Next Article in Journal
An Optimization Model Fitting the Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Sustainability Environment Educational Design and Learning Effect Evaluation through Migration Theory: An Example of Environment Educational Serious Games

Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3364; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103364

Article
The Effect of Regional Priority Points on the Performance of LEED 2009 Certified Buildings in Turkey, Spain, and Italy
Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel
Received: 3 August 2018 / Accepted: 18 September 2018 / Published: 20 September 2018

Abstract

:
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) has five basic categories: Sustainable sites (SS), Water Efficiency (WE), Energy and Atmosphere (EA), Materials and Resources (MR), and Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ). Additionally, in LEED 2009, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) introduced regional priority (RP) points to adapt LEED to the local conditions of foreign countries. However, the appropriateness of the RP points stated for the Mediterranean basin has not yet been evaluated. Thus, we studied the similarities and differences in performances of LEED 2009 Commercial Interiors (CI) and LEED 2009 Core and Shell Development (C&S) Gold certified projects in Turkey, Spain, and Italy. We revealed that the categories without RP points, SS, MR, and EQ, performed similarly in all three countries, thereby signaling the correctness of CI and C&S applications in the Mediterranean basin. However, the categories with RP points, WE and EA, performed differently. It can be suggested that the following RP points would be beneficial for all three countries: (i) in the MR category, RP points that initiate decreases in virgin construction material; (ii) in the WE category, RP points that encourage water saving; and (iii) in the EA category, RP points that encourage using renewable energies.
Keywords:
sustainability; rating system; regional priority points; water efficiency; renewable energy

1. Introduction

Currently, green rating systems are widely accepted measures of building sustainability [1,2,3,4]. In this respect, the most well-known rating systems are the following: the Green Star in Australia [5], the Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan [6], the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method [BREEAM] in the United Kingdom [7], the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen DGNB sustainable building certification system in Germany [8], and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States [9], in addition to others. The systems are constantly going through further improvement toward better approaching the triple bottom line of sustainability, which includes environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability [1,4,10].
Castellano et al. [1] analyzed the applied triple bottom line of sustainability in the Sustainable Building Tool (SBTool), BREEAM, LEED, and BREEAM ESpaña (ES). The authors reported that LEED and BREEAM primarily evaluated environmental sustainability (83% and 86%, respectively), thereby ignoring economic sustainability (1% and 0%, respectively) and social sustainability (16% and 14%, respectively). Better results were reported for SBTool, in which 40%, 30%, and 30% of credits are allocated to environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability, respectively [1]. As a result, Castellano et al. [1] suggested a new tool for home owners that gives equal attention (33.3%) to each issue of sustainability; environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. Illankoon et al. [10] analyzed the applied triple bottom line of sustainability in eight international green building rating tools (LEED, BREEAM, BEAM Plus, Green Mark, CASBEE, Green Building Index (GBI), Indian Green Building Council Rating (IGBC), and Green Star) and reported that 25–79%, 15–30%, and 0–2% of credits are devoted to environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability, respectively. Diaz-Sarachaga et al. [4] evaluated urban rating schemes, both LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) and Envision, and concluded that each scheme emphasizes environmental sustainability and ignores social sustainability and economic sustainability considerations.
The other researchers [2,3,11] also performed comparative analyses of the green rating systems and suggested different improvements to the green systems toward further development of building sustainability. In particular, Pushkar and Shaviv [11] analyzed the Israeli Sustainable Standard (SI5281), BREEAM, LEED, and SBTool and concluded that SI5281 focuses on the building design (over the extended lifetime), while BREEAM, LEED, and Green Star focus on the system design (over a shorter lifetime), whereas SBTool devotes the same importance to both the building and system designs. Bernardi et al. [2] analyzed six rating systems (BREEAM, CASBEE, DGNB, HQETM, LEED, and SBTool) and reported that resistance against natural disasters, earthquake prevention, and olfactory comfort are the categories that should be improved in the future versions of the schemes. Mattoni et al. [3] analyzed CASBEE, Green Star, BREEAM, LEED, and Istituto per l’innovazione e Trasparenza degli Appalti e la Compatibilità Ambientale (ITACA) and suggested to introduce several new topics in these green schemes, such as the effect of a building on outdoor comfort and the effects of other surrounding buildings on the energy performance of an analyzed building.
Despite the aforementioned green rating system analyses, which are important for further systems’ improvements, empirical studies of projects that were certified under green rating schemes present significant interest [12,13,14,15,16,17]. These studies aimed to analyze in situ certified projects reveal on-practice trends (practitioner preferences) in achieving schemes’. In this way, high-performance and low-performance categories are disclosed, allowing for schemes’ developments to correct low-performance issues in schemes’ further versions [15]. Therefore, this study is an empirical evaluation of green certified projects.
The use of a green building rating system assumes an adaptation towards the local climate and geography, resource availability/scarcity, technology developments, and cultural and demographic issues [18,19,20,21]. As a result, the green rating systems were initially devoted to certain countries, they have also been applied internationally. On the other hand, several countries use both local and international green building rating systems in parallel. For example, Awadh [22] compared the two internationally used LEED and BREEAM systems with two local systems, the Estidama Pearl Rating System (established by Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council) and the Global Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS) (established by the Gulf Organization of Research and Development in Qatar) for the Gulf region. It was concluded that “BREEAM, GSAS, and Estidama systems give the highest weighting to the Energy category, while LEED prioritizes the Indoor Environmental Quality category … On the other hand, Estidama is the easiest to earn high number of points for water reduction, while LEED and BREEAM follow. Estidama and LEED interior water minimum reduction requirement is more stringent than BREEAM’s”. However, Komurlu et al. [23] revealed that India primarily uses the U.S. standards, Abu Dhabi mostly uses local standards, and Turkey uses LEED and local standards.
BREEAM and LEED are the most well-known rating schemes in Europe [24]. According to Gluszak [24], BREEAM was recognized to have a dominant position in Europe (especially in the United Kingdom, Spain, Lithuania, Slovenia, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Poland). However, LEED also has a strong position in Europe (especially in Turkey, Spain, Italy, Finland, and Sweden). To study LEED certified green buildings in Europe, the analyzed European countries should be from the same regions [25]. Consequently, Turkey, Spain, and Italy are the focus of this study because these countries are related to the same region (i.e., the Mediterranean basin). Based on available statistical data as of July 2018, the number of LEED certified projects in Turkey was 426, while it was 245 in Spain and 219 in Italy [26], whereas the number of BREEAM certified projects in Turkey was 41, while it was 468 in Spain and 100 in Italy [27]. Therefore, the analysis of LEED certificated projects was preferred in this study because of the approximately equal and large amount of the projects certified under the LEED system in the three countries.
LEED was established by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1998. LEED certification is available under several subsystems, such as LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED—NC), Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (LEED—EB), Commercial Interiors (LEED—CI), Core and Shell Development (LEED— C&S), Schools, Retail, Homes, Neighborhood Development, and Healthcare. Four levels of LEED certification can be achieved: Certified (40–49 points), Silver (50–59 points), Gold (60–79 points), and Platinum (80 points and above). These points can be achieved under five basic categories: Sustainable Sites (SS), Water Efficiency (WE), Energy and Atmosphere (EA), Materials and Resources (MR), and Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ). In addition, LEED has an Innovation and Design Process (ID) category to encourage any green building innovation issue that is not mentioned under the five basic categories. Moreover, to allow LEED some adaptability for different geographic locations, a Regional Priority (RP) category was introduced in LEED 2009 [28,29].
These RP points are supposed to take country-specific climate conditions and natural resource availability into account [21]. Thus, the four RP bonus points are aimed at encouraging design teams to give more attention to local regional priority energy and environmental problems. However, the issue of LEED application along with the correctness of RP points suggested by the USGBC in foreign countries has continued to provoke many discussions in the literature.
Suzer [20] performed a qualitative analysis of RP credits that were suggested by the USGBC for Canada, Turkey, China, and Egypt, which revealed that although Turkey, for example, is a country with high water stress, no water-related RP credits were suggested in the LEED—NC 2009. For China, a country with a high population density, only one city-relevant RP credit was suggested in LEED—NC 2009. In addition, other inconsistencies in RP credits were noted by the author for Canada and Egypt. Based on those four countries, Suzer [20] concluded that the current RP credits do not reflect the actual environmental problems of the international projects.
Wu et al. [21] analyzed LEED—NC 2009 applications alongside the correctness of RP points suggested by USGBC for projects in China, Turkey, and Brazil. Frequency analyses of the achievements of RP points (e.g., percentage of achieved RP credits per all studied projects) in those three countries were reported by the authors. According to those analyses, strictly unbalanced achievements in RP credits were confirmed for China and Brazil. For example [21], the most accepted RP credits (91.8% and 72.4%, respectively) are China Water Efficient Landscaping (WEc1) and Optimize Energy Performance (EAc1), whereas Quantity Control in Stormwater Design (SSc6.1) is the most unpopular RP credit (only 6.5%). The other RP credits were found to be credits of moderate popularity (Innovative Wastewater Technologies (WEc2)—55.9%, Measurement and Verification (EAc5)—41.8%, and Enhanced Commissioning (EAc3)—29.4%). This RP point problem was the worst for Turkey because any of its RP credits could be determined as being the most accepted [21]. In particular, Heat Island Effect—Roof (SSc7.2), Thermal Comfort—Verification (EQc7.2), Stormwater Design—Quantity Control (SSc6.1), and On-site Renewable Energy (EAc2) were defined as credits with moderate popularity (41.9%, 29.1%, 22.1, and 18.6%, respectively), whereas Construction Waste Management (MRc2) and Building Reuse—Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements (MRc1.2) were the most unpopular RP credits (1.2% and 0%, respectively) [21]. Based on those findings, Wu et al. [21] concluded that the RP credits in LEED-NCv3 do not exactly reflect the regional green building priorities.
However, the findings of Wu et al. [21] were based on only LEED—NC 2009 certified projects in three countries that were under completely different environmental conditions. To perform a further verification of international LEED applications, an additional analysis that analyzes several countries within the same environmental conditions certified under different LEED systems is required. Thus, as mentioned earlier, in this study, we focus on the issue of LEED applications in Turkey, Spain, and Italy. In particular, projects certified under two completely different systems, LEED—CI 2009 and LEED—C&S 2009, in the Mediterranean basin of Turkey, Spain, and Italy, were considered (the reasons for the consideration of LEED 2009 (version 3), one version before the most recent LEED version 4, are explained below in Section 2.2).
The question guiding this study is the following: how similarly or differently do certified projects handle international LEED system applications in the Mediterranean basin? This study can aid in understanding the current Turkey, Spain, and Italy certification strategies and the appropriateness of their RP credits (suggested by USGBC). This may help LEED experts engage in further developing improvements to subsequent versions of LEED schemes by suggesting (i) more applicable basic LEED categories and (ii) corrected RP credits for Turkey, Spain, and Italy.
We focused only on the LEED Gold certified projects in this study. It should be noted that studying LEED against other rating systems is non-applicable for empirical studies that observe certified projects with a sufficient number of LEED certified projects, which is impractical because certifying the same project under several certification systems costs additional money.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 contains materials and methods, Section 3 contains the results, Section 4 contains the discussion, Section 5 contains the conclusions, Section 6 contains the limitations, and Section 7 contains the future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology Flowchart of the Present Study

