Türkiye İçin Uygun Yeşil Bina Sertifika Sisteminin Seçilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştirma

Öz

Sürdürülebilir kalkınma en önemli küresel kaygılardan biridir ve hedefleri birçok ülke tarafından projelerde uyumluluğu garanti altına almak için yasal olarak düzenlenmektedir. Bu sebeple kalkınmanın önemli sorunu, projelerin sürdürülebilirlik şartlarına uygun elde edilmesini sağlamaktır. Bu makale Türkiye için uygun yeşil bina sertifika sisteminin seçilmesini araştırmaktadır. Bununla birlikte Türkiye'de yeşil bina sertifikasyon sisteminin geliştirilmesinde göz önünde bulundurulması gereken en önemli standartları ve ölçütleri bulma stratejisine dayalı bir metodoloji sunulmaktadır. Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) tabanlı yöntem, kaynak taramasına bağlı belirlenen ölçütlerin değerlendirilmesi için önerilmektedir. Değerlendirme için i) akademisyenler, ii) profesyonel danışmanlar ve iii) hükümet için karar vericiler gibi farklı alanlardan gelen uzmanlarla görüşmeler ve anket çalışması yapılmıştır. Yeşil bina ve sürdürülebilirlik çalışmaları doğrultusunda önemli sayılan ölçüt ve alt ölçütler kullanılarak, AHP tabanlı anket çalışması uzmanlar tarafından doldurulmuş, bir yazılım aracılığı ile analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan araştırmaya bağlı olarak mevcut sertifika sistemlerinden herhangi birinin Türkiye için en uygun seçenek olmadığı, bu sebeple ulusal yeni bir sertifika sisteminin geliştirilmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Bununla birlikte Türkiye'deki yeşil bina sertifikalandırma sistemi için ekonomi (maliyet) ve etkinliğin en önemli standartlar olarak kabul gördüğü yapılan anket çalışmalarından çıkarılmıştır. Değerleme başarısı, kayıt ve belgelendirme maliyetleri, uyumluluk ve tutarlılık ise gözetilmesi gereken alt kriterler olarak tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeşil Bina,Yeşil Bina Sertifika Sistemleri,Sürdürülebilirlik,Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP)

A Research on Selecting the Green Building Certification System Suitable for Turkey

Öz

Since the sustainable development is considered one of the most significant global concerns, its goals are legislated by several countries to guarantee the project compliance. Therefore, the important issue of development is to ensure the project compliance with the sustainability requirements. With this paper, a methodology is presented based on the strategy to find the most important standards and criteria which must be considered in the development of a green building certification system in Turkey. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique has been adopted at this paper by determining criteria and sub-criteria from the literature. Moreover, interviews have been implemented with experts whom are from different backgrounds, i) academicians, ii) professional consultants and iii) decision makers for the government.  By the use of criteria and sub-criteria which are considered significant in line with the green building and sustainability studies, the questionnaire has been developed by the AHP software (Expert choice 11.5 academic version) is completed by the experts. The results of the used techniques clarified that economy (cost) and effectiveness are considered the most significant standards for the green building certification system in Turkey. Whereas, the entire valuation achievement, registration and certification costs, and adaptableness and consistency are the most significant sub-criteria.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Green Building,Green Building Certification Systems,Sustainability,Analytical Hierarchy Process

Kaynakça

1. Balaras, C. A., Droutsa, K., Dascalaki, E. & Kontoyiannidis, S. (2005). Heating Energy Consumption and Resulting Environmental Impact of European Apartment Buildings, Energy and buildings, 37(5), 429-442.
2. Banani, R., Vahdati, S. D. M. & Elmualim, A. (2011). A Sustainable Assessment Method for Non-Residential Buildings in Saudi Arabia: Development of Criteria, School of Construction Management and Engineering, Unpublished Doctoral Transfer Report, University of Reading.
3. Bartlett, A. A. (2012). The meaning of sustainability. Teachers Clearinghouse for Science and Society Education Newsletter, 31(1), 1-14. Beardsley, E., Burroughs, S., Crowhurst, D., Yates, A., Ward, C.,Dari, K. & Ilomäki, A. (2017). Building Sustainability Assessment And Benchmarking-An Introduction.
4. Becker, C. U. (2012). The meaning of sustainability, In Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research, 9-15, Springer, Netherlands.
5. Bernardi, E., Carlucci, S., Cornaro, C. & Bohne, R. A. (2017). An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Building, Sustainability, 9(7), 12-26.
6. Birgisdottir, H. & Hansen, K. (2011). Test of BREEAM, DGNB, HQE and LEED on two Danish Office Buildings, In World Sustainable Building Conference-SB11, RIL-Finnish Association of Civil Engineers,‏ Helsinki, 879-887.
7. Bowd, D., McKay, C. & Shaw, W. S. (2015). Urban Greening: Environmentalism or Marketable Aesthetics, AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4), 935-949.
8. BREEAM, B. N. C., & Buildings, N. D. (2011). Technical Manual. SD5073, 2, 20-22.

9. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our Common Future, United Nations. 8-9.
10. Chichilnisky, G. (2011). What is sustainability?, International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 3(2), 125-140.
11. Cole, R. J. (2005). Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Redefining Intentionsand Roles, Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455-467.
12. Ding, G. K. (2008). Sustainable Construction, the Role of Environmental Assessment Tools”, Journal of environmental management, 86(3), 451-464.
13. Driedger, M. (2009). Choosing The Right Green Building Rating System: An Analysis of Six Rating Systems and How They Measure Energy, Perkins & Will Research Journal 1(1), 22-41.
14. Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. (2010). Barry's advanced construction of buildings. John Wiley & Sons.
15. Eno, D. D. (2005). Implementing sustainable development policies at the municipal level: identification of strategies for overcoming barriers, 22-26, MSc Thesis, University of Manitoba, Faculty of Architecture, Canada.
16. Erten, D., Henderson, K. & Kobas, B. (2009). A Review of International Green Building Certification Methods: A Roadmap for a Certification System in Turkey, Fifth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-V), Collaboration and Integration in Engineering, Management and Technology, Istanbul-Turkey, 1-10.
17. Fankhauser, S. (2013). Valuing Climate Change: The Economics of the Greenhouse, Routledge, London.
18. Fauzi, M. A. & Malek, N. A. (2013). Green Building Assessment Tools: Evaluating Different Tools for Green Roof System, International Journal of Education and Research, 1(11), 1-14.
19. Giama, E. & Papadopoulos, A. M. (2012). Sustainable Building Management: Overview of Certification Schemes and Standards, Advances in Building Energy Research, 6(2), 242-258.
20. Gluch, P., Stenberg, A. C. (2006). How Do Trade Media Influence Green Building Practice?, Building Research & Information, 34(2), 104-117.
21. Hamedani, A. Z. & Huber, F. (2012). A Comparative Study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM Certificate Systems in Urban Sustainability, the Sustainable City VII: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, 11-21.
22. Harputlugil, T., Gültekin, A. T., Prins, M. & Topcu, Y. I. (2014). Architectural Design Quality Assessment Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study”, METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 31(2),139-161.
23. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52.
24. Illankoon, I. C. S., Tam, V. W., Le, K. N. & Shen, L. (2017). Key Credit Criteria Among International Green Building Rating Tools, Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 209-220.
25. Internet: BREEAM, Retrieved from the web page https://www.breeam.com/, last accessed 2017
26. Internet: CASBEE, Reetrieved from the webpage
27. http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/overviewE.htm, last accessed 2017
28. Internet: ÇEDBİK Retrieved from the webpage https://cedbik.org/ , last accessed 2017
29. Internet: DGNB, DGNB System - Sustainable and Green Building, Online. Retrieved from the web page http://www.dgnb-system.de/en/ , last accessed 2017.
30. Internet: European Union knowledge Network, Sustainable Neighborhood Ranking Systems, Retrieved from the webpage https://www.eukn.eu/ , last accessed 2017.
31. Internet : USGBC Report, Retrieved from the webpage
32. https://www.usgbc.org/articles/usgbc-announces-international-rankings-top-10-countries-leed-green-building, last accessed 2017
33. Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, John Wiley & Sons United States.
34. Kleist, T. & Dorßt, T. (2010). Der DGNB Auditierungsprozess, Consense 2010–Internationaler Kongressfürnachhaltiges Bauen, Retrieved from the webpage: http://www.dgnb international.com/fileadmin/consense/, last accessed 2017
35. Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is Sustainability?, Sustainability, 2(11), 3436-3448.
36. Manioğlu G., Yılmaz, Z. (2006). Energy Efficient Design Strategies in the Hot Dry area of Turkey, Building and Environment”, 43(2008), 1301-1309.
37. Markelj, J., KitekKuzman, M., Grošelj, P. & Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M. (2014). A Simplified Method for Evaluating Building Sustainability in the Early Design Phase for Architects, Sustainability, 6(12), 8775-8795.
38. Mattoni, B., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Bisegna, F., Gori, P. & Asdrubali, F. (2018). Critical Review and Methodological Approach to Evaluate the Differences Among International Green Building Rating Tools, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 950-960. Miranda, J. A. P. (2013). Weighting Factors for the Criteria of a Building Sustainability Assessment Tool (DGNB), 34-45, MSc Thesis,
39. Especialização Em Construções, Portugal.
40. Morledge, R., Jackson, F. (2001). Reducing Environmental Pollution Caused By Construction Plan, Environmental Management and Health, 12(2), 191-206.
41. Nguyen, B. K. & Altan, H. (2011). Comparative Review of Five Sustainable Rating Systems, Procedia Engineering, 21, 376-386.
42. Nicolow, J. (2008). Measuring The Cost To Become LEED Certified.
43. Retrieved from the webpage http://www.facilitiesnet.com/green/article/Measuring-The-Cost-To-Become-LEED-Certified-Facilities-Management-Green-Feature--10057, last accessed 2017.
44. Paumgartten P. (2003). The Business Case for High-Performance Green Buildings: Sustainability and Its Financial Impact, Journal of Facilities Management, 2(1), 26-34.
45. Portalatin, M., Koepke, K., Roskoski, M. & Shouse, T. (2010). Sustainability, How-To Guide Series. Green Building Rating Systems.
46. Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., & Schulte, K. W. (2009) International Comparison of Sustainable Rating Tools, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate: JOSRE, 1(1), 1-22.
47. Reith, A. & Orova, M. (2015). Do Green Neighborhood Ratings Cover Sustainability?, Ecological Indicators, 48, 660-672. Said, F. (2017). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Based Approach to Identify the Best Fit Green Building Certification System for Turkey”, MSc Thesis, Çankaya University, Institute of Science and Technology.
48. Seinre, E., Kurnitski, J. & Voll, H. (2014). Building Sustainability Objective Assessment in Estonian Context and A Comparative Evaluation with LEED and BREEAM, Building and Environment, 82, 110-120.
49. Shutter, C. &Tufts, R. (2016). LEED by the Numbers: 16 Years of Steady Growth | U.S. Green Building Council. Retrieved from the webpage http://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-numbers-16-years-steady-growth
50. Uğur, L. O., & Leblebici, N. (2017). An Examination of the LEED Green Building Certification System in Terms of Construction Costs, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 1476-1483.
51. Younan, V. A. (2011). Developing a Green Building Rating System for Egypt, PhD. Thesis, American University in Cairo, Dept. of Construction and Architectural Engineering, Cairo, 22-30.
52. Yusoff, W. Z. W. & Wen, W. R. (2014). Analysis of the International Sustainable Building Rating Systems (SBRSS) For Sustainable Development With Special Focused On Green Building Index (GBI) Malaysia, Journal of Environmental Conservation Research, 11, 11-26‏.
53. Wang, N., Fowler, K. M. & Sullivan, R. S. (2012). Green Building Certification System Review, US Department of Energy.
54. Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T. & Finnveden, G. (2016). Certification Systems For Sustainable Neighborhoods: What Do They Really Certify. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, 200-213.
55. Zhivov, M. (2018) Enhanced Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Sustainable Office Buildings, 34-36, MSc Thesis, Aalborg University, School of Engineering and Science, Copenhagen.