A Comparative Analysis of Green Building Certification Systems for Schools
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a highly valuable applied research paper. It summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of eight different certification systems, as well as the fundamental differences between developed and developing countries, and proposes improvement suggestions.
- The research topic is interesting, but are all the assessment systems studied in this paper truly up-to-date? Apart from YeS-TR Building, most standards are from before 2010. These are clearly not elements that research in 2025 should focus on. It is recommended to supplement this with green building standards from 2010 onwards. For example, China's green building evaluation standards not only propose more detailed clauses and requirements for different elements but also make detailed distinctions for different building types. These represent the current direction of future green building evaluation worldwide.
- The article discusses the impact of different national policies and the implementation of green building standards. However, this impact varies across different national contexts. For instance, LEED certification was once a highly sought-after goal in China, but with the emergence of standards adapted to the Chinese environment, LEED has become less popular. This is also related to policy, and it is recommended to supplement this discussion.
- School buildings are a special type of building, and there are differences between new construction and renovation of old buildings. It is recommended to supplement this section with further discussion.
Author Response
A Comparative Analysis of Green Building Certification Systems for Schools
“We would like to express our gratitude to the editorial team and reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts in improving our work. We believe that the revisions have addressed all concerns and enhanced the overall quality of the paper.”
REVIEWER 1:
Comment 1:
The research topic is interesting, but are all the assessment systems studied in this paper truly up-to-date? Apart from YeS-TR Building, most standards are from before 2010. These are clearly not elements that research in 2025 should focus on. It is recommended to supplement this with green building standards from 2010 onwards. For example, China's green building evaluation standards not only propose more detailed clauses and requirements for different elements but also make detailed distinctions for different building types. These represent the current direction of future green building evaluation worldwide.
Response 1:
Thank you for this valuable comment. Although the certification systems used in this study emerged before 2010, they have been updated over time. The current versions were used in the study. The versions included in the study can be seen in Table 1. All versions included in the study were dated after 2010.
Comment 2:
The article discusses the impact of different national policies and the implementation of green building standards. However, this impact varies across different national contexts. For instance, LEED certification was once a highly sought-after goal in China, but with the emergence of standards adapted to the Chinese environment, LEED has become less popular. This is also related to policy, and it is recommended to supplement this discussion.
Response 2:
We totally agree with the reviewer’s comment. Thank you for the remark. We added the following passage to the “Conclusions and Recommendations” (Lines 702-720).
“To gain legitimacy, some building certification agencies may emulate the structures and practices of other agencies that have proven successful. International certification systems such as LEED were adopted in early green projects as a symbol of quality and sustainability to gain recognition in the global market. However, when these systems are not fully adapted to the local context, they may be ineffective. Adaptability issues increase costs and complexity. Governments may develop special incentives and standards, such as tax breaks and zoning permits, often tied to local standards, to achieve green building goals. This reduces the competitive appeal of international systems. Furthermore, national standards developed by local governments directly reflect government priorities. For example, the UK government has used BREEAM as a policy implementation tool to achieve green targets. Public policies have mandated a specific BREEAM level (very good or excellent) for publicly funded school projects in the UK. This requirement has given the system market dominance and undeniable legitimacy. Similarly, obtaining YeS-TR_ Building certification for public buildings larger than 10,000 m² will soon be mandatory in Turkiye. Schools, on the other hand, are buildings constructed mostly with public funds in Turkiye as part of a government strategy about national education. Government agencies naturally prefer their own national certification system.”
Comment 3:
School buildings are a special type of building, and there are differences between new construction and renovation of old buildings. It is recommended to supplement this section with further discussion.
Response 3:
It is true that there were no mention and no discussion of school building renovation in the original version of the paper. Thank you for pointing this out. As per the reviewer’s recommendation, we added the following information to “Conclusions and Recommendations” in Lines 788-801.
