A Comparative Analysis of Green Building Certification Systems for Schools

Abstract

The concept of green building has become important, as sustainability issues have been 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 among 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”, which 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.

1. Introduction

Schools are institutions where teaching and learning take place and where teachers and students are located [1,2]. Factors such as visual comfort, indoor air quality, thermal comfort and acoustic comfort are generally accepted to be important in the design of school buildings, as these factors affect teachers’ and students’ health, socialization, psychology, attention and, accordingly, performance and success [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. With the increasing prominence of the concept of “sustainability” in the building construction industry, the importance of sustainable educational facilities has also grown. These schools are known as green schools, eco-schools, and high-performance schools.

Green schools provide health benefits as well as economic, environmental, and pedagogical benefits. According to Gordon [12] and Kelting et al. [13], the health benefits include an environment with clean air, clean water, comfortable amenities for the users of the building; the economic benefits consist of reduced building operating costs; the environmental benefits are defined by the minimal negative impact on the environment of the materials and systems used in the building; and the pedagogical benefits are better learning and better student and teacher performance. In addition, green schools have also created an awareness of the importance of “sustainability” in students [14].

Green schools are products of planning, design, and construction practices that consider the performance of the building throughout its life cycle. The main goal of green schools is to enhance optimum learning with resource efficiency and minimum pollution [12]. It is critical that designers and school administrators, as participants in green school buildings and construction processes, do not ignore the fact that the educational environment contributes to the development of the student and to the health of the staff [15]. According to Huang et al. [16], green schools are schools that consume less energy, less water, fewer resources, and create less waste than traditional schools.

Research on green schools shows that these buildings positively affect students’ physical, psychomotor, cognitive, social, and academic performance. Green schools not only help students learn better, but also help teachers, administrators, and staff work more efficiently because schools are not only learning areas for students, but also working areas for teachers, administrators, and staff [17,18].

A green school can be used as a teaching tool. Students who attend a green school can learn the concept of sustainability by seeing how planning, design and construction work together [12]. According to Day and Midbjer [19], students should learn about green school practices by seeing them and experiencing them. For example, photovoltaic panels should not be hidden; they should be placed in places where students can see them; curtains and shutters should be kept closed in the summer for air conditioning control; ventilation should be kept on in the winter; and the use of shading elements should be demonstrated.

According to Kensler [20], not only is sustainability taught through the curriculum in green schools but, also, green school communities are encouraged to live more sustainably. Research on this subject highlights the importance of school leaders to pursue this endeavor by taking advantage of the sustainable practices used in planning, designing, constructing and operating green schools.

In research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) it was found that students who attend poorly rated schools score 11% lower on standardized tests than students who attend highly rated schools [12]. Tucker and Izadpanahi [21] found that the attitudes relative to environmental issues of children educated in green schools are statistically different from those of children educated in traditional schools. Sustainable design features such as promoting clean energy and renewable energy sources, using natural daylight, teaching children to grow their own food locally in the school garden, and developing children’s relationship with nature should be included in school design so that students learn to use buildings in a way that minimizes resource consumption. In green schools, environmental awareness can be raised, and lifelong learning, leadership, increased motivation, career planning, responsibility and respect attitudes can be developed [22,23].

Buildings are evaluated using green building certification systems to determine whether they satisfy sustainability requirements [24,25]. These systems provide guidelines for managing environmental issues in the design, construction, and operation of green buildings [24,26]. Green building certification systems are critical to achieving sustainability goals [24,27]. 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.

2. Materials and Methods

According to [24], understanding and comparing existing well-established green building certification systems is the best way to create new green building certification systems for special buildings such as hospitals, schools, temples, etc. Although the number of comparative studies has gone up in recent years [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35], research to develop special certification systems for school buildings is still lacking in the literature [24].

In this study, the Web of Science database was searched using the terms “green building certification system”, “green building assessment method” and “green school guidelines”. The studies about comparative analyses were identified using the above-mentioned keywords. A total of 53 papers were found that compared different green building certification systems. Only two of these papers aimed to compare green school certification systems.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Design Tools for Schools, the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), and the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED for Schools were compared, and it was found that the Malaysian Government was encouraged to establish and develop a green school certification system in Malaysia [1]. Kocabas and Bademcioglu [36] compared LEED, CHPS and BREEAM in their study they found that the attitudes of the administrators, the responsibilities of the educators and students, the educational pattern, the location of the school, and material selection play a role in the success of green schools.

It was observed in the literature review that although there are several publications comparing green building certification systems, the number of publications where building certification systems were compared and analyzed relative to green school buildings is quite limited.

According to Meuboudi et al. [37], the literature on green schools from many countries reveals that there are several green school certification systems with their own unique features [37,38]. A recent overview of certification systems for green schools, both locally and nationally, found more than 50 English green school recognition schemes and evaluation frameworks [37,39]. In addition to the different requirements of the institutions responsible for coordinating green school development in various countries, there are also differences in the orientation and focus of green school development [37].

The criteria recommended by international organizations are provided as general guidelines only [37,40]. These criteria cannot be generalized across national circumstances for broad guidance. Some of these criteria may not even be applicable in some countries due to lack of necessary conditions [37,41], the most fundamental of which is caused by the existence of a wide range of socioeconomic and cultural differences. According to Meuboudi et al. [37], countries need to adapt these criteria to their own specific conditions by considering their own socioeconomic and cultural characteristics or removing them from their list of criteria. This information reveals the importance of local conditions for assessing green school buildings.

A literature review was conducted with the keywords “green schools”, “green education buildings”, “green building certification systems”, and “green school certification systems”. Eight green building certification systems were identified that could be used to assess green school buildings. Four of these systems had emerged in advanced countries and are widely used in the world: LEED (USA), BREEAM (UK), DGNB (Germany), and Green Globes (Canada). The remaining four systems include YeS-TR Building (Türkiye), GBI (Malaysia), GRIHA (India), and BEAM PLUS (Hong Kong), which had been established in developing countries and are mostly used locally. None of these eight green building certification systems is a special certification system expressly developed for schools. In some of these green building certification systems, the weights of the criteria differ according to building types. In this study, the criteria in these certification systems were examined from the point of view of their applicability to school projects.

