

Local weight indicators

Global weight

Service quality

0.044

Functionality and usability Flexibility and adaptability for future changes Durability and reliability Design with maintenance considerations

0.326 0.28 0.217 0.177

0.014 0.012 0.010 0.008

Social and cultural values

0.023

Compatibility of design and cultural values with local context and character considerations Building amenities Preservation of heritage values

0.434

0.010

0.312 0.254

0.007 0.006

Jordan. The AHP is dependent on the pairwise comparisons between alternative indicators to establish their relative importance. A recommended 9-point comparison scale, which showed the level of relative importance by numbers, was utilized to convert the judgments of respondents into numerical quantities (Saaty, 2008; Saaty & Shang, 2007; Saaty & Vargas, 2005) The panel experts (the same participants in the Delphi process) were given 45 questionnaires; only 42 appropriate responses were gathered. All respondents had at least five years of professional experience, and 92% had over five years of work experience in the construction sector of Jordan. The experts were contacted individually to complete the questionnaire; their judgements were based on their work experience and the provided data on sustainable buildings. After the judgment matrix was created, the local priorities were then obtained, and the consistency of the outcome was determined. In order to overcome inconsistencies in ratings, consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated using Formulae (1) and (2) to measure the degree of contradictions in the judgment of each individual respondent (Ho, 2008; Yu et al., 2015).

Consistency Ratio =

CI RI

Consistency Index:CI =

significant relationship between assessment indicators and the UN SDGs was identified; it was calculated for each assessment indicator using Eq. (3) (Durdyev, Zavadskas, Thurnell, Banaitis, & Ihtiyar, 2018; Iwaro, Mwasha, Williams, & Zico, 2014). The geometric mean of the RII values of all the assessment indicators was calculated. A higher RII value implies a stronger contribution to the UN SDGs in Jordan.

RII =

n

n 1

Wi

AN

(3)

where W = each contribution weigh provided by respondents, A = the highest weight (5) in this study and N = total number of respondents (37) in this study. 3.4. Integrated weighting system Unsustainable building development and low progress in achieving the UN SDGs are ongoing problems in Jordan. Therefore, this research proposes a new innovative integrated weight (combination of AHP and RII methods) technique, which can maintain the focus of the sustainable building assessment framework on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals while solving building sustainability problems according to a country's specific context. The combined AHP–RII methodology was used by Hossen et al. (2015) to assess the construction schedule delay risk. The integrated weight of assessment indicators is calculated, as shown in Fig. 4.

(1) max

n i=1

(2)

where λmax = the largest eigenvalue of matrix and N = number of factors compared in the questionnaire. If CR < 0.10, then the AHP judgment matrix is consistent. Therefore, the judgment matrices of 39 experts with CRs below 0.1 were chosen in this study. These individual judgments were converted to a group judgment by determining their geometric mean. Accordingly, new AHP pairwise comparison matrices were formed, and the local weights were thereafter calculated; moreover, the consistency of the group judgment was checked. The global weight and the overall weight of each assessment indicator were calculated by multiplying the local weight of each assessment category and the local weight of each of its assessment indicators. The process used in this study to obtain the AHP weights is illustrated in Fig. 2.

3.5. Classification system To determine a suitable rating and classification system, the panel of experts were interviewed and were asked to respond to questionnaires. There were three short questions: (1) What are the best types of building classifications based on the degree of contribution to achieve the UN SDGs, metals or stars? (2) Which scores or percentage should non-residential buildings in Jordan achieve in order to be classified as a sustainable building? (3) What is the percentage of the achievement of assessment indicators? 3.6. Identification of integration between indicators and project phases The panel of experts (the same participants in the Delphi process) were asked to respond to questionnaires; 36 Jordanian experts participated. The aim of conducting these surveys was to obtain suggestions and recommendations from the professionals in the construction industry sector of Jordan on how to integrate assessment indicators into the project management processes. To represent the start, development, and end phases of each indicator, a Gantt chart was used; this includes various bars, which indicate the extent that the indicators were considered throughout the start and end phases.

3.3. RII method implementation The relative importance index (RII) is a method to rank different factors (Hossen, Kang, & Kim, 2015) and was applied to estimate the weights of identified assessment indicators of sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan according to their contributions to achieve the UN SDGs. To evaluate the assessment indicators, a 5-point Likert scale was utilized (varying from “very low” to “very important”). A total of 45 questionnaires were sent to the experts who participated in the Delphi process. If the average value of responses was significantly greater than 3 (P-value < 0.05), a significant relationship between the assessment indicators and the UN SDGs is assumed. The RII was calculated only if a

3.7. Framework validation through focus group discussion A focus group discussion technique was employed to validate the 9

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 6 Relative importance index of assessment indicators based on their contributions to achieve UN SDGs in Jordan. Category