“There are differences between constructing new schools and renovating existing schools. While site selection, design optimization, new material selection, and construction management are key issues in new school projects, preserving an existing structure, improving the energy efficiency of existing systems, improving indoor air quality, addressing waste management, and extending the building's economic life are prioritized in school renovation projects. Therefore, it is expected that evaluation criteria for new school projects and renovation projects will differ, or that the scoring weights will vary. Criteria such as preserving and reusing existing building elements and avoiding the use of new materials may be awarded more points in renovation projects. While systems such as LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB have different criteria for renovations or different scores assigned to the same criteria, YeS-TR _Building is not designed for existing school building renovation. The criteria for only new school buildings are compared in this study across certification systems. A separate comparison can be conducted for school renovation projects.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I consider your article a detailed and well-conceived paper that connects sustainable architecture, energy efficiency, and the educational context. The analysis of eight certification systems demonstrates a strong understanding of both global and local sustainability approaches. The manuscript effectively highlights the absence of pedagogical and health-related criteria in current certification systems.
The article has many positive aspects:
• The paper presents the most extensive comparative analysis to date on this topic, covering eight systems.
• It compares technical criteria and interprets them within social, pedagogical, and cultural contexts, adding significant value.
• It includes both developed and developing countries, enabling analysis of global differences in approaches to sustainability.
• The analysis of the YeS-TR Building system, a new Turkish national model that has been poorly researched so far, is particularly noteworthy.
In addition to the positive aspects of the article, there are several areas for improvement. Along with some minor weaknesses, I offer recommendations, although some are addressed in the research limitations:
• Although the analysis is detailed, it lacks quantitative indicators, such as comparative scoring metrics across case studies, which limits the ability to draw general conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular system.
• The work is limited to secondary analysis (desk research) and does not include empirical data or surveys of school building users.
• The comparison methodology could be more structured, for example, by applying multi-criteria analysis or weighting criteria using the AHP/MCDA method.
• Tables could be summarized more concisely. A minor drawback is the occasional overlap of content in the tables.
• The conclusion could be simplified to emphasize key findings and recommendations.
1. A clear summary of the manuscript and its key contributions
The paper presents a comparative analysis of eight international green building certification systems and their applicability to educational buildings, particularly schools. It identifies eight evaluation categories (project management, land selection, energy, indoor environmental quality, water, waste, materials, and innovation) and concludes that current systems do not adequately address educational and socio-cultural aspects of sustainability. The authors propose developing dedicated certification frameworks for green schools, rather than relying on slightly modified generic green certification systems designed for buildings in general. In doing so, they open a new area of research at the intersection of architecture, ecology, and education.
2. A detailed evaluation of the methodology, analyses, and conclusions
The study is well-structured and based on a systematic literature review of 53 studies from the WoS database, although only 2 of these articles compare green school certification systems. The comparative matrix of the eight systems is methodically presented and supported by tables and radar charts. The methodological approach is qualitative and descriptive; however, it would benefit from quantitative validation methods such as multi-criteria analysis (e.g., AHP or MCDA). The discussion effectively connects technical and socio-pedagogical aspects but lacks an empirical dimension, such as case studies, interviews, or statistical data. The conclusions are consistent with the analysis but could be condensed to highlight the key findings and recommendations.
3. Constructive feedback for the authors, highlighting areas for improvement
-
- If possible, include at least one case study of a certified green school to illustrate the comparative framework in practice.
- Consider using quantitative weighting or scoring techniques (e.g., AHP or MCDA) to reinforce the comparative findings.
- Provide a clearer link between the findings and policy implications, especially for national certification systems such as YeS-TR.
- Shorten and refocus the conclusion to highlight the study’s novelty, methodological contribution, and future research directions.
These are only suggestions, so please decide for yourself whether to accept them and to what extent. I have included some less important comments in the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
A Comparative Analysis of Green Building Certification Systems for Schools
“We would like to express our gratitude to the editorial team and reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts in improving our work. We believe that the revisions have addressed all concerns and enhanced the overall quality of the paper.”