In addition to LEED, BREEAM, DGNB and Green Globes, there are also systems such as HQE, CASBEE, WELL, NABERS, and GREEN STAR that also emerged in advanced countries. The reasons for these systems not being included in the study can be explained as follows:

• HQE (Haute Qualité Environnementale)—France: Not widely used outside France. Also, due to the lack of an English guidebook, it is not included to prevent translation errors.
• CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency)—Japan: It was not included in the study because its scoring system and weight calculations differ from other certification systems, and it is not widely used in school buildings.
• WELL—England: Unlike other certification systems, it focuses on the quality of space, user wellbeing, and quality of life rather than improving environmental quality and regulating resource use. For this reason, and because it is not used as widely as BREEAM, another certification system that also emerged in the UK, WELL was not included in the comparison, but BREEAM was.
• NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) and Green Star- Australia: NABERS offers specialized certificates such as NABERS Energy, NABERS Water, NABERS Waste, etc. However, the NABERS certification system assesses schools only within the scope of “energy” and “water”. In addition, the assessment guidebook of Green Star Australia could not be accessed. For these reasons, these two certification systems were not included in the study.

The certification systems created in developing countries are not widely used worldwide and remain mostly local. In addition to YeS-TR_Building, GBI, GRIHA, and BEAM PLUS, which are examined in this study, there are certification systems such as China Green Building Label and AQUA (Alta Qualidade Ambiental) Brazil. These two certification systems were not included in the study because no guidebooks written in English were available.

A detailed comparative analysis was conducted of these eight green building certification systems for use in assessing green schools. The strengths and weaknesses of each of the eight green building certification systems were determined. Suggestions were made to improve the weaknesses and make these systems more qualified for evaluating school buildings. The YeS-TR Building certification system was established in 2022 by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change of the Republic of Türkiye and building evaluations have begun only recently. According to the 2023–2024 data provided by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Türkiye [42], 17,480,463 students are receiving education in schools in Türkiye, including 1,954,202 pre-school students, 5,644,386 primary school students, 5,160,544 secondary school students (not including open education), and 4,721,331 secondary school students (not including open education). In addition, there are 121,986 pre-school teachers, 308,636 primary school teachers, 378,203 middle school teachers, and 397,990 high school teachers, totaling 1,206,815 teachers in Türkiye [43]. The total number of students and teachers using school buildings for formal education is 18,687,278. In Türkiye, with a population of 85.33 million, this number corresponds to 22% of the total population. This percentage will go up when administrators and staff are considered. Therefore, sustainability goals are of special importance in school buildings that are being regularly used by such a large portion of the population.

The flowchart of the study is summarized in Figure 1.

3. Review of Green Building Certification Systems

Information about the eight green building certification systems considered in the study is shown in

Table 1. Green Building Certification systems.

Certificate	Country/Region	Institution/Organization	Year of Creation	Version
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)	USA	USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council)	1994	Version 2024 V4.1 BD+C (Building Design and Construction)
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)	UK	BRE (Building Research Establishment)	1990	Version 2021 V6.0.0
DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen)	Germany	German Sustainable Building Council	2007	Version 2020 International
Green Globes	Canada	Green Building Initiative	2005	Version 2024 NC (New Construction)
YeS-TR Building	Türkiye	Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change	2022	Version 2024 V1
GBI (Green Building Index)- NRNC (Non-Residential New Construction)	Malaysia	PAM (Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia) and ACEM (Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia)	2009	Version 2011 V1.05
GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment)	India	GRIHA Council and TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute)	2005	Version 2019 V.2019
BEAM Plus (Building Environmental Assessment Method)	Hong Kong/China	BSL (BEAM Society Limited)	2009	Version 2023 New Buildings V2.0

Sources: [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

and the award levels used in these certification systems in

Table 2. Rating systems in Green Building Assessment.

Certificate	Maximum Total Point	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5	Level 6
LEED v4.1 BD+C	110	Platinum 80–110	Gold 60–79	Silver 50–59	Certified 40–49	-	-
BREEAM	100	Outstanding ≥85%	Excellent	100	Outstanding ≥85%	Excellent	100
DGNB	100	Platinum ≥80%	Gold ≥65%	Silver ≥50%	Bronze ≥35% *	-	-
Green Globes	1000	Four Green Globes 85–100%	Three Green Globes 70–84%	Two Green Globes 55–69%	One Green Globe 35–54%	-	-
YeS-TR Building	100 + 10	National superiority 75 or more	Very good 55–74	Good 40–54	Pass 32–39	-	-
GBI	100	Platinum 86–100	Gold 76–85	Silver 66–75	Certified 50–65	-	-
GRIHA	105	5 Stars ≥86	4 stars 71–85	3 stars 56–70	2 stars 41–55	1 star 25–40	-
BEAM Plus	100	Platinum ≥75%	Gold ≥65%	Silver ≥55%	Bronze ≥40%	-	-

Sources: [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. * This award is only for the “pass” certificate or for the certificate “Buildings in operation”.

.

Table 3. Green Building Certification Systems Scores and Percentages.