Figure 1 depicts four top-down steps of the applied methodology. The first step is a comparative analysis between version 2009 and version 4 for two different LEED schemes, LEED—CI, and LEED—C&S. The second step is the collection of Gold-level certificated projects for the two LEED schemes and for each of three countries (Turkey, Spain, and Italy), which are located in the Mediterranean basin. The third step has a nonparametric statistical analysis of pairwise comparisons between the three countries for each of the two LEED schemes. Because the LEED project data are related to an ordinal scale. The fourth step contains two nonparametric statistical tests, from which the magnitude and significant difference between the two distributions can be determined.
Based on Hurlbert’s terminology [30] (p. 652), the consistent implementation of these four steps can be defined as a single-unit design structure [30], in which all LEED Gold certified projects belong to the same Mediterranean basin. In this context, if two unpaired groups containing the LEED Gold certified projects should be statistically compared, then the nonparametric Cliff’s δ test and the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney (WMW) test should be used.

2.2. The LEED—CI 2009 vs. LEED—CIv4 and the LEED—C&S 2009 vs. LEED—C&Sv4: Certified Projects and Rating Schemes

In this empirical research, the focus was on LEED 2009 (version 3), one version before the most recent LEED version 4. This focus was chosen because (i) an insufficient sample size of LEEDv4 projects certified in Turkey, Spain, and Italy for both CI and C&S systems was revealed in the USGBC project site; and (ii) the two LEED versions, 3 and 4, in the CI and C&S schemes, still have more similarities than differences.
(i).
LEED—CI 2009 vs. LEED—CIv4 and the LEED—C&S 2009 vs. LEED—C&Sv4: certified projects. As of August 2018, for LEED—CIv4 certification, Turkey has one Gold certified project and two projects with a “Certification in progress” status; Spain and Italy have zero certified projects in any status. Considering LEED—C&Sv4 certification, Turkey has three certified projects with a “Certification in progress” status; Spain has one Gold certified project, one Silver certified project, and one certified project with a “Certification in progress” status; and Italy has zero certified projects. Consequently, a statistical analysis using significance tests cannot be conducted because of the extremely (i.e., sample sizes, n < 4) low number of projects in the two rating systems (CI and C&S). In contrast, a sufficient sample size of LEED 2009 projects certified in Turkey, Spain, and Italy for both CI and C&S systems does exist according to the USGBC project site (the exact numbers of the projects are described in Section 2.3).
(ii).
The LEED—CI 2009 vs. LEED—CIv4 and the LEED—C&S 2009 vs. LEED—C&Sv4: rating schemes. The LEED—CI 2009 versus LEED—CIv4 rating schemes are shown in Table 1. The total number of points is the same (110 pts) and the number of points in each category is very similar. The SS category (in the LEED—CI 2009) in the LEED—CIv4 was relocated under the Location and Transportation (LT) category. In the LEED—CI 2009, the SS category includes site selection; developing density and community connectivity; and alternative transportation with public access, bicycle storage, and parking. In the LEED—CIv4, the LT category includes LEED neighborhood development location; surrounding density and diverse uses; and alternative transportation with access to quality transit, bicycle facilities, and reduced parking footprint. In fact, the evaluation of SS issues (LEED—CI 2009) is very similar to the evaluation of LT issues (LEED—CIv4).
In the WE category, both the LEED—CI 2009 and LEED—CIv4 require indoor water reduction, concerning the use of high-efficiency water closets and urinals, using alternative rainwater, stormwater sources of water, and the installation of a water consumption metering system.
In the EA category, the issues of the LEED—CI 2009, such as energy optimization, enhanced commissioning, and green energy production, are still relevant in the LEED—CIv4. The most important energy optimization credit has almost the same weight in both versions: 22 pts of the total 37 pts in the LEED—CI 2009 and 25 pts of the total 38 pts in the LEED—CIv4. The green power credit (5 pts in LEED—CI 2009) in the LEED—CIv4 was split into renewable energy production (3 pts) and green power and carbon offset (2 pts) credits.
The MR category in the LEED—CIv4 has newly introduced a life cycle impact reduction credit for interiors (4 pts in the total 13 pts). Additionally, the issues concerning material reuse and recycling in the LEED—CI 2009 were reformatted into the issues concerning manufacturers’ declarations regarding the sourcing of raw materials and material ingredients in the LEED—CIv4. However, the essence of the MR category (material reuse and recycling and construction waste management) is still the same in each version.
In the EQ category, the LEED—CIv4 presents the same issues that were presented in the LEED—CI 2009: indoor air quality, low-emitting materials, thermal comfort, interior lighting, daylight, and quality views. The only difference is the addition of an acoustic performance credit, which was first introduced in the LEED—CIv4.
The LEED—C&S 2009 versus LEED—C&Sv4 rating schemes are shown in Table 2. The total number of points is the same (110 pts) and the number of points in each category is very similar. In the SS category, the LEED—C&Sv4 was split into LT and SS categories. In the LEED—C&S 2009, the SS category includes land usage (site selection, development density, and brownfield redevelopment), transportation (alternative green transportation and parking), and site usage (site development and stormwater design, heat island, and light pollution reductions). In the LEED—C&Sv4, the LT category includes land usage (LEED for neighborhood, land protection, high priority site, and surrounding density) and transportation (access to quality transit, bicycle, parking, and green vehicles), while the SS category includes site usage (site development, open space, rainwater, heat island, and light pollution reductions). Thus, the SS issues are very similar to the LT+SS issues.
The WE category in the LEED—C&Sv4 includes, in addition to indoor and outdoor water reduction (also relevant in LEED—C&S 2009), issues related to cooling tower water use and water metering. However, in both versions, the indoor and outdoor water issues have similarly high weights: 8 pts from the total 10 pts in the LEED—C&S 2009 and 8 pts of the total 11 pts in the LEED—C&Sv4.
In the EA category, similar credits are included in the LEED—C&S 2009 and LEED—C&Sv4 for energy optimization and metering, enhanced commissioning, refrigerant management, and renewable and green energy production issues. The most important energy optimization credit has almost the same weight in both versions: 21 pts of the total 37 pts in the LEED—C&S 2009 and 18 pts of the total 33 pts in the LEED—C&Sv4. Only the enhanced commissioning credit was weighed more heavily in LEED—C&Sv4: 6 pts versus 2 pts in LEED—C&S 2009.
The MR category, the LEED—C&Sv4 introduced a life cycle impact reduction credit for building material optimization and reuse (6 pts of the total 14 pts). In addition, building reuse and material recycling (the LEED—C&S 2009) were represented in the LEED—C&Sv4 as issues concerning manufacturers’ declarations regarding the raw material source and material ingredient optimization. Nevertheless, the same issues of building material reuse and recycling and construction waste management are still relevant in both versions.