Indicators

Relative importance index (RII) SDG 3

Energy

Water

SDG 6

Building envelope performance HVAC system Renewable energy technology Energy management system External and internal lighting Natural lighting Hot water system Energy-efficient equipment Energy metering and monitoring CO2 mitigation strategy Potable water consumption Water-efficient fixtures Water leak detection and prevention Rainwater harvesting Graywater recycling Water metering and monitoring Water-efficient landscape (external)

Indoor environment quality

Thermal comfort and control Mechanical ventilation Natural ventilation Air quality sensors; CO2 monitoring Daylight Illumination level Glare control Smoke control Acoustic and noise control Volatile organic compound level Formaldehyde level Dust control View out (link with surrounding)

Material

Local and regional materials Use of low-emission materials Use of recycled materials Use of renewable materials Reliable source of materials

SDG 7

SDG 8

SDG 9

0.95 0.95 0.98 0.91 0.91 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.89 0.79

0.93 0.93 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.79 0.89 0.90 0.86 0.78

0.91 0.96 0.98 0.94 0.91

0.96 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.90 0.89

0.97 0.95 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.88 0.82

SDG 11

0.90 0.94 0.88

0.93 0.84 0.90 0.88 0.88

SDG 12

SDG 13

0.94 0.94 0.96 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.84

0.93 0.96 0.98 0.90 0.89 0.82 0.88 0.91 0.88 0.97

0.96 0.93 0.86 0.90 0.92 0.89 0.88

0.90 0.85 0.79 0.77 0.85 0.76 0.72

SDG 15

All SDGs 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.92 0.88 0.84

0.96 0.93 0.86 0.90 0.92 0.89 0.88

0.90 0.88 0.83 0.90 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.97 0.66 0.94 0.93 0.87 0.64

0.95 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.90 0.88 0.83 0.90 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.97 0.66 0.94 0.93 0.87 0.64

0.95

0.92

0.90 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.92

0.94 0.90 0.86

Sustainable site

Site selection Development density Community connectivity Minimization of impact on existing site ecology Biodiversity protection

Transportation

Low-emission vehicles Public transport accessibility Car park capacity Travel plan

0.94

Management

Integrated planning for design and construction processes Comprehensive project definitions Sustainability aspects at tender stage Involvement of stakeholders Supply chain management Prequalification of contractors Management plan commission Operation management plan Maintenance management plan Documentation for building management Building occupants guide, awareness, and education

0.90

0.92

0.82 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.71 0.70 0.84 0.83 0.77 0.85

0.88 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81

Waste management

Construction waste management Operational waste management Waste recycling facilities

Pollution

Pollution caused by construction activities CO2 emissions Refrigerant impact (ODP and GWP) NOX emissions Heat island effect Watercourse pollution Night light pollution Noise pollution

0.92 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.91

0.95 0.94 0.91

0.95 0.96 0.92

0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.90

0.97 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95

0.96 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95

0.91 0.88

0.95 0.94

0.94 0.94 0.67 0.71

0.95 0.92 0.66 0.68

0.97 0.93 0.66 0.69

0.94

0.92

0.88

0.91

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.92

0.90 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84

0.82 0.83 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.83

0.79 0.82 0.83 0.76

0.86 0.87 0.85

0.81 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.74

0.87 0.91 0.84 0.94 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.81 0.90

0.81 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.70

0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.83

0.89 0.94

0.88 0.93 0.91

0.88 0.93 0.91

0.88 0.92 0.91 0.92

0.88 0.92 0.91 0.91

0.90 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.90

0.93

0.90

0.92

0.94 0.92 0.66 0.69

0.88 0.93 0.91 0.88

0.92 0.91 0.91

0.88 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.91

(continued on next page) 10

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 6 (continued) Category

Indicators

Relative importance index (RII) SDG 3

SDG 6

SDG 7

SDG 8

SDG 9

SDG 11

SDG 12

SDG 13

SDG 15

All SDGs

Economics

Life cycle cost Operation and maintenance costs

0.97 0.96

0.97 0.96

Service quality

Functionality and usability Flexibility and adaptability for future changes Durability and reliability Design with maintenance considerations

0.92 0.91 0.91 0.88

0.92 0.91 0.91 0.88

Social and cultural values

Compatibility of design and cultural values with local context and character considerations Building amenities Preservation of heritage values

0.71

0.95

0.95

0.96

0.71 0.96

increases productivity, and improves the well-being of occupants. The Delphi panel experts have agreed to solve the indoor environment quality of buildings in Jordan for the health of occupants. The indoor environment quality assessment indicators promote the use of several methods that can mitigate indoor pollutants with an attempt to limit the exposure of occupants to these harmful substances: specify materials that release volatile organic compounds (VOCs); maintain optimal air quality; increase air ventilation rates; provide view and natural light; enhance light and noise controllability. The standard deviations of the indoor environment quality category and its assessment indicators are within the range 0.35–0.69 (less than 1), as summarized in Table 4.