Building Certification System	Layer 1	Maximum Points	Percentage Weights
LEED v4.1 BD+C	Integrative process	1	0.9%
	Location and transportation	15	13.6%
	Sustainable sites	12	10.9%
	Water efficiency	12	10.9%
	Energy and atmosphere	31	28.2%
	Material and resources	13	11.8%
	Indoor environmental quality	16	14.6%
	Innovation	6	5.5%
	Regional priority	4	3.6%
BREEAM	Management	21	13.2%
	Land use and ecology	10	6.3%
	Transport	13	8.2%
	Water	10	6.3%
	Energy	35	22.0%
	Materials	12	7.5%
	Health and wellbeing	25	15.7%
	Innovation	10	6.3%
	Waste	10	6.3%
	Pollution	13	8.2%
DGNB	Environmental quality	NA	22.6%
	Economic quality	NA	22.5%
	Sociocultural and functional quality	NA	22.5%
	Technical quality	NA	15.1%
	Process quality	NA	12.3%
	Site quality	NA	5%
Green Globes	Project management	100	10%
	Site	150	15%
	Energy	255	25.5%
	Water efficiency	190	19%
	Materials	150	15%
	Indoor environment	155	15.5%
YeS-TR Building	Integrated building design, construction and management	14	14%
	Water and waste management	20	20%
	Energy use and efficiency	30	30%
	Building material and life cycle assessment	16	16%
	Indoor environmental quality	20	20%
	Innovation building	10	Additional Points
GBI	Energy efficiency	35	35%
	Indoor environmental quality	21	21%
	Sustainable site planning and management	16	16%
	Materials and resources	11	11%
	Water efficiency	10	10%
	Innovation	7	7%
GRIHA	Sustainable site planning	12	12%
	Construction management	4	4%
	Energy optimization	18	18%
	Occupant comfort	12	12%
	Water management	16	16%
	Solid waste management	6	6%
	Sustainable building materials	12	12%
	Life cycle costing	5	5%
	Socio-economic strategies	8	8%
	Performance metering and monitoring	7	7%
	Innovation	5	Additional Points
BEAM PLUS	Integrated design and construction management	NA	18%
	Sustainable site	NA	15%
	Materials and waste	NA	9%
	Energy use	NA	29%
	Water use	NA	7%
	Health and wellbeing	NA	22%
	Innovations and additions	NA	Additional Points

Sources: [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. NA: Not Available.

shows the topics in Layer 1, their maximum ratings, and their weights. All the weights add up to 100% for each certification system.

DGNB and BEAM Plus do not have a point system to rate the categories; instead, categories are rated based on their weights. In LEED, BREEAM, Green Globes, YeS-TR Building, GBI and GRIHA systems that evaluate categories in terms of points, the ratings in layer 1 are converted to percentages based on the total rating and entered in the table.

Category weights were plotted using radar graphics for the eight green building certification systems considered in this study, just as it was done by Varma and Palaniappan [52] to show the relative importance of green building systems in their study. The results can be seen in Figure 2. As seen in Figure 2, the energy category is the most important category in all the systems examined. While all these countries share a common carbon reduction target, this situation can also be explained by country-specific factors. For example, in countries like the U.K. and Canada, heating loads in schools are high due to cold climates. According to Mohamed et al. [53], the average annual heating energy consumption of 150 schools studied in the U.K. was more than 200 kWh/m². Furthermore, schools were consuming significantly more heating energy than their target values. According to Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency [54], 52% of the energy use profile of a medium-sized K-12 school is for space heating. Conversely, in tropical countries like Malaysia, cooling loads are high. Tropical climate is likely to negatively affect students’ indoor comfort [55]. This situation increases the need for cooling.

In the U.S. and Hong Kong, buildings consume high energy due to high urbanization. Urban density is related to the intensity of energy use. Dense construction, combined with environmental factors (unpaved/asphalt/concrete surfaces, temperature, vegetation, etc.), drive up energy use [56]. According to Zhang et al. [57], a vicious cycle between increasing cooling demand and urban heat waves has become evident, particularly in the building energy sector. A study conducted in Hong Kong by Zhang et al. [57] suggests that urbanization, high population density, and climatic factors, particularly the “heat island” effect, increase the cooling load on buildings, resulting in increased energy consumption. While India’s energy supply is tight, Türkiye’s energy import dependency makes energy efficiency an economic necessity. According to Erkök and Kütük [58], Türkiye meets approximately 75% of its energy needs through imports. India faces challenges such as meeting the country’s electricity needs and finding suitable resource transition from depleting fossil fuels [59].

It can be argued that indoor environmental quality is also a significant consideration in most systems. This is particularly important for schools. Process quality is a high-weight category in DGNB and management in BREEAM. This situation in European countries is the result of a lifecycle-oriented approach and regulatory-heavy processes. In Europe, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is a report on lifecycle assessment compliance requirements and impacts [60]. EPBD’s LCA/whole-life orientations agree with the lifecycle focus in European green building certification systems.

4. Results and Discussion

The terminologies used in the eight green certification systems are different from each other. For example, while LEED is organized in title/topic, prerequisites, and credit, DGBN is organized in topics, criteria groups, and criteria, and GRIHA uses sections and mandatory criteria. In this study, as seen in

Table 4. Structure of Green Building Certification systems.

Layers	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM PLUS
Layer 1	Title/Topic	Section	Topic	Assessment Area	Module	Item	Section	Section
Layer 2	Prerequisites	Assessment issues	Criteria groups	Sections	Themes	Criteria	Mandatory criteria	Required criteria
Layer 3	Credits	Prerequisite assessment criteria	Criteria	Criteria/Point allocations	Criteria

, comparison and discussion are done layer by layer to avoid the confusion created by the different terms used in the different certification systems. The headings in Layer 1 represent general topics, Layer 2 represents specific topics, and Layer 3 represents the greatest level of detail. The terminology used in the list provided in Table 4 is borrowed from the original documentation provided by each certification system. Organizing the topics in three layers allows for the analysis of the contents of the three certification systems without being entangled in terminology issues. In all certification systems, scoring follows this hierarchy. The sums of the scores in Layer 3 are used in Layer 2, and the sums of the scores in Layer 2 are forwarded to Layer 1. It should be noted that not all topics in Layer 1 have the same weight/importance. A topic in Layer 1 for a given certification system may have a weight that is larger or lower than another topic in Layer 1 for a different certification system.