In the EQ category, the LEED—C&Sv4 suggests the same issues that were relevant in the LEED—C&S 2009: air quality, low-emitting materials, construction indoor air quality management plan, daylight, and quality views.
The analysis of LEED—CI 2009 vs. LEED—CIv4 and of LEED—C&S 2009 vs. LEED—C&Sv4 shows more similarities than differences between the code pairs. Therefore, empirical evidence of the LEED—CI 2009 and LEED—C&S 2009 certified projects can be useful in identifying improvements to upcoming versions of LEED—CI and LEED—C&S schemes, respectively.

2.3. Study Design

Table 3 shows the sample sizes for each country and the CI and C&S LEED rating systems. In the three countries of Turkey, Spain, and Italy, the evaluated projects were selected at sites located in the Mediterranean basin.
The problem of a small sample size and an appropriate significance test. Because the LEED project data are related to an ordinal scale (i.e., a normal distribution was not met), nonparametric tests should be used. In this context, if two unpaired groups containing the smallest sample sizes n1 = 10 and n2 = 8 (Turkey vs. Italy for LEED—CI, respectively; Table 3) should be statistically compared, then an exact WMW two-tailed test should be used. In addition, Mann and Whitney (1947, p. 50) noted that at this point, the distribution is almost normal when the sample size is n1 = n2 = 8 (Mann and Whitney [31]. Bergmann et al. (2000, p. 73) strongly recommended using an exact rather than an asymptotic approximation WMW test, especially in cases where the experimental groups exceed 10 [32].
If the sample size was to be set as n1 = n2 = 8 and a normal distribution was not met, the type I error probabilities for the exact Wilcoxon rank sum test (equivalent to the exact WMW test) were found to be 5% [33]. Therefore, the exact WMW test can be used as the appropriate significance test in the present study. Lately, the LEED certified levels projects, that is, two unpaired groups, were statistically treated through the use of the WMW test [14,15,17]. In the present study, a small sample variance in the groups was achieved because we used the same LEED version (i.e., LEED 2009), the same rating system (i.e., C&S or CI), the same certification level (i.e., Gold), and the same region (the Mediterranean basin). In addition, it was reported that, “Despite the advantages of big studies, large sample size can magnify the bias associated with error resulting from sampling or study design.” [34]. Recently, Pushkar [25] showed that if LEED certified projects were divided into several groups (U.S. states) with small sample sizes, then the statistical conclusions were more realistic than when all LEED projects were pooled into one group.

2.4. Data Collection

The USGBC scorecards of LEED certified projects are available for public access. In this study, we downloaded the USGBC scorecards of the LEED 2009 certified projects (as of April 2018) certified in Turkey, Spain, and Italy. LEED—CI 2009 certified projects were retrieved from the commercial interiors directory of the USGBC website [35] and the LEED—C&S 2009 certified projects were retrieved from the core and shell development directory of the USGBC website [36]. Then, information on the retrieved projects regarding the points for credits awarded in the five main categories—SS, WE, EA, MR, and EQ—were accumulated in an Excel sheet. Eventually, the RP points were also accumulated and redistributed among the five relevant main categories. In this way, we collected points for five basic categories, SS, WE, EA, MR, and EQ, with embedded RP points in the relevant main category. These data were statistically evaluated as described below.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics. The data are presented as the median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles). All statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB R2013a.
Inferential statistics. The exact WMW two-tailed test was used to determine significant difference (p-value) between two distributions [32]. Nonparametric Cliff’s δ was applied to measure the magnitude of the difference of the two distributions (i.e., effect size) [37].
Cliff’s δ [37], p. 495 is expressed as follows:
δ = #(x1 > x2) − #(x1 < x2)/(n1n2)
where x1 and x2 are scores within group 1 and group 2, respectively; n1 and n2 are the sizes of the sample groups, group 1 and group 2, respectively; and # indicates the number of times.
Cliff’s δ ranges between −1 and +1; positive (+) values indicate that group 1 is larger than group 2, 0 indicates an equality or overlap, and negative (−) values indicate that group 2 is larger than group 1 [37].
The effect size is considered (i) negligible if |δ| < 0.147, (ii) small if 0.147 ≤ |δ| < 0.33, (iii) medium if 0.33 ≤ |δ| < 0.474, or (iv) large if |δ| ≥ 0.474 [38]. According to Cohen [39], (p. 156), “A medium effect is visible to the naked eye of a careful observer. A small effect is noticeably smaller than medium but not so small as to be trivial. A large effect is the same distance above the medium as small is below it.” It should be noted that the effect size does not constitute “iron-clad criteria” [40], but is only a general rule of thumb that might be followed in the absence of knowledge of the area [41].
Neo-Fisherian significance assessments. In the current study, the hybrid of the Paleo–Fisherian and Neyman–Pearsonian paradigms (i.e., null hypothesis significance tests (NHST)) are replaced by a neo-Fisherian assessment (NFSA), as recommended by Hurlbert and Lombardi [42]. An NFSA (1) does not fix α, that is, the level of significance; (2) does not describe p-values as ‘significant’ or ‘nonsignificant’, that is, dichotomizing the scale of p-values, that is, p ≤ α or p > α, determined, “as a sort of mechanical Occam’s razor” [43]; (3) does not accept a null hypotheses based on high p-values but only suspends judgment; (4) interprets significance tests according to “three-valued logic”; and (5) presents the effect size information in conjunction with the significance tests. NFSAs are used to interpret the signs and magnitudes of the statistical effects [44]. Precise p-values were evaluated and shown according to a three-valued logic as follows: “it seems to be positive” (i.e., there seems to be a difference between group 1 and group 2), “it seems to be negative” (i.e., there does not seem to be a difference between group 1 and group 2), and “judgment is suspended” regarding the difference between group 1 and group 2 [42,44]. Hurlbert and Lombardi [44] cited the suggestion of Gotelli and Ellison [45], noting that “in many cases, it may be more important to report the exact p-value and let the readers decide for themselves how important the results are”.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles)) for the projects certified in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, as well as inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value) for comparing the countries’ performances, that is, Turkey versus Spain, Turkey versus Italy, and Spain versus Italy, are presented in Appendix A, Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4 and Table A5 for the SS, WE, EA, MR, and EQ categories, respectively. Thus, the results of the SS, WE, EA, MR, and EQ performances (“similar high performances”, “similar low performances”, and “different performances”) in Turkey, Spain, and Italy that were evaluated via the statistical analyses (Appendix A, Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4 and Table A5), and are presented below in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8.