REVIEWER 2:
Comment 1:
If possible, include at least one case study of a certified green school to illustrate the comparative framework in practice.
Response 1:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The YeS-TR certification system included in the study is still quite new as it was created as late as in 2022. There are no school buildings holding the YeS-TR certificate yet. Therefore, a comparison involving case studies is unfortunately not possible.
Comment 2:
Consider using quantitative weighting or scoring techniques (e.g., AHP or MCDA) to reinforce the comparative findings.
Response 2:
A comparison based on scoring obtained through AHP is an excellent idea, except that the international nature of our research subject (including certification systems in the US, UK, Germany, Canada, Turkiye, Malaysia, India, and Hong Kong) did not allow us to pursue this avenue because conducting a lengthy 9-point scale-based AHP survey in each of the these countries would have required logistics that were not available to us. Given the practical impossibility of collecting quantitative data, our research was based on our research team’s observations after careful examination of all the publicly available documentation about the eight certification systems considered in the study along with the observations and discussions of other researchers as published in the extant literature.
Comment 3:
Provide a clearer link between the findings and policy implications, especially for national certification systems such as YeS-TR.
Response 3:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We added the following paragraph to “Conclusions and Recommendations” (Lines 766-774).
“In Turkiye, the effectiveness of certifying green school buildings could be expanded if the Ministry of National Education and the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change could collaborate to create mandatory school-specific criteria within YeS-TR. They could expand the existing scoring structure to include not only environmental but also pedagogical and socio-cultural sustainability. They could put in place additional incentive mechanisms for public or private investments based on YeS-TR scores. Furthermore, they could develop regionalized versions of YeS-TR-Schools compatible with Turkiye's climate zones and spatial planning strategies, ensuring adaptation to local conditions while maintaining national standardization.”
Comment 4:
Shorten and refocus the conclusion to highlight the study’s novelty, methodological contribution, and future research directions.
Response 4:
Thank you for this comment. As per the recommendation of the reviewer, we reorganized the “Conclusions and Recommendations” to make sure that the outcomes of the study and the implications of these outcomes are clearly stated in distinct bullet points. After the bullet points, we added a paragraph that states the major contributions of our findings to the state-of-the-art in green schools.
Additional Comments from Reviewer 2
Comment 1:
It is recommended to use keywords that do not appear in the article title, as this increases the article’s visibility.
Response 1:
We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. We revised the keywords. The new version is reproduced below (Lines 34-35).
“Keywords: green buildings; green schools; green school certification systems; sustainability criteria; developing countries; comparative analysis”.
Comment 2:
Although it follows the instructions, I think the references should be placed at the end of the sentence, as in the case of reference 14, since only numbers are given and not the authors' last names. The above proposal should be considered in other similar cases throughout the remainder of the article. In this case, it may be better to place the author's last name and the reference number at the beginning of the sentence. Consider rephrasing it, as it appears at the beginning of a sentence.
Response 2:
Thank you for this valuable comment. This was an oversight on our part, and we apologize for it. In the revised manuscript, we made sure no sentence starts with [#] and that we never have “according to [#]” We added the last name of the authors before the brackets.
Comment 3:
In this case, it may be better to place the author's last name and the reference number at the beginning of the sentence.
Response 3:
Please see or preceding response to Comment 2.
Comment 4:
Is this truly a reference number? Consider rephrasing it, as it appears at the beginning of a sentence.
Response 4:
We checked the reference, and we placed the reference number at the end of the sentence.
Comment 5:
References to tables should be placed appropriately within the text, not in the title or subtitle. Please apply this guideline to other instances in the article as well.
Response 5:
Thank you for this comment. We removed references to tables from the titles or subtitles. References to tables appear only in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The earlier part of the abstract is generic. There is no need to talk about ‘sustainability’ in general in the abstract section, as most of the readers would already be familiar with the concept. Perhaps start with the problem statement and research gap in green building certification systems.
- There are several English language mistakes in the abstract. Most sentences do not make any sense, and it is hard to understand what the authors are trying to tell.