A close examination of the eight building certification systems indicated that some topics and criteria were addressed at different levels and under different names. Therefore, to make an effective comparison, only the main topics of green building design including energy, water, materials, waste, transportation, and land use were addressed in this study. Considering that the green building production process does not include only the design process, project management processes and interior quality issues were also included in the comparison. Additionally, innovation, which is critical in sustainability, is also covered. These comparisons can be seen in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12. The contents of Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 are discussed in the following subsections.

4.1. Project Management Processes

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 5. Green building certification systems in advanced countries (LEED, BREEAM, DGNB, and Green Globes) focus on common issues such as integrated project management processes, performance monitoring, quality, and commissioning processes. In advanced countries, energy, water, emissions, and environmental standards are well established and legally enforced. Therefore, certification systems have a process-oriented evaluation setup. Developing countries, however, must also focus on environmental issues [61]. They also strive to provide process assessments like those in advanced countries. Green building production is a complex process as it includes specialized design, construction, and management techniques. Therefore, only design management or construction management cannot lead to the effective execution of green building projects. Integrated design/construction should be seriously considered in green certification systems.

Table 5. Comparison of “Project Management Processes”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Integrative process	Management	Process quality Economic quality Sociocultural and functional quality	Project management	Integrated building design, construction and management	Sustainable site planning and management	Construction management Socio-economic strategies Life cycle costing Performance metering and monitoring	Integrated design and construction management
Layer 2	Integrative process	Project brief and design Life cycle cost and service life planning Responsible construction practice Commissioning and handover Aftercare	Process Quality Comprehensive project brief Sustainability aspects in tender phase Documentation for sustainable management Procedure for urban and design planning Construction site/construction process Quality assurance of the construction Systematic commissioning User communication FM-compliant planning Economic Quality Life cycle cost Sociocultural and Functional Quality Safety and security Design for all	Team and owner planning Environmental management during construction Life cycle cost analysis or building service life planning Moisture control analysis Commissioning or system manual and training	Project planning Integrated design Preparation of construction related documents Construction, control, commissioning and acceptance	Construction management	Construction Management Construction management practices Socio-economic Strategies Safety and sanitation for construction workers Universal accessibility Dedicated facilities for service staff Positive social impact Life Cycle Costing Life cycle cost analysis Performance Metering and Monitoring Project commissioning Smart metering and monitoring Operation and maintenance protocol	Sustainability champions—projects Environmental management plan Timber used for temporary work Sustainability champions—design Complimentary certification Integrated design process Life cycle costing Commissioning Sustainability champions—construction Measures to reduce site emissions Construction IAQ management Considerate construction Building management manuals Operator training plus chemical storage and mixing room Digital facility management interface Occupant engagement platform Document management system BIM integration Design for engagement and education on green buildings

Table 5. Comparison of “Project Management Processes”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Integrative process	Management	Process quality Economic quality Sociocultural and functional quality	Project management	Integrated building design, construction and management	Sustainable site planning and management	Construction management Socio-economic strategies Life cycle costing Performance metering and monitoring	Integrated design and construction management
Layer 2	Integrative process	Project brief and design Life cycle cost and service life planning Responsible construction practice Commissioning and handover Aftercare	Process Quality Comprehensive project brief Sustainability aspects in tender phase Documentation for sustainable management Procedure for urban and design planning Construction site/construction process Quality assurance of the construction Systematic commissioning User communication FM-compliant planning Economic Quality Life cycle cost Sociocultural and Functional Quality Safety and security Design for all	Team and owner planning Environmental management during construction Life cycle cost analysis or building service life planning Moisture control analysis Commissioning or system manual and training	Project planning Integrated design Preparation of construction related documents Construction, control, commissioning and acceptance	Construction management	Construction Management Construction management practices Socio-economic Strategies Safety and sanitation for construction workers Universal accessibility Dedicated facilities for service staff Positive social impact Life Cycle Costing Life cycle cost analysis Performance Metering and Monitoring Project commissioning Smart metering and monitoring Operation and maintenance protocol	Sustainability champions—projects Environmental management plan Timber used for temporary work Sustainability champions—design Complimentary certification Integrated design process Life cycle costing Commissioning Sustainability champions—construction Measures to reduce site emissions Construction IAQ management Considerate construction Building management manuals Operator training plus chemical storage and mixing room Digital facility management interface Occupant engagement platform Document management system BIM integration Design for engagement and education on green buildings

The systems with the highest share in this regard are BREEAM, DGNB, YeS-TR and BEAM Plus. YeS-TR focuses on socio-economic strategies and life-cycle costs in Türkiye, while Malaysia’s tropical rainfall and high humidity, coupled with environmental pollution problems, have led to the creation of GBI that is specifically focused on environmental management and emissions. GRIHA stands out in India as a people-centered system that prioritizes worker and community health. Given India’s large working population and social inequalities, prioritizing worker and community health demonstrates its relevance to local conditions. Furthermore, GRIHA goes beyond simply promoting green buildings; it also supports goals such as decent work and economic growth and reduced inequalities, as outlined in the U.N. Development Goals. However, compared to the other systems, GRIHA has the least weight for project management processes (see Table 3). In Hong Kong, BEAM Plus is more user-centric with its digital system management, BIM integration, and user participation platforms. In Hong Kong, where urbanization is intense, the integration of innovative digital tools into BEAM PLUS has been prioritized due to Hong Kong’s advanced technological infrastructure. According to the information in Table 3, BEAM Plus is one of the systems with the greatest weight assigned project management processes alongside BREEAM, DGNB, YeS-TR.