3.1. SS Category

More similarities than differences in the performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy were noted in the SS category (Table 4). For example, Development Density and Community Connectivity (SSc2 in both the CI and C&S systems) and Alternative Transportation (Public Transportation Access, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Effective Vehicles, and Parking Capacity) (SSc3.1 and SSc3.3 in the CI system and SSc4.1, SSc4.3, and SSc4.4 in the C&S system) were considered important issues, and similar high performances in these credits were revealed in all three countries. This is because densely built urban environments that provide clean and alternative transportation are extremely important in high urbanized countries [20].
However, similar low performances were revealed in Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms (SSc3.2 in CI system and SSc4.2 in C&S system) in all three countries. It can be suggested that such low performances are the result of the Mediterranean climate that prevails at the sites where the projects are located (Turkey: Istanbul, Ümraniye, Ataşehir, Ankara, Çanakkale, Antakya, and Esenyurt; Spain: Madrid, Barcelona, La Roca Del Valles, and Caceres; and Italy: Grassobbio, Milan, Arese, Villanterio, Corsico, Segrate, and Rome) [28,29]. Thus, the long, hot summers that represent the Mediterranean climate are not as appropriate for transportation means, such as bicycling.
Some of the revealed differences in performances of SS credits in CI and C&S projects were the result of different requirements in the two systems for the same credit. For example, consider SSc1, Site Selection. In that credit, in CI certified projects, different performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy were revealed, whereas in C&S certified projects, similar high performances in the three countries were revealed. This is because in C&S, designers are only required to build their projects at environmentally appropriate sites [29], whereas in CI, there is an option for the possibility of awarding points for this credit depending on the previous building environmental history [28]. This means that when a project should be certified under CI, to obtain five points in this subcategory, simply selecting a building that previously employed other somewhat green practices (for example, selecting a LEED—NC certified building) should be undertaken. In this respect, it can be suggested that Turkey has an advantage over Spain and Italy. For example, LEED is a more widely accepted certification system in Turkey than in Spain and Italy. In this respect, as of July 2018, 426 projects in Turkey had received LEED certification, whereas there were 245 and 219 LEED certified projects in Spain and Italy, respectively [26]. It can be suggested that this is why Turkey’s performance is better than those of Spain and Italy for SSc1 in the CI system (Appendix A, Table A1).

3.2. WE Category

In general, it can be suggested that in both the CI and C&S certified projects, the best WE performance was associated with the possibility of obtaining RP points in this category; a country that has RP points for WE credit(s) performed better and vice versa (Table 5). In the CI system, only Turkey and Spain have RP points for WEc1 Water Use Reduction; therefore, these countries performed better than Italy for this credit (Appendix A, Table A2). In the C&S system, only Spain has RP points for WEc1 Water Efficient Landscaping, and both Spain and Italy have RP points for WEc3 Water Use Reduction. Thus, in these credits, Spain’s and Italy’s performances were better than Turkey’s performances (Appendix A, Table A2). However, similar high performances were revealed in WEc2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies in all three countries, although only Spain and Italy have RP points for that credit.
In this respect, it should be noted that Turkey, Spain, and Italy are countries with current/potential high water stress [47,48,49], which could increase in future decades. This is because of the possibility of climate change effects on water resource potential in countries located in the Mediterranean basin. It has been predicted by hydrological models that as a result of climate change, annual temperature will increase and cumulative annual precipitation will decrease in the Mediterranean region [47,48,49]. In Turkey, high water stress is not exactly being experienced currently, but climate change in the western and southern parts of Turkey, which is part of the Mediterranean basin, may cause water stress in that country in the near future [47]. In Spain, unequal distributions of water and its scarcity have been reported throughout the country, but especially problematic water scarcity is predicted in its Mediterranean area [48]. In Italy, it was reported that the last 30-year period was the warmest of the last 800 years, thereby creating climate changes that led to changes in water availability due to the hydrological cycle [49]. Thus, in the WE category for both the CI and C&S systems, RP points should eventually be redesigned and redistributed to allow all three countries to obtain RP bonus points towards a better performance for water consumption.

3.3. EA Category

For Turkey, Spain, and Italy, in both the CI and C&S systems, the EA category contains the most RP points (Table 6). This emphasis on EA was expected because decreasing energy is a global warming concern [20]. However, the stated RP points were not the same in Turkey, Spain, and Italy. Some credits have RP points for all three countries, and some are only for two of the three countries. However, both of these cases have resulted in similarities and differences in the countries’ performances.
For example, in the CI system, EAc1.1 Optimize Energy Performance—Lighting Power and EAc2 Enhanced Commissioning are credits with RP points in all three countries with similar performances. In particular, similar high performances were revealed for EAc1.1, whereas similar low performances were found for EAc2 (Appendix A, Table A3). Regarding the similar low performances for EAc2, it should be noted that this credit requires an independent commissioning authority to be hired for enhanced commissioning of building energy systems [15]. Thus, EAc2 performance highly depends on involved additional finances.
However, in the case of the EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance credit, in the C&S system, although RP points were allowed for all three countries, the performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy differed. This is because in the C&S system, EAc1 contains all of the energy optimization issues (Lighting Power, Lighting Controls, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), and Equipment and Appliances) all together in one credit and, therefore, it provides high numbers of points (up to 21 points). This means that in this case, one bonus point does not greatly change the total resulting number of awarded points, and Italy’s performance was, in essence, the best without the influence of one RP point.
An additional example is provided by the CI system EAc1.3 Optimize Energy Performance—HVAC credit, in which RP points are allowed only for Spain and Italy and not for Turkey. As a result, the EAc1.3 performances in Spain and Italy were significantly higher than those in Turkey (Appendix A, Table A3). However, in the case of EAc5.2 Measurement and Verification—Tenant Submetering, in the C&S system, despite the fact that bonus RP points were only given to Spain and Italy, the three countries still had similar high performances.
It should be noted that in the On-site Renewable Energy (EAc2 in the C&S system) credit, as well as in the Green Power (EAc4 in the CI system and EAc6 in the C&S system) credit, all three countries performed in a similarly poor way (Appendix A, Table A3). However, green power energy and renewable energy can be successfully applied in all three countries. In Turkey, the share of renewable energy in the total electricity production is approximately 20% and is represented mainly by hydropower (16.1%), wind (3.3%), and other sources (biomass, solar, and geothermal) (1.4%) [50]. In Spain, the share of renewable energy in the total electricity production is approximately 35% and is represented mainly by variable renewable energy sources, such as wind (19%), solar (5%), and other sources (biomass, cogeneration, and the remaining) (11%) [51]. In Italy, wind and solar are also the most popular renewable energy sources, with 8% of the country’s electricity production provided by photovoltaic (PV) panels [52]. Thus, to encourage using these renewables in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, in the EA category for both CI and C&S systems, RP points should be given for On-site Renewable Energy and Green Power credits.

3.4. MR Category

In general, the present study revealed a low performance in the MR category for some credits (Table 7), such as MRc1.2 Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Interior Nonstructural Elements, MRc6 Rapidly Renewable Materials, and MRc7 Certified Wood (CI system), as well as MRc3 Materials Reuse and MRc6 Certified Wood (C&S system) (Appendix A, Table A4). However, similar high performances were revealed for the MRc2 Construction Waste Management (C&S system) and for the MRc5 Regional Materials (CI and C&S systems).

3.5. EQ Category

In particular, for almost all the EQ credits, the performances in the three countries were similar (Table 8), with half of the EQ credits having a high performance, and half having a low performance (Appendix A, Table A5). For example, similar high performances were revealed in EQc2 Increased Ventilation, and EQc3.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management plan—During Construction, whereas similar low performances were found in EQc1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring, and EQc8.2 Daylight and Views—Views (in both CI and C&S systems).
Thus, there were cases in which half of the credits had a high performance and half had a low performance. For example, in CI projects, the Construction Indoor Air Quality Management plan during construction (EQc3.1) performed well, whereas that plan had low performances before occupancy (EQc3.2) in all three countries. An additional example is Low-Emitting Materials in both CI and C&S projects, in which Adhesives and Sealants and Paints and Coatings (EQc4.1 and EQc4.2) had similar high performances, whereas Flooring Systems and Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products (EQc4.3 and EQc4.4) had similar low performances in all three countries. In this case, it can be suggested that installation of new filtration media prior to occupancy (EQc3.2), as well as carpet and composite wood installations (EQc4.3 and EQc4.4, respectively), are not popular measures in these three countries.

4. Discussion

The problem of pooling procedure. In empirical studies of LEED certified projects, pooling of large sample sizes are practiced [15]. Considering LEED—NC 2009 certification, Wu et al. [15] evaluated pooled sampling of 3416 certified projects around the world. The authors [15] reported the highest performance in the ID category; intermediate performance in the SS, WE, and EQ categories; and the lowest performance in the EA and MR categories.
In this study, each of the three countries (Turkey, Spain, and Italy) was considered separately, thereby avoiding the problems associated with pooling procedure. The following results were obtained: SS and WE category performances were high, the EA and EQ category performances were intermediate, and the MR category performance was low. As noted, these results are different from the aforementioned results reported by Wu et al. [15] for all world-certified projects.
The problem of design structure. Recently, Wu et al. [21] (p. 9, Table 6) evaluated the LEED—NC 2009 categories achievement among four countries, the United States, China, Turkey, and Brazil, which are located in the different regions. It was reported that across the four countries, the SS, WE, EA, EQ, and ID category performances were significantly different, whereas no significant differences were revealed in MR category performance.
The evaluated certified projects in these counties were under the influence of several factors including different space type of the LEED certified projects [21] (p. 8, Figure 1), different number of certified projects, different levels of LEED certifications [21] (p. 9, Table 6), different climate, and so on. Consequently, the interpretation of the results that were obtained in the Wu et al. [21] study (p. 9, Table 6) may be incorrect because of a large number of influencing factors.
In the current study, to evaluate the effect of regional RPs on the performance of LEED 2009 certified buildings, only the Gold level of LEED certification was chosen, only two separate rating schemes, LEED—CI and LEED—C&S, were selected, and three countries, Turkey, Spain, and Italy, from the same region (the Mediterranean basin) were selected for analysis. As a result, in the SS, MR, and EQ categories, Turkey, Spain, and Italy performed in a similar way, which confirms the correct application of the LEED—CI and C&S systems in those three countries located in the Mediterranean basin. However, in the WE and EA categories, Turkey, Spain, and Italy performed in a different way. As shown, these differences were mainly the result of RP points suggested by the USGBC in those countries.
This design structure can be defined as a single-unit design structure, in which the Mediterranean basin was defined at only one scale [30]. Recently, when LEED 2009 Silver–Gold transition was evaluated, a single-unit design was applied, either the entire United States or individual U.S. state [25]. It was clearly shown that corrected statistical conclusion occurred when the single-input design structure was applied to an individual U.S. state. In the present study, the single-input design structure was applied to the Mediterranean basin. Consequently, to evaluate the effect of RP on LEED certified projects performance, at least similar geographic regions and similar levels of certification should be used.
Based on the study [25], in the evaluation of LEED Gold-certified projects, the Mediterranean basin was defined as “a sampling frame” (i.e., the sampling frame is a collection of primary sampling units “accessible for sampling in the population of interest” [53]). While the LEED Gold-certified projects within each country (Turkey, Spain, and Italy) were defined as “primary sampling units” (i.e., the primary sampling unit is statistically independent of other primary sampling units within the same sampling frame [53]).

5. Conclusions

It was concluded that more similarities than differences in the countries performances resulted, which confirms the correct application of the LEED CI and C&S systems in those three countries located in the Mediterranean basin.
In 70–90% and in 70–75% of CI projects and C&S projects, respectively, all of the SS, MR, and EQ credits performed in a similar way in the three countries, whereas the SS category performance was high, that for MR was low, and that for EQ was intermediate. Thus, it is worth stimulating virgin construction material, increasing RP points in all three countries because of their current low popularity.
In CI projects, 100% and 60% of all WE and EA credits, respectively, were performed in different ways in the three countries, and in C&S projects, 70% were performed in different ways. In general, the high performance of a country with RP points was different from that for a country without RP points. Such an influence was more prominent for the WE category. Thus, it is worth stimulating water saving RP points in all three countries as a result of their high water stress. For both CI and C&S systems, in the EA category, green power and renewable energy credits were noted as non-popular credits in all three countries. However, because of the current availability of wind and solar energy in these countries, it is worth stimulating renewable fuel sources by suggesting RP points to green power and renewable energy credits.

6. Limitations

The current study has two main limitations. The first limitation is the LEED version that was used. We analyzed projects certified under version 3 (LEED—CI 2009 and LEED—C&S 2009) and not under the current version 4 (LEED—CIv4 and LEED—C&Sv4). The second limitation is the number of Mediterranean countries that were studied. Only three of the 21 Mediterranean countries were analyzed because a sufficient sample size of LEED—CI 2009 and LEED—C&S 2009 certified projects was only available for this empirical study in the three analyzed countries.

7. Future Research

Future research work should be focused on LEEDv4 certified projects. Based on the fact that LEED data related to an ordinal scale, both nonparametric significance tests and design structure should be used to obtain both corrected statistical and practical significance in future empirical studies. It can help LEED environmental performance convert via economic performance and social performance to LEED sustainability performance [10].