- The introduction section talks about Green schools, which is fine. However, the theme of the paper is to investigate the sustainability certification system for schools. The interconnectedness between the certification system and the green school concept is missing.
- In line 169, the author misinterprets the NABERS rating system in Australia. The authors present different NABERS types (energy, water, waste, and indoor air) and state that it is not a holistic certification system. Collectively, it is a holistic system, although the individual may not be. NABERS is a comprehensive rating system with specific rating system for each of energy, water, waste, and indoor air.
- Figure 2 could have added NABERS and Australia’s Green Star Rating system. These are holistic and comparable with all.
- In the results and discussion section, the authors could discuss how emerging sustainability themes, such as circular economy and climate risk and resilience, are being addressed by these rating systems or what these rating systems can do in relation to both.
- In the conclusion section, mention what Turkey could learn from the analysis of these rating systems, and if any similar rating systems are being considered currently.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
A Comparative Analysis of Green Building Certification Systems for Schools
“We would like to express our gratitude to the editorial team and reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts in improving our work. We believe that the revisions have addressed all concerns and enhanced the overall quality of the paper.”
REVIEWER 3:
Comment 1:
The earlier part of the abstract is generic. There is no need to talk about ‘sustainability’ in general in the abstract section, as most of the readers would already be familiar with the concept. Perhaps start with the problem statement and research gap in green building certification systems.
Response 1:
Thank you for the observations related to the Abstract. We edited the abstract based on the reviewer’s comment. The edited version of the Abstract in Lines 15-33 is reproduced below.
“The concept of green building has become important as sustainability issues were acknowledged in the construction industry. Green building certification systems have emerged to measure the sustainability of buildings. While there are numerous studies on green building certification systems, studies evaluating green schools are quite limited even though green schools not only ensure the health and comfort of students and teachers, but also play a role in raising sustainability awareness, especially in growing children. First, a detailed literature review was conducted in this study that identified eight common issues, namely “project management processes”, “land selection and transportation/location”, “energy”, “indoor environmental quality”, “water”, “waste”, “materials” and “innovation” that were extensively used to evaluate green schools. Four green building certification systems that emerged in developing countries and four systems that existed in advanced countries were compared relative to these eight issues. The weaknesses of the eight certification systems and the fundamental differences between advanced and developing countries were identified and suggestions for improvements were presented. It was concluded that it is not enough to consider green schools only as buildings that rely on sustainable design and construction, but also as important institutions that contribute to the adoption of the concept of sustainability. Consequently, it was found that it is important to create special green certification systems for schools.”
Comment 2:
There are several English language mistakes in the abstract. Most sentences do not make any sense, and it is hard to understand what the authors are trying to tell.
Response 2:
As mentioned in Response 1, we revised the abstract and we made sure that the redundant generic information is eliminated, a problem statement is included, the gap is identified, the methodology is presented, and our conclusions are stated.
Comment 3:
The introduction section talks about green schools, which is fine. However, the theme of the paper is to investigate the sustainability certification system for schools. The interconnectedness between the certification system and the green school concept is missing.
Response 3:
We agree with the reviewer that the interconnectedness between the certification system and the green school concept was missing in the original version of the paper. We added the following text to the end of the Introduction (Lines 96-103) to provide this connection.
“Green building certification systems are critical tools that translate the abstract goals of the green building concept into concrete, measurable, and verifiable criteria. These systems assess whether buildings meet sustainability requirements and provide guiding principles for managing environmental issues during the design, construction, and operation phases. Certification systems for school buildings provide a roadmap, verification mechanism, and quality assurance for achieving the health, economic, environmental, and pedagogical benefits that define a school as a green school.”
Comment 4:
In line 169, the author misinterprets the NABERS rating system in Australia. The authors present different NABERS types (energy, water, waste, and indoor air) and state that it is not a holistic certification system. Collectively, it is a holistic system, although the individual may not be. NABERS is a comprehensive rating system with specific rating system for each of energy, water, waste, and indoor air.