results and proposed framework. Krueger, a leader in focus group discussion method, suggested that 5–10 participants be selected (Krueger, 2014). Thus, 10 Jordanian building project experts (male and female) from different backgrounds (consultants, contractors, government officials, and academic experts from universities) were selected based on their expertise, role, and experience. Moreover, they have theoretical and practical experiences in sustainable building projects. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Framework of sustainable non-residential building assessments in Jordan

4.1.4. Sustainable site Construction activities can affect air quality, which impacts plants, animals, and humans. Therefore, the Delphi panel experts agreed that site selection and development are vital components of sustainability because buildings and its construction activities have detrimental effects on natural habitat. Thus, the assessment indicators of this category discourage the development of previously undeveloped land; moreover, these aim to minimize the effect of buildings on ecosystems and encourage construction on previously developed lands. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within 0.51–0.64 (less than 1), as listed in Table 4.

Based on the consensus of the Delphi panel, a framework with two hierarchy levels was constructed (Table 4). The first level consists of 12 main categories: energy, water, indoor environment quality, materials, sustainable site, transport, waste management, pollution, economics, service quality, and social and cultural aspects. The second level consists of 75 assessment indicators. The standard deviations of the main assessment categories and indicator ranges are less than 1 (0.28–0.73); these ranges indicate a consensus among the experts (AlQahtany et al., 2014; Vidal et al., 2011; Von der Gracht, 2012). 4.1.1. Water efficiency The water efficiency category has the main objective to “reduce the amount of potable water consumed in buildings.” Because Jordan is a country that suffers from water scarcity, potable water is of highest priority (Ministry of Water & Irrigation, 2016a, 2016b); thus, it is necessary for experts to include this category and its assessment indicators. In order to protect potable water, it is necessary to implement waste prevention and several strategies, such as rainwater harvesting, water-efficient landscape, graywater recycling, water-efficient fixtures, water leak detection and prevention, and water metering and monitoring. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators were within the range 0.42–0.73 (less than 1), as summarized in Table 4.

4.1.5. Transportation The objective of the transportation category is to alleviate congestion and air pollution caused by private vehicles. The assessment indicators of this category encourage the reduction of car park capacity and advocate the use of public transport and vehicles with low emissions to building occupants. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within 0.51–0.59 (less than 1), as summarized in Table 4. 4.1.6. Materials The Delphi expert panel agreed that sustainable building requires strategies and policies for materials and responsible construction. The assessment indicators of this category can be divided into material selection, efficient use of material, disclosure information, and use of green products. Table 4 summarizes the standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators within the range 0.45–0.69 (less than 1).

4.1.2. Energy efficiency The experts agreed that sustainable buildings can save energy by means of two solutions: reduce the required amount of energy for building operations and utilize more green and clean forms of energy. If a building has a better energy performance, then the environmental impacts (such as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production) caused by its energy consumption are diminished, and operating costs are reduced. The standard deviations of the energy category and its assessment indicators are within the range 0.31–0.73 (less than 1), as summarized in Table 4.

4.1.7. Management A total of 11 assessment indicators for management were identified by the Delphi expert panel. The management of construction process and integration of assessment indicators in project phases were deemed as important considerations. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within 0.56–0.73 (less than 1), as listed in Table 4.

4.1.3. Indoor environment quality Creating healthier indoor environments reduces health problems, 11

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 7 Integrated weights of assessment indicators. Category

Indicators

AHP global weight

RII

Integrated weight

%

Energy

Building envelope performance HVAC system Renewable energy technology Energy management system External and internal lighting Natural lighting Hot water system Energy-efficient equipment Energy metering and monitoring CO2 mitigation strategy

0.030 0.027 0.025 0.021 0.017 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.007

0.93 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.92 0.88 0.84

0.0275 0.0257 0.0245 0.0195 0.0155 0.0123 0.0113 0.0107 0.0085 0.0063

2.75 2.57 2.45 1.95 1.55 1.23 1.13 1.07 0.85 0.63

Water

Potable water consumption Water-efficient fixtures Water leak detection and prevention Rainwater harvesting Graywater recycling Water metering and monitoring Water-efficient landscape (external)

0.037 0.031 0.026 0.021 0.017 0.014 0.011

0.95 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.86 0.84

0.0355 0.0284 0.0225 0.0182 0.0157 0.0119 0.0096

3.55 2.84 2.25 1.82 1.57 1.19 0.96

Indoor environment quality

Thermal comfort and control Mechanical ventilation Natural ventilation Air quality sensors; CO2 monitoring Daylight Illumination level Glare control Smoke control Acoustic and noise control Volatile organic compound level Formaldehyde level Dust control View out (link with surrounding)

0.015 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004

0.90 0.88 0.83 0.90 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.97 0.66 0.94 0.93 0.87 0.64

0.0134 0.0123 0.0110 0.0114 0.0077 0.0070 0.0062 0.0083 0.0049 0.0062 0.0056 0.0045 0.0027