4.2. “Land Selection” and “Transportation/Location” Issues

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 6. All common issues such as site selection, transportation, and heat island mitigation are covered in green certification systems. Detailed transportation, land use, and ecology categories are included in BREEAM. Similarly, the location and transportation category is assessed separately from sustainable sites in LEED. These issues are addressed in a single category in the remaining certification systems. Land selection and transportation/location issues are assigned approximately the same weight in all systems examined except YeS-Tr. In YeS-TR, selection of sustainable land and transportation connections are addressed together. They are assessed with a 10% weight within “integrated building design, construction, and management” which has a 14% weight. Therefore, their weight relative to the overall system is 1.4%. This weight is considerably lower than in other systems. Given the increasing urbanization and rural-to-urban migration in Türkiye, coupled with the resulting increase in traffic and traffic-related emissions, a more detailed assessment of land and transportation is necessary. According to Doğruparmak et al. [62], the number of vehicles in Türkiye increased by 60% between 2010 and 2020. As a result, CO₂ emissions increased by 29.6%, N₂O by 24.2%, and PM by 39.7%. When emissions are examined on a provincial basis, provinces with high urbanization rates are particularly affected by this trend. Land selection and transportation issues should be evaluated separately, and their weight should be increased.

Table 6. Comparison of “Land Selection” and “Transportation/Location”.

Layer	LEED		BREEAM		DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Location and transportation	Sustainable sites	Transport	Land use and ecology	Site quality Technical quality Environmental quality	Site	Integrated building design, construction and management	Sustainable site planning and management	Sustainable site planning Construction management	Sustainable site
Layer 2	LEED for neighborhood development location Sensitive land protection High priority site and equitable development Surrounding density and diverse uses Access to quality transit Bicycle facilities Reduced parking footprint Electric vehicles	Construction activity pollution prevention Environmental site assessment Site assessment Protect or restore habitat Open space Rainwater management Heat island reduction Light pollution reduction Site master plan Joint use of facilities	Public transport accessibility Proximity to amenities Alternative modes of transport Maximum car parking capacity Travel plan	Site selection Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features Enhancing site ecology Long term impact on biodiversity	Site Quality Local environment Influence on the district Transport access Access to amenities Technical Quality Mobility infrastructure Environmental Quality Building life cycle assessment Local environmental impact Sustainable resource extraction Potable water demand and wastewater volume Land use Biodiversity at the site	Development area Transportation Construction impacts Stormwater management Landscaping Light pollution Safety Wildland- urban interface site design	Project planning	Site planning Transportation Design	Sustainable Site Planning Green infrastructure Low impact design strategies Design to mitigate UHIE Construction Management Topsoil preservation	Minimum landscaping requirements Pedestrian-oriented and low carbon transport Neighborhood amenities Building design for sustainable urbanism Neighborhood daylight access Noise control for building equipment Light pollution control Biodiversity enhancement Urban heat island mitigation Immediate neighborhood wind environment Outdoor thermal comfort Stormwater management Design for climate change adaptation
Layer 3							Selection of sustainable land and transportation connections

Table 6. Comparison of “Land Selection” and “Transportation/Location”.

Layer	LEED		BREEAM		DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Location and transportation	Sustainable sites	Transport	Land use and ecology	Site quality Technical quality Environmental quality	Site	Integrated building design, construction and management	Sustainable site planning and management	Sustainable site planning Construction management	Sustainable site
Layer 2	LEED for neighborhood development location Sensitive land protection High priority site and equitable development Surrounding density and diverse uses Access to quality transit Bicycle facilities Reduced parking footprint Electric vehicles	Construction activity pollution prevention Environmental site assessment Site assessment Protect or restore habitat Open space Rainwater management Heat island reduction Light pollution reduction Site master plan Joint use of facilities	Public transport accessibility Proximity to amenities Alternative modes of transport Maximum car parking capacity Travel plan	Site selection Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features Enhancing site ecology Long term impact on biodiversity	Site Quality Local environment Influence on the district Transport access Access to amenities Technical Quality Mobility infrastructure Environmental Quality Building life cycle assessment Local environmental impact Sustainable resource extraction Potable water demand and wastewater volume Land use Biodiversity at the site	Development area Transportation Construction impacts Stormwater management Landscaping Light pollution Safety Wildland- urban interface site design	Project planning	Site planning Transportation Design	Sustainable Site Planning Green infrastructure Low impact design strategies Design to mitigate UHIE Construction Management Topsoil preservation	Minimum landscaping requirements Pedestrian-oriented and low carbon transport Neighborhood amenities Building design for sustainable urbanism Neighborhood daylight access Noise control for building equipment Light pollution control Biodiversity enhancement Urban heat island mitigation Immediate neighborhood wind environment Outdoor thermal comfort Stormwater management Design for climate change adaptation
Layer 3							Selection of sustainable land and transportation connections

Electric school buses, electric vehicle charging stations, and bike paths and parks that encourage cycling will all help reduce carbon emissions. Reducing carbon emissions is a key goal for sustainability. According to Ferrer and Thome [63], reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon emissions, is essential to mitigating the impacts of climate change. It is no coincidence that in India, low carbon emissions are a priority for GRIHA.

BEAM Plus includes topics such as wind environment and noise control in the immediate neighborhood. Installing wind turbines in mountainous areas with wind potential in Hong Kong could technically generate 2630 GWh of electricity, meeting 6% of Hong Kong’s energy needs [64,65].

Installing wind turbines on rooftops could generate 3000 GWh of electricity annually [64,66]. Therefore, including immediate neighborhood wind environments in BEAM Plus’s assessment can be considered an encouraging step toward utilizing this potential.

In the eight systems examined in this study, there is no opportunity to adequately assess open and green spaces that are important for green schools. According to Denan et al. [67], in the green school program, students are expected to connect with nature, but the layout and spatial planning of the school design do not allow much freedom in allocating space for activities such as growing plants, storing and managing recyclable materials, and processing composts. School design needs to provide space for these activities. Paying attention to green areas and garden arrangements contributes to the education of the students, especially in pre-schools [68,69].