Response 4:
Thank you for the information about NABERS. In our study, we examined the “school modules” of the certification systems considered in the study. The NABERS certification system for schools is designed to assess schools only within the scope of “energy” and “water” as seen in the reference (https://www.nabers.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/Nabers%20Fact%20Sheet%20Schools.pdf). Therefore, NABERS was not included in the study because it was not possible to conduct comparisons on “project management processes”, “land selection and transportation/location”, “indoor environmental quality”, “waste”, “materials” and “innovation” covered in other certification systems. We revised the reason for NABERS not being included in the study accordingly in Lines 173-178.
Comment 5:
Figure 2 could have added NABERS and Australia’s Green Star Rating system. These are holistic and comparable with all.
Response 5:
For reasons that were expressed in our preceding response to Comment 4, NABERS was not included in the sample of eight certification systems picked for comparison in our study.
Comment 6:
In the results and discussion section, the authors could discuss how emerging sustainability themes, such as circular economy and climate risk and resilience, are being addressed by these rating systems or what these rating systems can do in relation to both.
Response 6:
Thank you for this valuable comment. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added a short discussion about how the circular economy is addressed by the eight certificate systems considered in our study. See below and in Lines 617-625 in the manuscript.
“Emerging sustainability themes such as circular economy are addressed in the certification systems examined through criteria aimed at minimizing resource use and waste throughout the building's lifecycle. For example, materials' durability, demountability, flexibility, and recyclability potential are addressed under the "materials and waste" heading. Lifecycle management also supports this approach. In this context, all certification systems in the study include assessments to support the circular economy. Systems such as DGNB and BREEAM directly support circularity as a strategic goal at the policy level.”
We also added a paragraph about how these eight certification systems handle climate risk and resilience issues. See below and in Lines 515-531 in the manuscript.
“Buildings should be resilient to the effects of climate change, such as increasing temperatures, intense precipitation, and drought. This is addressed in certification systems under the "sustainable land" "water efficiency" and "innovation" categories. BREEAM, in particular, mandates the use of measures against flooding and extreme weather events. It also requires an assessment of extreme heat and drought risks. It encourages preparedness for natural disasters. DGNB requires climate change-related risk analyses and design decisions appropriate to future climate scenarios. It focuses on resilience when discussing rainwater management and land use. While LEED does not directly offer resilience credits, it supports this concept in various ways: The “sustainable land” category includes criteria such as the heat island effect, and drought resistance through rainwater management and water use assessment. LEED v4.1 is currently conducting resilience-focused trials. Although not directly included in the systems in developing countries, activities such as taking flood risk into account in land selection, flood-preventing drainage systems, and drought-resistant landscaping practices are expected.”
Comment 7:
In the conclusion section, mention what Turkey could learn from the analysis of these rating systems, and if any similar rating systems are being considered currently.
Response 7:
Thank you for this comment. We are familiar with the situation in Turkiye and we agree with the reviewer that the developers of green building certification systems in Turkiye can benefit from the outcomes of the comparisons that we made by considering the eight certification systems, not only by learning from the systems available in advanced countries but also for systems that are being developed in developing countries. We added the following paragraph to “Conclusions and Recommendations” (Lines 775-787).
“LEED and BREEAM are currently the most widely used certification systems in Turkiye. These systems have been in use in Turkiye for many years, still hold market value, and continue to be preferred. During this time, a large pool of professional consultants, assessors, and auditors who are familiar with LEED and BREEAM has been established. These experts meet market demand. On the other hand, YeS-TR is a very new system created only in 2022, but a similar pool of experts that is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the system is not in place yet. Promoting the use of digital platforms to simplify, speed up, and make the certification process more transparent is critical for improving the effectiveness of the existing centralized software system and for the smooth and rapid operation of the certification process. Promoting the use of YeS-TR and training efforts to establish a pool of experts are relatively recent events compared to LEED and BREEAM. Increasing academic research is also encouraged to ensure academic integration.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept