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Sustainable sites (SS) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
Table A1. Sustainable sites (SS) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
CreditPtTurkeySpainItalyTurkey vs. SpainTurkey vs. ItalySpain vs. Italy
Descriptive Statisticsδpδpδp
CI projects
SSc1 355.0 ± 3.01.0 ± 3.03.0 ± 2.50.640.0070.320.245−0.460.082
SSc2 166.0 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.00.150.6160.130.889−0.031.000
SSc3.1 166.0 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.00.001.0000.130.8890.130.762
SSc3.2 220.0 ± 2.00.0 ± 2.00.0 ± 1.0−0.160.7260.051.0000.210.620
SSc3.3 122.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 0.00.061.000−0.280.451−0.340.266
C&S projects
SSc1 111.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.0−0.031.0000.031.0000.060.900
SSc2 155.0 ± 0.05.0 ± 5.05.0 ± 0.00.130.416−0.021.000−0.150.466
SSc3 310.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.0−0.230.011−0.330.001−0.110.693
SSc4.1 166.0 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.06.0 ± 0.0−0.050.7460.060.6550.010.508
SSc4.2 220.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0−0.041.0000.031.0000.070.847
SSc4.3 133.0 ± 0.03.0 ± 0.03.0 ± 0.00.090.2700.170.0620.080.803
SSc4.4 122.0 ± 0.02.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 0.00.210.1000.060.829−0.150.466
SSc5.1 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.011.000−0.060.829−0.070.804
SSc5.2 311.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.00.470.0010.390.007−0.080.844
SSc6.1 210.0 ± 1.0 *0.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.00.250.0830.270.0830.011.000
SSc6.2 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0−0.070.7710.050.9520.120.595
SSc7.1 311.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 1.00.140.0950.440.0010.320.069
SSc7.2 311.0 ± 2.0 *0.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.00.300.0330.090.565−0.320.078
SSc8 310.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.0−0.400.001−0.220.0630.180.413
SSc9 111.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.00.110.2830.140.1950.031.000
1—Similar high performances, 2—similar low performances, 3—different performances. *—Credit, which has a regional priority bonus point. The p-values: bold font—seems to be positive, ordinal font size—seems to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended.
Table A2. Water Efficiency (WE) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
Table A2. Water Efficiency (WE) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
CreditPtTurkeySpainItalyTurkey vs. SpainTurkey vs. ItalySpain vs. Italy
Descriptive Statisticsδpδpδp
CI projects
WEc1 31112.0 ± 0.0 *11.0 ± 4.3 *9.5 ± 5.50.330.1590.580.0300.300.273
C&S projects
WEc1 342.0 ± 2.03.0 ± 2.0 *3.0 ± 4.0−0.340.0250.050.7870.240.186
WEc2 122.0 ± 1.03.0 ± 1.0 *2.5 ± 3.0 *−0.260.0630.110.5240.240.189
WEc3 344.0 ± 0.05.0 ± 1.0 *4.5 ± 1.0 *−0.380.010−0.290.0530.090.594
1—Similar high performances, 2—similar low performances, 3—different performances. *—Credit, which has a regional priority bonus point. The p-values: bold font—seems to be positive, ordinal font size—seems to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended.
Table A3. Energy and Atmosphere (EA) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
Table A3. Energy and Atmosphere (EA) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
CreditPtTurkeySpainItalyTurkey vs. SpainTurkey vs. ItalySpain vs. Italy
Descriptive Statisticsδpδpδp
CI projects
EAc1.1 155.5 ± 3.0 *4.0 ± 3.5 *3.5 ± 4.0 *0.270.2820.310.2760.100.734
EAc1.2 330.5 ± 3.03.0 ± 4.0 *2.5 ± 1.5 *−0.370.137−0.580.030−0.100.738
EAc1.3 3102.5 ± 5.05.0 ± 1.0 *6.0 ± 3.5 *−0.450.061−0.560.042−0.240.349
EAc1.4 344.0 ± 1.0 *4.0 ± 0.03.0 ± 3.0 *0.390.0370.530.0610.310.172
EAc2 250.0 ± 6.0 *6.0 ± 6.0 *0.0 ± 6.0 *−0.140.8130.080.8730.230.402
EAc3 355.0 ± 2.03.0 ± 2.0 *5.0 ± 5.5 *0.250.326−0.450.079−0.570.028
EAc4 250.0 ± 5.05.0 ± 5.05.0 ± 2.5−0.320.280−0.450.153−0.130.885
C&S projects
EAc1 3219.0 ± 3.3 *7.5 ± 6.0 *15.0 ± 9.0 *0.020.910−0.470.004−0.360.053
EAc2 340.0 ± 0.0 *4.0 ± 4.0 *4.0 ± 5.0 *−0.520.001−0.500.001−0.100.524
EAc3 220.0 ± 0.52.0 ± 2.00.0 ± 2.0 *−0.290.028−0.060.6540.190.291
EAc4 122.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 2.0−0.060.773−0.100.697−0.040.925
EAc5.1333.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 3.03.0 ± 3.00.540.0010.400.001−0.030.822
EAc5.2 133.0 ± 1.03.0 ± 4.0 *3.0 ± 4.0 *0.210.1550.220.1430.011.000
EAc6 320.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.0−0.320.029−0.170.0620.150.466
1—Similar high performances, 2—similar low performances, 3—different performances. *—Credit, which has a regional priority bonus point. The p-values: bold font—seems to be positive, ordinal font size—seems to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended.
Table A4. Materials and Resources (MR) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
Table A4. Materials and Resources (MR) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
CreditPtTurkeySpainItalyTurkey vs. SpainTurkey vs. ItalySpain vs. Italy
Descriptive Statisticsδpδpδp
CI projects
MRc1.1 310.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.30.0 ± 0.5−0.460.0660.051.0000.520.059
MRc1.2 220.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.0−0.370.134−0.030.8890.290.266
MRc2 320.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 1.32.0 ± 0.0−0.350.182−0.700.008−0.460.063
MRc3.1 220.0 ± 0.0 *0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.001.0000.001.0000.001.000
MRc3.2 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.20.0 ± 0.5−0.230.323−0.250.366−0.021.000
MRc4 320.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.21.0 ± 1.5−0.390.117−0.490.098−0.140.774
MRc5 122.0 ± 0.02.0 ± 0.32.0 ± 0.00.011.000−0.100.588−0.130.621
MRc6 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0−0.150.6170.001.0000.150.743
MRc7 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0−0.150.6170.001.0000.150.743
C&S projects
MRc1 350.0 ± 0.0 *0.0 ± 5.04.5 ± 5.0−0.460.001−0.560.001−0.130.546
MRc2 122.0 ± 0.02.0 ± 1.02.0 ± 0.00.060.577−0.070.753−0.120.483
MRc3 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.001.0000.001.0000.001.000
MRc4 322.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 2.02.0 ± 1.00.620.0000.420.000−0.230.230
MRc5 122.0 ± 0.02.0 ± 1.02.0 ± 0.00.170.0730.170.062−0.100.682
MRc6 210.0 ± 0.00.5 ± 1.00.5 ± 1.0−0.200.163−0.200.1730.001.000
1—Similar high performances, 2—similar low performances, 3—different performances. *—Credit, which has a regional priority bonus point. The p-values: bold font—seems to be positive, ordinal font size—seems to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended.
Table A5. Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
Table A5. Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) performances in three Mediterranean countries: descriptive (median ± interquartile range (IQR, 25th–75th percentiles) and inferential statistical analysis (Cliff’s, δ, and p-value).
CreditPtTurkeySpainItalyTurkey vs. SpainTurkey vs. ItalySpain vs. Italy
Descriptive Statisticsδpδpδp
CI projects
EQc1 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.5 ± 1.0−0.360.154−0.400.176−0.041.000
EQc2 111.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.0−0.090.980−0.280.451−0.180.689
EQc3.1 111.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.00.110.9260.180.7650.071.000
EQc3.2 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.0−0.190.6270.200.5880.390.127
EQc4.1 111.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.0−0.250.394−0.280.451−0.031.000
EQc4.2 111.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.0−0.100.870−0.101.0000.001.000
EQc4.3 310.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.0−0.520.033−0.530.063−0.011.000
EQc4.4 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0−0.071.0000.001.0000.081.000
EQc4.5 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0−0.150.6170.001.0000.150.743
EQc5 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.20.0 ± 0.0−0.031.0000.081.0000.111.000
EQc6.1 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.0−0.280.3110.200.5880.460.630
EQc6.2 210.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.250.3940.031.000−0.220.524
EQ7.1 111.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.31.0 ± 0.00.060.8080.031.000−0.041.000
EQc7.2 312.0 ± 1.0 *1.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.50.690.0010.680.006−0.061.000
EQc8.1 221.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 2.00.5 ± 2.00.280.2250.200.608−0.060.999
EQc8.2 111.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.00.5 ± 1.00.091.0000.200.7040.120.944
C&S projects
EQc1 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.0−0.060.849−0.120.538−0.060.941
EQc2 311.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.00.5 ± 1.0−0.130.3850.230.1700.360.031
EQc3 111.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 1.00.050.9000.140.3580.100.729
EQc4.1 111.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 0.00.5 ± 1.0−0.120.4830.150.4450.270.143
EQc4.2 111.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 1.0−0.120.3600.120.5100.230.108
EQc4.3 210.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.00.5 ± 1.00.040.971−0.100.706−0.140.585
EQc4.4 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.00.001.000−0.180.605−0.180.326
EQc5 311.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.00.160.3640.400.0100.240.186
EQc6 210.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 1.0−0.040.973−0.200.208−0.160.445
EQc7 312.0 ± 1.0 *1.0 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.00.600.0010.700.0010.200.341
EQc8.1 210.0 ± 1.00.5 ± 1.00.0 ± 0.0−0.040.9740.290.0630.330.058
EQc8.2 210.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.01.0 ± 1.0−0.290.063−0.260.1270.031.000
1—Similar high performances, 2—similar low performances, 3—different performances. *—Credit, which has a regional priority bonus point. The p-values: bold font—seems to be positive, ordinal font size—seems to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended.