1.34 1.23 1.10 1.14 0.77 0.70 0.62 0.83 0.49 0.62 0.56 0.45 0.27

Material

Local and regional materials Use of low-emission materials Use of recycled materials Use of renewable materials Reliable source of materials

0.032 0.027 0.021 0.016 0.012

0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.90

0.0299 0.0250 0.0197 0.0151 0.0110

2.99 2.50 1.97 1.51 1.10

Sustainable site

Site selection Development density Community connectivity Minimization of impact on existing site ecology Biodiversity protection

0.026 0.020 0.017 0.011 0.010

0.96 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95

0.0249 0.0185 0.0157 0.0108 0.0096

2.49 1.85 1.57 1.08 0.96

Transportation

Low-emission vehicles Public transport accessibility Car park capacity Travel plan

0.027 0.024 0.013 0.008

0.94 0.92 0.66 0.69

0.0256 0.0221 0.0084 0.0058

2.56 2.21 0.84 0.58

Management

Integrated planning for design and construction processes Comprehensive project definitions Sustainability aspects at tender stage Involvement of stakeholders Supply chain management Prequalification of contractors Management plan commission Operation management plan Maintenance management plan Documentation for building management Building occupants guide, awareness, and education

0.010 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003

0.92 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.83

0.0095 0.0073 0.0067 0.0062 0.0055 0.0045 0.0039 0.0036 0.0029 0.0025 0.0023

0.95 0.73 0.67 0.62 0.55 0.45 0.39 0.36 0.29 0.25 0.23

Waste management

Construction waste management Operational waste management Waste recycling facilities

0.023 0.019 0.016

0.88 0.93 0.91

0.0199 0.0180 0.0147

1.99 1.80 1.47

Pollution

Pollution caused by construction activities CO2 emissions Refrigerant impact (ODP and GWP) NOX emissions Heat island effect Watercourse pollution Night light pollution Noise pollution

0.009 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003

0.88 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.91

0.0082 0.0081 0.0072 0.0060 0.0046 0.0040 0.0034 0.0032

0.82 0.81 0.72 0.60 0.46 0.40 0.34 0.32

Economics

Life cycle cost Operation and maintenance costs

0.022 0.016

0.97 0.96

0.0211 0.0156

2.11 1.56

(continued on next page)

12

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 7 (continued) Category

Indicators

AHP global weight

RII

Integrated weight

%

Service quality

Functionality and usability Flexibility and adaptability for future changes Durability and reliability Design with maintenance considerations

0.014 0.012 0.010 0.008

0.92 0.91 0.91 0.88

0.0133 0.0112 0.0087 0.0068

1.33 1.12 0.87 0.68

Social and cultural value

Compatibility of design and cultural values with local context and character considerations Building amenities Preservation of heritage values

0.010 0.007 0.006

0.95 0.71 0.96

0.0095 0.0051 0.0056

0.95 0.51 0.56

Sum

0.8958

89.58

Table 8 Rating and classification system of sustainable non-residential building. Total building scores

Classification of buildings

25% > 25–45% 46–65% 65% <

Not classified. Medium-level sustainable non-residential building contributes to achieving UN SDGs. High-level sustainable non-residential building contributes to achieving UN SDGs. Very high-level sustainable non-residential building contributes to achieving UN SDGs.

4.1.8. Pollution The pollution category aims to mitigate the outdoor sources of air pollution and thereby limit its effect. The experts agreed that sustainable construction should take into consideration ways to minimize its effects on the surrounding environment to protect it. Moreover, they have agreed that heat island effect, CO2 and NOX emissions, impact of refrigeration, night light pollution, noise pollution, and watercourse pollution should be taken into account because of their adverse effects on the surrounding environment. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within 0.35–0.66 (less than 1), as listed in Table 4.

4.1.12. qQuality of service The experts perceived service functions as vital to maintain good building condition over an extended time period. The assessment indicators of this category take into account the efficiency of the floor area that is allocated for the required functions as well as flexibility and adaptability, which promote the implementation of measures to accommodate future changes in building usage. These modifications may be necessary because of various factors, such as change of ownership or future expansion and growth. Additionally, design preservation is deemed important to ensure that the building itself can be maintained throughout its life cycle. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within the range 0.55–0.73 (less than 1), as listed in Table 4.

4.1.9. Waste management According to the experts, because wastes are hazardous to human health and environment, this category should be comprehensively considered in the assessment of sustainable buildings to ensure the best practice in managing construction and operational wastes. Three assessment indicators were identified for this category: construction waste management, waste recycling facilities, and operational waste management. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within the range 0.54–0.68 (less than 1), as listed in Table 4.