The fact that proximity of schools to public transport connections and amenities is included in all eight systems examined in this study is commendable. Long distances between schools and public transportation links reduce students’ and school staff’s accessibility to transportation. According to Moreno-Monroy [70], reduced accessibility to transportation can lead to inequality in education.

4.3. Energy Issues

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 7. Issues such as energy efficiency, carbon emission reduction, and energy consumption, monitoring, and reporting are addressed in all the eight green building certification systems considered in this study. The general approach is to view energy as a fundamental issue for building sustainability. The weights of the categories presented in Table 2 support this approach. Energy is assigned a large weight in all the systems examined in this study. GBI’s energy category has the largest weight among them. According to Shaikh [71], buildings in Malaysia consume 14.3% of total energy, while residential and commercial sectors consume 53% of electricity. Malaysia is dependent on fossil fuels for energy, resulting in CO₂ emissions. However, simply consuming less energy or meeting energy needs from sustainable sources does not necessarily mean that the building is green.

Table 7. Comparison of “Energy”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Energy and atmosphere	Energy	Technical quality Process quality	Energy	Energy use and efficiency	Energy efficiency	Energy optimization	Energy use
Layer 2	Fundamental commissioning and verification Minimum energy performance Building-level energy metering Fundamental refrigerant management Enhanced commissioning Optimize energy performance Advanced energy metering Grid harmonization Renewable energy Enhanced refrigerant management	Reduction in energy use and carbon emission Energy monitoring Energy monitoring External lighting Low carbon design Energy efficient cold storage Energy efficient transport systems Energy efficient laboratory system Energy efficient equipment Drying space Flexible demand side response	Technical Quality Quality of the building envelope Use and integration of building technology Process Quality Systematic commissioning FM (facility management)- compliant planning	Energy performance Non-modeled energy efficiency impacts Metering, monitoring and measurement Renewable sources of energy	Building energy performance Renewable energy technologies	Design Commissioning Verification and Maintenance	Energy optimization Renewable energy utilization Low ODP and GWP materials	Minimum energy performance Low carbon passive design Reduction in C02 emissions Peak electricity demand reduction Metering and monitoring Renewable and alternative energy systems Air-conditioning units Clothes drying Facilities Energy efficient appliances
Layer 3					Increasing weighted energy performance Study on renewable energy systems Renewable energy use	Minimum EE Performance Lighting zoning Electrical sub-metering Renewable energy Advanced EE performance—BEI Enhanced commissioning Post occupancy commissioning EE verification Sustainable maintenance

Table 7. Comparison of “Energy”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Energy and atmosphere	Energy	Technical quality Process quality	Energy	Energy use and efficiency	Energy efficiency	Energy optimization	Energy use
Layer 2	Fundamental commissioning and verification Minimum energy performance Building-level energy metering Fundamental refrigerant management Enhanced commissioning Optimize energy performance Advanced energy metering Grid harmonization Renewable energy Enhanced refrigerant management	Reduction in energy use and carbon emission Energy monitoring Energy monitoring External lighting Low carbon design Energy efficient cold storage Energy efficient transport systems Energy efficient laboratory system Energy efficient equipment Drying space Flexible demand side response	Technical Quality Quality of the building envelope Use and integration of building technology Process Quality Systematic commissioning FM (facility management)- compliant planning	Energy performance Non-modeled energy efficiency impacts Metering, monitoring and measurement Renewable sources of energy	Building energy performance Renewable energy technologies	Design Commissioning Verification and Maintenance	Energy optimization Renewable energy utilization Low ODP and GWP materials	Minimum energy performance Low carbon passive design Reduction in C02 emissions Peak electricity demand reduction Metering and monitoring Renewable and alternative energy systems Air-conditioning units Clothes drying Facilities Energy efficient appliances
Layer 3					Increasing weighted energy performance Study on renewable energy systems Renewable energy use	Minimum EE Performance Lighting zoning Electrical sub-metering Renewable energy Advanced EE performance—BEI Enhanced commissioning Post occupancy commissioning EE verification Sustainable maintenance

The increased emphasis on energy issues in certification systems leads to a reduction in the importance given to other categories. However, green buildings are not only buildings that consume fewer resources and energy; they also pollute less, are healthier, and aim to maximize user comfort. In green schools, indoor environmental quality is an evaluation criterion at least as important as energy.

According to Amiri [72], opinions regarding LEED certification as an indicator of energy efficiency are controversial. Accordingly, one of the main challenges in evaluating LEED certification is the difference between on-site energy use and source energy use. In developing countries, the energy source is typically under the control of governments or municipal councils and is dependent on local, regional, or national energy policy and decision-making processes. In some advanced countries, it is possible to choose the type of purchased energy, allowing users to evaluate energy efficiency based on energy source, whereas in developing countries, this is not possible. Additionally, according to Amiri [72], while LEED certification has been shown to reduce energy consumption, particularly for buildings with higher certification levels such as Gold or Platinum, the energy consumption of buildings with the lowest certification level (Certified) appears to be nearly identical to non-certified buildings. However, it should be noted that this review is limited to the U.S.

Saving energy is a priority across all certification systems. However, simply designing energy-saving practices does not mean that buildings are energy efficient. Energy-efficient design practices reduce operating costs, which translates to life-cycle savings if the planned energy-efficient practices are managed diligently during the construction and operation of a building [73].