References

  1. Castellano, J.; Ribera, A.; Ciurana, J. Integrated system approach to evaluate social, environmental and economics impacts of buildings for users of housings. Energy Build. 2016, 123, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bernardi, E.; Carlucci, S.; Cornaro, C.; Bohne, R.A. An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mattoni, B.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Bisegna, F.; Gori, P.; Asdrubali, F. Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82 Pt 1, 950–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M.; Jato-Espino, D.; Castro-Fresno, D. Evaluation of LEED for Neighbourhood Development and Envision Rating Frameworks for Their Implementation in Poorer Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Green Star. Technical Manual v3.2. 2017. Available online: https://12253-console.memberconnex.com/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=1347 (accessed on 25 July 2018).
  6. CASBEE. CASBEE for Buildings (New Construction) Technical Manual. 2014. Available online: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/downloadE.htm (accessed on 25 July 2018).
  7. BREEAM. BREEAM Offices 2008 Technical Manual. 2009. Available online: https://www.hrsservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/SD5055_4.0_BREEAM_Offices_2008.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2018).
  8. DGNB. DGNB System Version 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/services/request-dgnb-criteria/ (accessed on 26 July 2018).
  9. LEED. LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction. 2018. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%20v4%20BDC_07.2.18_current.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2018).
  10. Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N. Environmental, economic, and social parameters in international green building rating tools. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2017, 143, 05016010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pushkar, S.; Shaviv, E. Using shearing layer concept to evaluate green rating systems. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2016, 59, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fuerst, F. Building momentum: An analysis of investment trends in LEED and Energy Star-certified properties. J. Retail Leis. Property 2009, 8, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Ma, J.; Cheng, J.C.P. Data-driven study on the achievement of LEED credits using percentage of average score and association rule analysis. Build. Environ. 2016, 98, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, P.; Mao, C.; Wang, J.; Song, Y.Z.; Wang, X.Y. A decade review of the credits obtained by LEED v2.2 certified green building projects. Build. Environ. 2016, 102, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Shou, W.; Chi, H.; Chong, H.Y.; Sutrisna, M. A comprehensive analysis of the credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68 Pt 1, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Hu, X.; Wang, X. A Preliminary Investigation of the Transition from Green Building to Green Community: Insights from LEED ND. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pushkar, S.; Verbitsky, O. LEED-NCv3 silver and gold certified projects in the US: An observational study. J. Green Build. 2018, 13, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Neama, W.A.S.A. Protect the planet through sustainability rating systems with local environmental criteria—LEED in the Middle East. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 68, 752–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Faulconbridge, J. Mobilising sustainable building assessment models: Agents, strategies and local effects. Area 2015, 47, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Suzer, O. A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs. other major certification systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 154, 266–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, X.; He, Q. Regional variations of credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings—A country level analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 11, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Komurlu, R.; Arditi, D.; Gurgun, A.P. Applicability of LEED’s energy and atmosphere category in three developing countries. Energy Build. 2014, 84, 690–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Głuszak, M. Internationalization, Competiveness and Green Building Certification in Europe. In Europeanization Processes from the Mesoeconomic Perspective: Industries and Policies; Cracow University of Economics: Kraków, Poland, 2015; Chapter 9; pp. 173–191. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pushkar, S. Sacrificial Pseudoreplication in LEED Cross-Certification Strategy Assessment: Sampling Structures. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. USGBC. US Green Building Council (USGBC). Projects Directory. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/projects (accessed on 27 July 2018).
  27. BREEAM. Certified BREEAM Assessments Site. Available online: http://www.greenbooklive.com/search/buildingmapgoogle.jsp (accessed on 27 July 2018).
  28. USGBC. Commercial Interiors Projects Directory. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/projects/commercial-interiors (accessed on 15 April 2018).
  29. USGBC. Core and Shell Development Directory. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/projects/core-and-shell (accessed on 18 April 2018).
  30. Hurlbert, S.H. Pseudofactorialism, response structures and collective responsibility. Austral Ecol. 2013, 38, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947, 18, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bergmann, R.; Ludbrook, J.; Spooren, W.P.J.M. Different outcomes of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test from different statistics packages. Am. Stat. 2000, 54, 72–77. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dwivedi, A.K.; Mallawaarachchi, I.; Alvarado, L.A. Analysis of small sample size studies using nonparametric bootstrap test with pooled resampling method. Stat. Med. 2017, 36, 2187–2205. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Kaplan, R.M.; Chambers, D.A.; Glasgow, R.E. Big data and large sample size: A cautionary note on the potential for bias. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2014, 7, 342–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. LEED-CI 2009. LEED for Commercial Interiors. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs5543.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2018).
  36. LEED-C&S 2009. LEED for Core and Shell Development. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs5544.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2018).
  37. Cliff, N. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 114, 494–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, F.; Mockus, A.; Keivanloo, I.; Zou, Y. Towards building a universal defect prediction model with rank transformed predictors. Empir. Softw. Eng. 2016, 21, 2107–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Durlak, J.A. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2009, 34, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Volker, M.A. Reporting effect size estimates in school psychology research. Psychol. Sch. 2006, 43, 653–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Lopsided reasoning on lopsided tests and multiple comparisons. Aust. N. Z. J. Stat. 2012, 54, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Beninger, P.G.; Boldina, I.; Katsanevakis, S. Strengthening statistical usage in marine ecology. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2012, 426–427, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2009, 46, 311–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gotelli, N.J.; Ellison, A.M. A Primer of Ecological Statistics; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  46. USGBC. 2014. US Green Building Council (USGBC). Regional Priority Credits directory. Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/rpc (accessed on 11 February 2018).
  47. Yilmaz, A.G.; Imteaz, M.A. Climate change and water resources in Turkey: A review. Int. J. Water 2014, 8, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Estrela, T.; Pérez-Martin, M.A.; Vargas, E. Impacts of climate change on water resources in Spain. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2012, 57, 1154–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  49. Ravazzani, G.; Ghilardi, M.; Mendlik, T.; Gobiet, A.; Corbari, C.; Mancini, M. Investigation of Climate Change Impact on Water Resources for an Alpine Basin in Northern Italy: Implications for Evapotranspiration Modeling Complexity. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ozcan, M. The role of renewables in increasing Turkey’s self-sufficiency in electrical energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2629–2639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gómez-Calvet, R.; MartÍnez-Duart, J.M.; Calle, S.S. Present state and perspectives of variable renewable energies in Spain. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2018, 133, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Di Francia, G. The development of sensor applications in the sectors of energy and environment in Italy, 1976–2015. Sensors 2017, 17, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Picquelle, S.J.; Mier, K.L. A practical guide to statistical methods for comparing means from two-stage sampling. Fish. Res. 2011, 107, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Top-down approach for evaluating the effect of regional priority points on the performance of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2009 certified buildings in Mediterranean countries. CI—Commercial Interiors; C&S—Core and Shell Development.