4.2. Weights of assessment indicators based on significance of sustainability problems in Jordan AHP method gives the local weight of each assessment category and indicator as well as the global weight of each assessment indicator are obtained; the global weight is calculated by multiplying the local weights of the main assessment category and its indicators. The overall inconsistency of the main goal is 0.02; hence, judgments are highly consistent. Table 3 summarizes the local and global weights (obtained by the AHP) of 12 assessment categories and 75 assessment indicators for sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan; the results reflect the local situation. Among the global weights of assessment indicators, it is evident from the list in Table 5 that “potable water consumption” has the highest global weight (0.037); its main objective is to “reduce the amount of potable water consumed in buildings.” This result is consistent with the local significance of sustainability problems in Jordan. Because Jordan experiences water scarcity and potable water is extremely important, potable water consumption was given the highest priority among all assessment indicators.

4.1.10. Economics According to the expert panel, economics should be regarded in the evaluation of sustainable buildings based on the development principle because generating financial returns are perceived as fundamental in all building projects. Two assessment indicators were identified: life cycle cost and operation and maintenance cost. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within 0.35–0.56 (less than 1), as summarized in Table 4. 4.1.11. Social and cultural values The foundation of sustainability includes the social aspect. Thus, the experts agreed that the social and cultural value category and its assessment indicators are relevant themes for sustainable buildings in Jordan. There are two identified assessment indictors in this category: first, the design must be compatible with cultural values while considering local context and characters; second, the preservation of heritage values and building amenities should be taken into consideration to benefit building occupants and their social well-being. The standard deviations of this category and its assessment indicators are within the range 0.40–0.69 (less than 1), as listed in Table 4.

4.3. Weights of assessment indicators based on its contributions to achieve UN SDGs The weight values of indicators (based on the RII values) according to their contributions to achieve the UN SDGs are summarized in Table 6. Assessment indicators contribute significantly to SDG3, SDG6–SDG9, SDG11–SDG13, and SDG15. Notably, renewable energy technology has the highest weight (0.98) based on its contributions to SDGs 7–9 and 12–13 in Jordan. The primary source of electricity in Jordan is natural gas (70%). In 13

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Fig. 5. Classification system for sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan.

addition, certain power plants continue to utilize heavy fuel oil and diesel which is one of main reason for global greenhouse gas emmisions (UNEP, 2018c) The residential sector accounts for 43% of the total electricity consumption, followed by the industrial (25%), commercial (15%), water pumping (15%), and street light (2%) sectors. The buildings in Jordan consume approximately 58% of the total national electricity (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources 2015). Electricity generation from sources other than fossil fuels further reduces the environmental impacts caused by the energy consumption of buildings. The implementation of renewable energy technologies in sustainable buildings stimulates job creation in design, manufacturing, construction, maintenance, and operations. Therefore, in this study, the experts agreed that the implementation of renewable energy technology in sustainable buildings can significantly contribute to achieve the SDGs.

4.4. Integrated weight of assessment indicators The integrated weight of indicators based on the significance of sustainability problems and their contributions to achieve the UN SDGs (SDG3, SDG6–SDG9, SDG11–SDG13, and SDG15) in Jordan are summarized in Table 7. The results exhibit that potable water consumption has the highest integration weight, which indicates the water scarcity condition in Jordan; these are consistent with the situation in Jordan and the significant function of water to achieve the UN SDGs. According to the UN, “Water is at the core of sustainable development and is critical for socio-economic development, healthy ecosystems and for human survival itself. It is vital for reducing the global burden of disease and improving the health, welfare and productivity of populations.”(United Nations, 2018d) Water scarcity is a critical 14

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 9 Analysis of integration of assessment indicators into project phases.

(continued on next page)

15

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 9 (continued)

(continued on next page)

16

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Table 9 (continued)

, starting point of assessment indicators considerations in project;

, finishing point of assessment indicators considerations in project.

problem that affects the well-being, security, and economic future of all Jordanians (Ministry of Water & Irrigation, 2016a, 2016b). Hence, the mitigation of potable water consumption in buildings should be given the highest priority.

(2) Partially Achieved = 50% (3) Achieved = 100% Therefore, the following rating formulas and classification system of buildings were constructed:

4.5. Classification system

Indicator Score = Achievement % * Weight % of Assessment Indicator (4)

Analysis of the questionnaire survey indicates that all experts who participated in this survey agreed that the percentage of the achievement of assessment indicators to be as following:

Achievement % is the percentage of the achievement of assessment indicators (Not achieved = 0, Partially Achieved = 50%, Achieved = 100%) Weights % of assessment indicator is the integrated weights % of

(1) Not achieved = 0, Table 10 Framework validation. Question

Frequency

%

1

The framework for assessing and managing sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan is…?

Easy to understand Difficult to understand Neither easy nor difficult to understand

10 0 0

100 0 0

2

The developed framework will provide a robust integrated assessment of building sustainability and its contribution to achieve the UN SDGs in Jordan.

Yes No Not sure

10 0 0

100 0 0

3

The developed framework will aid in understanding how sustainable buildings can contribute to achieve the UN SDGs in Jordan.