4.4. Indoor Environmental Quality

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 8. In GBI, issues such as humidity, odor control, and biological contaminants stemming from Malaysia’s tropical climate are prioritized. GBI was specifically developed considering Malaysia’s tropical climate, environmental and developmental context, and cultural and social needs [49]. Humidity contributes to the growth of mold and other biological contaminants, and therefore, controlling indoor air quality is critical in tropical regions [74]. According to Samad et al. [75], students in Malaysian schools cannot achieve the recommended comfort levels for tropical climates, with air temperatures ranging from 28 °C to 34.5 °C. GBI’s indoor air quality requirements are vital for efficient teaching/learning activities and the comfort of students and staff in schools. Therefore, indoor air quality should be prioritized in these systems to mitigate the impact of outdoor environmental conditions. For the same reasons, indoor air quality should receive a special consideration in GRIHA for use in the tropical regions of India. However, the system with the least weight assigned to indoor environmental quality and user comfort in developing countries is GRIHA.

Table 8. Comparison of “Indoor Environmental Quality”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Indoor environmental quality	Health and wellbeing	Sociocultural and functional quality Technical quality	Indoor environment	Indoor environmental quality	Indoor environmental quality	Occupant comfort	Health and wellbeing
Layer 2	Minimum indoor air quality performance Environmental tobacco smoke control Minimum acoustic performance Enhanced indoor air quality strategies Low-emitting materials Construction indoor air quality management plan Indoor air quality assessment Thermal comfort Interior lighting Daylight Quality views Acoustic performance	Visual comfort Indoor air quality Safe containment in laboratories Thermal comfort Acoustic performance Accessibility Hazards Water quality	Sociocultural and Functional Quality Thermal comfort Indoor air quality Acoustic comfort Visual comfort User control Quality of indoor and outdoor spaces Technical Quality Fire safety Sound insulation	Air ventilation and quality Source control and measurement of indoor pollutants Lighting design and systems Thermal comfort Acoustic privacy and comfort	Visual comfort Acoustic comfort Thermal comfort Air quality	Air quality Thermal comfort Lighting, visual and acoustic comfort Verification	Visual comfort Thermal and acoustic comfort Indoor air quality	Minimum ventilation performance Healthy and active living Biophilic design Inclusive design Enhanced ventilation Waste odor control Acoustics and noise Indoor vibration Indoor air quality Thermal comfort Artificial lighting Daylight Biological contamination

Table 8. Comparison of “Indoor Environmental Quality”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Indoor environmental quality	Health and wellbeing	Sociocultural and functional quality Technical quality	Indoor environment	Indoor environmental quality	Indoor environmental quality	Occupant comfort	Health and wellbeing
Layer 2	Minimum indoor air quality performance Environmental tobacco smoke control Minimum acoustic performance Enhanced indoor air quality strategies Low-emitting materials Construction indoor air quality management plan Indoor air quality assessment Thermal comfort Interior lighting Daylight Quality views Acoustic performance	Visual comfort Indoor air quality Safe containment in laboratories Thermal comfort Acoustic performance Accessibility Hazards Water quality	Sociocultural and Functional Quality Thermal comfort Indoor air quality Acoustic comfort Visual comfort User control Quality of indoor and outdoor spaces Technical Quality Fire safety Sound insulation	Air ventilation and quality Source control and measurement of indoor pollutants Lighting design and systems Thermal comfort Acoustic privacy and comfort	Visual comfort Acoustic comfort Thermal comfort Air quality	Air quality Thermal comfort Lighting, visual and acoustic comfort Verification	Visual comfort Thermal and acoustic comfort Indoor air quality	Minimum ventilation performance Healthy and active living Biophilic design Inclusive design Enhanced ventilation Waste odor control Acoustics and noise Indoor vibration Indoor air quality Thermal comfort Artificial lighting Daylight Biological contamination

In the certification systems used in the other three developing countries, indoor air quality is assigned larger weights similar to those in advanced countries. Table 3 and Figure 2 support this approach.

BEAM Plus is a system developed in Hong Kong, a dense urban environment, and therefore focuses on local issues such as noise pollution and air pollution. LEED and BREEAM, on the other hand, have been developed in advanced countries over many years. Their focus is on technical performance honed by several revisions. DGNB emphasizes social quality and user experience, whereas in Green Globes and YeS-TR, indoor air quality is assessed using criteria commonly used across all the other systems.

Because the eight systems considered in the study were not specifically designed for schools, insufficient attention was paid to indoor environmental quality. Schools are not only about user comfort but also about ensuring the health of future generations. Healthy school interiors reduce illness, increase attendance, and contribute to the quality of teaching. For example, according to [36], good indoor air quality can prevent building users from developing asthma or allergy-related diseases. According to Kocabas and Bademcioglu [13], there is sufficient and convincing evidence that schools built to indoor environmental quality standards result in healthier and more productive students and teachers because thermal comfort, indoor air quality, acoustics, and lighting are factors that directly affect learning.

4.5. Water Issues

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 9. In systems like GRIHA, BEAM Plus, and GBI that were developed in developing countries, the assessment of water issues prioritizes cyclical water management, such as rainwater harvesting, reuse, and self-sufficiency, while DGNB focuses on water-intensive technologies (cooling towers, boilers, etc.) in Germany. These choices are directly related to the respective country’s level of development. However, even though India, Malaysia, and Türkiye are regions experiencing water scarcity, in GBI, Malaysia’s certification system, water issues have the second lowest weight among all issues, after innovation. Increasing the importance of water issues in GBI by assigning a higher weight to it would be a good step toward preventing the water poverty the country faces. Keeping the weight of water issues low can undermine true sustainability goals, especially during periods of water stress [76]. Water issues have the least weight in BEAM Plus even though Hong Kong experiences rainy summers but quite dry winters. It would be incorrect to assume that Hong Kong should not experience water scarcity due to the rainy season. During periods of abundant rainfall, water surpluses can occur, while during periods of low rainfall, water shortages can occur. Considering this imbalance, further water studies should be conducted to improve BEAM Plus. In addition to measures aimed at reducing water consumption, criteria such as prevention of water loss and leakage, water management and measurement were found to be common in all the eight green building certification systems examined in this study.