Figure 1. Top-down approach for evaluating the effect of regional priority points on the performance of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2009 certified buildings in Mediterranean countries. CI—Commercial Interiors; C&S—Core and Shell Development.
Sustainability 10 03364 g001
Table 1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)—Commercial Interiors (CI)v3 vs. LEED—CIv4: categories with allocated points.
Table 1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)—Commercial Interiors (CI)v3 vs. LEED—CIv4: categories with allocated points.
LEED—CIv3PtsLEED—CIv4Pts
Not Applicable-Integrative Process2
Sustainable Sites21Location and Transportation18
Water Efficiency11Water Efficiency12
Energy and Atmosphere37Energy and Atmosphere38
Materials and Resources14Materials and Resources13
Indoor Environmental Quality17Indoor Environmental Quality17
Innovation in Design6Innovation in Design6
Regional Priority4Regional Priority4
Total110Total110
Table 2. LEED—Core and Shell Development (C&S)v3 vs. LEED—C&Sv4: categories with allocated points.
Table 2. LEED—Core and Shell Development (C&S)v3 vs. LEED—C&Sv4: categories with allocated points.
LEED—C&Sv3PtsLEED—C&Sv4Pts
Not Applicable-Integrative Process1
Sustainable Sites28Location and Transportation20
Sustainable Sites11
Water Efficiency10Water Efficiency11
Energy and Atmosphere37Energy and Atmosphere33
Materials and Resources13Materials and Resources14
Indoor Environmental Quality12Indoor Environmental Quality10
Innovation in Design6Innovation in Design6
Regional Priority4Regional Priority4
Total110Total110
Table 3. Sample sizes for the three countries and the two types of LEED rating systems.
Table 3. Sample sizes for the three countries and the two types of LEED rating systems.
Types of Rating SystemsTurkeySpainItaly
LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors, Gold level10138
LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development, Gold level372218
Table 4. Results of the Sustainable sites (SS) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A1.
Table 4. Results of the Sustainable sites (SS) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A1.
CreditsSimilar High PerformancesSimilar Low PerformancesDifferent Performances
LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development (CI)
SSc1 Site Selection
SSc2 Development Density and Community
SSc3.1 Public Transportation Access
SSc3.2 Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
SSc3.3 Parking Availability
LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors (C&S)
SSc1 Site Selection
SSc2 Development Density and Community
SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment
SSc4.1 Public Transportation Access
SSc4.2 Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
SSc4.3 Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
SSc4.4 Parking Availability
SSc5.1 Site Development—Restore Habitat
SSc5.2 Site Development—Maximize Open Space
SSc6.1 Stormwater Design—Quantity Control
SSc6.2 Stormwater Design—Quality Control
SSc7.1 Heat Island Effect—Nonroof
SSc7.2 Heat Island Effect—Roof
SSc8 Light Pollution Reduction
SSc9 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines
In the C&S system, Turkey has regional priority points for SSc6.1 and SSc7.2 [46].
Table 5. Results of the Water Efficiency (WE) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A2.
Table 5. Results of the Water Efficiency (WE) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A2.
CreditsSimilar High PerformancesSimilar Low PerformancesDifferent Performances
LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development (CI)
WEc1 Water Use Reduction
LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors (C&S)
WEc1 Water Efficient Landscaping
WEc2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies
WEc3 Water Use Reduction
In the CI system, Turkey and Spain have regional priority points (RP) for WEc1 [46]. In the C&S system, Spain has RP points for WEc1, WEc2, and WEc3, and Italy has RP points for WEc2 and WEc3 [46].
Table 6. Results of the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A3.
Table 6. Results of the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A3.
CreditsSimilar High PerformancesSimilar Low PerformancesDifferent Performances
LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development (CI)
EAc1.1 Optimize Energy Perf.—Lighting Power
EAc1.2 Optimize Energy Perf.—Lighting Control
EAc1.3 Optimize Energy Performance—HVAC
EAc1.4 Optimize Energy Perf.—Equipment
EAc2 Enhanced Commissioning
EAc3 Measurement and Verification
EAc4 Green Power
LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors (C&S)
EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance
EAc2 On-site Renewable Energy
EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning
EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management
EAc5.1 Measurement and Verif.—Base Building
EAc5.2 Measur. and Verif.—Tenant Submetering
EAc6 Green Power
In the CI system, Turkey has regional priority (RP) points for EAc1.1, EAc1.4, and EAc2; Spain has RP points for EAc1.1, EAc1.3, EAc2, and EAc3; and Italy has RP points for EAc1.1-EAc1.4, EAc2, and EAc3 [46]. In the C&S system, Turkey has points for EAc1 and EAc2; Spain has RP points for EAc1, EAc2, and EAc5.2; and Italy has RP points for EAc1–EAc3 and EAc5.2 [46].
Table 7. Results of the Materials and Resources (MR) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A4.
Table 7. Results of the Materials and Resources (MR) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A4.
CreditsSimilar High PerformancesSimilar Low PerformancesDifferent Performances
LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development (CI)
MRc1.1 Tenant Space—Long-term Commitment
MRc1.2 Building Reuse—Maintain Inter. Elemen.
MRc2 Construction Waste Management
MRc3.1 Materials Reuse
MRc3.2 Materials Reuse—Furnit. & Furnishings
MRc4 Recycled Content
MRc5 Regional Materials
MRc6 Rapidly Renewable Materials
MRc7 Certified Wood
LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors (C&S)
MRc1 Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Walls
MRc2 Construction Waste Management
MRc3 Materials Reuse
MRc4 Recycled Content
MRc5 Regional Materials
MRc6 Certified Wood
In the CI system, Turkey has regional priority (RP) points for MRc3.1 [46]. In the C&S system, Turkey has RP points for MRc1 [46].
Table 8. Results of the Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A5.
Table 8. Results of the Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) performances in Turkey, Spain, and Italy, evaluated via the statistical analysis detailed in Appendix A, Table A5.
CreditsSimilar High PerformancesSimilar Low PerformancesDifferent Performances
EQc1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
EQc2 Increased Ventilation
EQc3.1 Indoor Air Quality—During Construct.
EQc3.2 Indoor Air Quality—Before Occupancy
EQc4.1 Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives
EQc4.2 Low-Emitting Materials—Paints
EQc4.3 Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring
EQc4.4 Low-Emitting Materials—Comp. Wood
EQc4.5 Low-Emitting Materials—Furniture
EQc5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Control
EQc6.1 Controllability of Systems—Lighting
EQc6.2 Controllability of Syst—Thermal Comfort
EQc7.1 Thermal Comfort—Design
EQc7.2 Thermal Comfort—Verification
EQc8.1 Daylight and Views—Daylight
EQc8.2 Daylight and Views—Views
LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors (C&S)
EQc1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
EQc2 Increased Ventilation
EQc3 Indoor Air Quality—During Construct.
EQc4.1 Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives
EQc4.2 Low-Emitting Materials—Paints
EQc4.3 Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring
EQc4.4 Low-Emitting Materials—Comp. Wood
EQc5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Control
EQc6 Controllability of Syst—Thermal Comfort
EQc7 Thermal Comfort—Design
EQc8.1 Daylight and Views—Daylight
EQc8.2 Daylight and Views—Views
In the CI system, Turkey has regional priority (RP) points for EQc7.2 [46]. In the C&S system, Turkey has RP points for EQc7 [46].

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Back to TopTop