Yes No Not sure

10 0 0

100 0 0

4

The formulated management tool (Gantt chart) will assist in implementing sustainable project management and eliminate related barriers in developing sustainable buildings in Jordan.

Yes No Not sure

9 0 1

90 0 10

5

The methodology used to construct the integrated framework is reliable and will guide researchers and policymakers worldwide to develop new sustainable building assessment systems in other countries or update the existing sustainable building assessment system.

Wide use recommended Not recommended Not sure

9 0 1

90 0 10

17

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

assessment indicators as in Table 7.

Total Building Score =

Indicators Scores

barriers to the construction of sustainable buildings in Jordan; one member was uncertain. Accordingly, the proposed framework was validated by means of a focus group discussion.

(5)

Most of expert agreed that rating and classification system of sustainable non-residential building in Jordan should be based on the level of contributions to achieve UN SDGs as shown in Table 8 and Fig. 5.

5. Conclusion Worldwide, governments have developed strategies to achieve the UN SDGs, and sustainable buildings can perform a significant function in this regard. Currently, there is a lack of information on this topic because no existing building assessment system describes the relationship between its assessment indicators and the UN SDGs. This is the first study to propose a framework for integrating the UN SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable buildings. In this research, 12 assessment categories and 75 indicators were identified by a threeround Delphi consultation; consensus is achieved in the third round. In this research, a new innovative integrated weight (combination of AHP and RII methods) that can maintain the focus of the sustainable building assessment framework on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals while solving building sustainability problems according to a country's specific context is proposed. Based on the results obtained by means of the AHP and RII, “Potable water consumption” exhibited the highest rank, whereas “Building occupants’ guide, awareness, and education” was given the lowest priority. A classification system for sustainable non-residential buildings was constructed, and the integration of assessment indicators and project management process was identified by experts. The results show that all assessment indicators influence project phases. A new management tool (Gantt chart) was proposed; it aims to aid project stakeholders in implementing sustainable project management and eliminate related barriers in developing sustainable buildings in Jordan. The validation by means of a focus group discussion showed that the experts agreed that the proposed framework is reliable and practical for researchers and policymakers worldwide. It is necessary for governments, designers, and developers to acquire more information and determine which aspect should be focused on to maximize the contribution of sustainable buildings toward achieving the UN SDGs. Hence, it is important for policymakers and practitioners in Jordan to use the proposed framework. This study provides insights and guidelines that can aid the government to formulate, adopt, evaluate, or update the existing green building guidelines and standards in order to focus more on achieving the UN SDGs. The proposed framework can be used by various stakeholders, such as the government, developers and project practitioners to assess sustainable non-residential buildings. More importantly, the proposed framework will guide researchers and policymakers worldwide for developing new sustainable building assessment systems or updating the existing sustainable building assessment system. The findings in this research can potentially assist in formulating building assessment tools and achieving the UN SDGs in countries other than Jordan. Although this study achieved the objectives mentioned in the introduction, there were limitations. First, this study only considered the non-residential buildings in Jordan. However, the findings of this study can be considered as a guideline to develop a framework for assessing and managing other types of sustainable buildings. Second, the number of experts who participated in each stage of this research is less than 42; therefore, the results from each stage may slightly differ if the number of participants change. The absence of a previously developed framework and the limited information on the subject constitute the third limitation, which hindered the comparison of the proposed framework in this study with other existing framework or tools. In summary, the contribution of sustainable buildings to achieve the UN SDGs can be maximized by integrating these into the assessment and management of sustainable buildings.

4.6. Integration of assessment indicators into project phases The survey analysis shows that the majority of the experts agreed that the assessment indicators of sustainable buildings influence all project phases as shown in Table 9. The design phase and the technical design sub-phase are particularly influenced by most assessment indicators. Based on the data, the “involvement of stakeholders” should be considered from the start to the finish of the project. Moreover, “CO2 mitigation strategy” and “potable water consumption” influence all project phases; however, sustainable site indicators focus on on-site features and have no influence on the building itself. Therefore, all sustainable site indicators should be considered when making decisions on the development of sustainable building projects. In addition, the integration of assessment indicators into project management also renders the projects of sustainable buildings more appealing because these have lower risks and costs. 4.7. Validation 4.7.1. Validation of results The focus group discussion included the findings of the identified assessment categories, indicators of sustainable non-residential buildings in Jordan, weight of each category and indicator, integration of assessment indicators into project phases, and sustainable building classification system. The respondents were asked to answer Yes/No questions, and thereafter provided their opinions regarding the obtained results (if these results are reasonable, reliable, or both). The experts debated on the applicability of assessment indicators and their integration into project phases, as well as whether the implementation of identified indicators in the Jordanian context is easy or difficult. Moreover, they deliberated on the sustainable building classification system in Jordan and the targets of each UN SDG. After an extensive discussion, all the experts approved the results of the study. They stated that these are reasonable and reliable; therefore, the results were validated. 4.7.2. Framework validation A developed framework is provided for the focus group. The experts provided their opinions about how easy or difficult the developed framework is. They gave their opinions on its robustness and how it is compatible with the Jordanian conditions, context, and environment. Table 10 illustrates the focus group respondents’ responses. All the 10 participants in the focus group discussion approved the framework's simplicity and compatibility with the environment and conditions in Jordan; moreover, they agreed that the suggested framework contributes to gain further insights on the contributions of sustainable buildings to achieve the UN SDGs in Jordan. Nine members (90%) approved the research method employed to construct the proposed framework because of its reliability. Hence, this can guide researchers as well as policymakers worldwide to develop new sustainable building assessment systems for various building types (such as residential buildings) in any country or to update the existing sustainable building assessment system. However, among the participants, one expert expressed doubts on whether this research method can be adopted to construct the framework. Accordingly, the proposed framework is validated. Nine members of the focus group (90%) agreed that the developed management tool (Gantt chart) will aid in implementing sustainable project management and eliminating related 18

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al.

Funding

Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Energy Policy, 112, 280–290. Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage publications. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method techniques and applications. Addison Wesley Advanced Book Program. Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources (2016). Energy 2015—Fact & figure. Retrieved from http://eis.memr.gov.jo/publication/2016-04-03-07-59-21/brochure-energy/ 282-brochure-2015. Ministry of Water & Irrigation (2016a). National Water Strategy of Jordan, 2016–2025. Retrieved from http://www.mwi.gov.jo/sites/en-us/. Ministry of Water & Irrigation (2016b). Water Authority—Jordan Valley Authority, Annual Report 2016Amman, Jordan: Ministry of Water & Irrigation Retrieved from http:// www.mwi.gov.jo/sites/en. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. Park, J. S., & Yoon, C. H. (2011). The effects of outdoor air supply rate on work performance during 8-h work period. Indoor Air, 21(4), 284–290. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2011). The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects—Introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1487–1490. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 39–98. Saaty, T. L., & Shang, J. S. (2007). Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 41(1), 22–37. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2005). The possibility of group welfare functions. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 4(2), 167–176. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Durand-Delacre, D., & Teksoz, K. (2017). SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2017 International spillovers in achieving the goals Global Responsibilities SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2017 Global Responsibilities Foreword vi Part 1: SDG Index and Dashboards Report. Satish, U., Mendell, M. J., Shekhar, K., Hotchi, T., Sullivan, D., Streufert, S., et al. (2012). Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(12), 1671–1677. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 5–36. Sev, A. (2009). How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 17(3), 161–173. Shen, L., Yan, H., Fan, H., Wu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2017). An integrated system of text mining technique and case-based reasoning (TM-CBR) for supporting green building design. Building and Environment, 124, 388–401. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6, 1–21. Tatari, O., & Kucukvar, M. (2011). Cost premium prediction of certified green buildings: A neural network approach. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1081–1086. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-IETC (2003). Energy and Cities; Sustainable Building and Construction. Retrieved from www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Focus/ Sustainable_bldg.doc. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018a). 10YFP-Sustainable Buildings and Construction Programme. Retrieved from http://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/ sites/default/files/brochure_10yfp_sbc_prog_final.pdf. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018b). Sustainable buildings. Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/ what-we-do/cities/sustainable-buildings. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018c). Renewable energy. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/climate-and-disasterresilience/sustainable-energy/renewable-energy.html. United Nations (2018a). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1& Lang=E. United Nations (2018b). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from http://www.un. org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. United Nations (2018c). Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/jordan. United Nations (2018d). Water for life. Retrieved fromhttp://www.un.org/ waterforlifedecade/pdf/01_2014_water_and_energy.pdf. US Department of Energy (2018). About the Commercial Buildings Integration Program. Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-commercialbuildings-integration-program. US Environmental Protection Agency (2018). WaterSense, Commercial Buildings. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/watersense/commercial-buildings. US Green Building Council (2014). LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction: New Construction and Major Renovation. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/ resources/leed-v4-building-design-and-construction-checklist. US Green Building Council (2018a). ATG Headquarter Building. Retrieved from https:// www.usgbc.org/projects/atg-head-quarter. US Green Building Council (2018b). Dutch Embassy in Amman. Retrieved from https:// www.usgbc.org/projects/dutch-embassy-amman-jordan. US Green Building Council (2018c). Middle East Insurance Building. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/projects/middle-east-insurance-building.

We confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication. This work was supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia – BRIDGING [Grant number 304.PAWAM.6316311]. References Al-Bajjali, S. K., & Shamayleh, A. Y. (2018). Estimating the determinants of electricity consumption in Jordan. Energy, 147, 1311–1320. Al-Omary, M., Kaltschmitt, M., & Becker, C. (2018). Electricity system in Jordan: Status & prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 2398–2409. Ali, H. H., & Al Nsairat, S. F. (2009). Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries—Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053–1064. AlQahtany, A., Rezgui, Y., & Li, H. (2014). A Consensus-Based Framework for the Sustainable Urban Planning Development: “As an Approach for Saudi Arabian Cities”. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 5(2), 124–131. Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5, 52–62. Alyami, S. H., Rezgui, Y., & Kwan, A. (2013). Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 43–54. Alyami, S. H., Rezgui, Y., & Kwan, A. (2015). The development of sustainable assessment method for Saudi Arabia built environment: Weighting system. Sustainability Science, 10(1), 167–178. Banani, R., Vahdati, M. M., Shahrestani, M., & Clements-Croome, D. (2016). The development of building assessment criteria framework for sustainable non-residential buildings in Saudi Arabia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, 289–305. Building and Construction Authority (BCA) (2013). Green Mark homepage. Retrieved from https://www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark/others/gm_nonresi_v4.1_rev.pdf. BREEAM (2016). BREEAM International new construction 2016. Retrieved from https:// www.breeam.com/BREEAMInt2016SchemeDocument/#resources/output/10_pdf/ a4_pdf/nc_pdf_printing/sd233_nc_int_2016_print.pdf. BREEAM Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.breeam.com. CASBEE (2014). CASBEE for Building New Construction (2014 edition ed. Tokyo). Retrieved from CASABEE, 2018. Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/. Chew, M. Y. L., & Das, S. (2008). Building grading systems: A review of the state-of-theart. Architectural Science Review, 51, 3–13. Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455–467 doi:10.1080/ 09613210500219063. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467 doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1973). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Department of Statistics (2012). Jordan Statistical Yearbook 2012. Jordan: Amman. Department of Statistics (2013). Jordan Statistical Yearbook 2013. Jordan: Amman. Department of Statistics (2014). Jordan Statistical Yearbook 2014. Jordan: Amman. Department of Statistics (2015). Jordan Statistical Yearbook 2015. Jordan: Amman. Department of Statistics (2016). Jordan Statistical Yearbook 2016. Jordan: Amman. Department of Statistics (2017a). Jordan in Figures. Jordan: Amman. Department of Statistics (2017b). Jordan Statistical Yearbook. Jordan: Amman. Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 451–464. Durdyev, S., Zavadskas, K. E., Thurnell, D., Banaitis, A., & Ihtiyar, A. (2018). Sustainable construction industry in Cambodia: Awareness, drivers and barriers. Sustainability, 10(2). EPA (2018). Green Building. Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/ html/about.html. GBI (2011). Green Building Index Assessment Criteria for Non-residential new construction. Retrieved from http://new.greenbuildingindex.org/Files/Resources/GBI%20Tools/ GBI%20Design%20Reference%20Guide%20-%20Non-Residential%20New %20Construction%20(NRNC)%20V1.05.pdf. GBCA (Green Building Council Australia) (2017). Green Star—Design & As Built. Retrieved from https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system/design-and-built/. Hadadin, N., Qaqish, M., Akawwi, E., & Bdour, A. (2010). Water shortage in Jordan—Sustainable solutions. Desalination, 250(1), 197–202. Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228. Hossen, M. M., Kang, S., & Kim, J. (2015). Construction schedule delay risk assessment by using combined AHP-RII methodology for an international NPP project. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 47(3), 362–379. Illankoon, I. M. C. S., Tam, V. W. Y., & Le, K. N. (2016). Environmental, economic, and social parameters in international green building rating tools. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(2), 5016010. Illankoon, I. M. C. S., Tam, V. W. Y., Le, K. N., & Shen, L. (2017). Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 209–220. Iwaro, J., Mwasha, A., Williams, R. G., & Zico, R. (2014). An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 417–434. Kamaruzzaman, S. N., Lou, E. C. W., Wong, P. F., Wood, R., & Che-Ani, A. I. (2018). Developing weighting system for refurbishment building assessment scheme in

19

Sustainable Cities and Society 49 (2019) 101612

R. Alawneh, et al. US Green Building Council (2018d). World Health Organization Building. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/projects/world-health-organization-building. Izzat Marji Group Headquarters. Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/projects/izzatmarji-group-headquarters. Vidal, L.-A., Marle, F., & Bocquet, J.-C. (2011). Using a Delphi process and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5388–5405. Von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1525–1536. World Green Building Council (2018). Green building & the Sustainable Development Goals.

Retrieved from http://www.worldgbc.org/green-building-sustainable-developmentgoals. Wu, P., & Low, S. P. (2010). Project management and green buildings: Lessons from the rating systems. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 136(2), 64–70. Yu, W., Li, B., Yang, X., & Wang, Q. (2015). A development of a rating method and weighting system for green store buildings in China. Renewable Energy, 73, 123–129. Zarghami, E., Azemati, H., Fatourehchi, D., & Karamloo, M. (2018). Customizing wellknown sustainability assessment tools for Iranian residential buildings using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Building and Environment, 128, 107–128.

20