Table 9. Comparison of “Water”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Water efficiency	Water	Environmental quality	Water efficiency	Water and waste management	Water efficiency	Water management	Water use
Layer 2	Outdoor water use reduction Indoor water use reduction Building-level water metering Outdoor water use reduction Indoor water use reduction Optimize process water use Water metering	Water consumption Water monitoring Water leak detection and prevention Water efficient equipment	Potable water demand and wastewater volume	Water consumption Cooling towers Boilers and water heaters Water intensive applications Water treatment Alternate sources of water Metering Leak detection Irrigation	Water management	Water harvesting and recycling Increased efficiency	Water demand reduction Wastewater treatment Rainwater management Water quality and self sufficiency	Minimum water saving performance Annual water use Water efficient irrigation Water efficient appliances Water leakage detection Twin tank system Cooling tower water Effluent discharge to foul sewers Water harvesting and recycling
Layer 3					Selection of appropriate fixtures and fittings for efficient and effective use of water Prevention of losses and leakages in water distribution/taking necessary measures Monitoring and recording water use with meters Control of water quality Rainwater collection, treatment and utilization Wastewater reuse (Gray water)	Rainwater harvesting Water recycling Water efficient- irrigation/landscaping Water efficient fittings Metering and leak detection system

Table 9. Comparison of “Water”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Water efficiency	Water	Environmental quality	Water efficiency	Water and waste management	Water efficiency	Water management	Water use
Layer 2	Outdoor water use reduction Indoor water use reduction Building-level water metering Outdoor water use reduction Indoor water use reduction Optimize process water use Water metering	Water consumption Water monitoring Water leak detection and prevention Water efficient equipment	Potable water demand and wastewater volume	Water consumption Cooling towers Boilers and water heaters Water intensive applications Water treatment Alternate sources of water Metering Leak detection Irrigation	Water management	Water harvesting and recycling Increased efficiency	Water demand reduction Wastewater treatment Rainwater management Water quality and self sufficiency	Minimum water saving performance Annual water use Water efficient irrigation Water efficient appliances Water leakage detection Twin tank system Cooling tower water Effluent discharge to foul sewers Water harvesting and recycling
Layer 3					Selection of appropriate fixtures and fittings for efficient and effective use of water Prevention of losses and leakages in water distribution/taking necessary measures Monitoring and recording water use with meters Control of water quality Rainwater collection, treatment and utilization Wastewater reuse (Gray water)	Rainwater harvesting Water recycling Water efficient- irrigation/landscaping Water efficient fittings Metering and leak detection system

The water efficiency issues considered in these certification systems are used throughout the life of the building. When viewed in the context of green schools, practices that support reduction in water consumption are in place throughout the school’s use. Educating students on water efficiency, organizing workshops to encourage reduced consumption, and supporting these activities within the curriculum can be key for green schools. In green schools, which also contribute to the formation of sustainability awareness at an early age, students should be considered as stakeholders in the process during the school’s post-construction phase. Priyana et al. [77] argue that green schools can use the schoolyard as a learning resource for water management activities. Making the schoolyard suitable for this purpose can be addressed under the land/location/transportation categories, which also support water efficiency and water awareness.

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.

4.6. Waste Issues

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 10. The amount of construction waste is significant in both advanced and developing economies. Disposal of these wastes causes environmental pollution such as soil pollution, water pollution, and air pollution [78]. Waste reduction and separation at the source are common across all the eight systems examined in this study. While LEED, BREEAM, and BEAM Plus focus on construction and demolition waste and GRIHA addresses organic waste and composting, DGNB and GBI assess adaptation and dismantling. DGNB prioritizes economic quality and adaptability. Based in Germany, this system prioritizes long-lasting buildings in terms of cost and sustainability. The certification systems in the two remaining advanced countries, BREEAM and Green Globes, pay attention to pollution control.

Waste and waste management are topics addressed in all certification systems. Solid waste management, which has a weight of 6% in GRIHA, is noteworthy. This rate indicates a higher priority than construction management and innovation, as seen in Table 3. According to Ponnada and Kameswari [79], the construction industry in India generates approximately 10–12 million tons of waste annually. GRIHA’s assessment of this value demonstrates both consideration of regional climatic conditions and the implementation of action to address them.

While advanced countries have technologies such as waste monitoring, emission measurement, and advanced recycling facilities, developing countries focus on more realistic goals such as basic waste management plans and separation. This is caused by the lack of financial resources, inadequate infrastructure, logistical challenges, and lack of oversight in developing countries. A common problem for developing countries in Asia and Africa is their large populations and insufficient resources including electricity [80,81]. Converting waste into various energy and products contributes to the circular economy, offering hope for Asian and African countries in need [81,82]. Thus, it also creates an advantage in terms of economic sustainability.

According to Yan and Waluyo [83], when selecting an appropriate incineration method for waste in developing countries, local conditions should be fully considered, including the availability and skills of the local workforce to ensure proper maintenance and operation of a facility and the diligence of facility owners and managers to improve facilities when new technologies emerge. Yan and Waluyo [83] predict that technology costs will go down significantly after the development of indigenous technologies. However, socioeconomic and cultural factors are likely to constrain this localization. According to Zhang et al. [81], the barriers to effective waste management are socioeconomic factors such as awareness, education, and infrastructure accessibility, as well as cultural factors such as waste composition and habits. Overcoming these barriers requires technological advances, resource recovery methods, circular economy measures, and active public participation. According to Ferronato and Torretta [84], mismanagement of solid waste, especially in developing countries, leads to significant environmental impacts.

The green certification systems examined in this study do not offer an assessment of raising awareness and consciousness about waste. However, schools are institutions that can help foster this awareness and consciousness. Therefore, green school certifications must include criteria that encourage efficient waste management.

Table 10. Comparison of “Waste”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM		DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Materials and resources	Waste	Pollution	Economic quality	Materials	Water and waste management	Materials and resources	Solid waste management Construction management	Materials and waste IDCM
Layer 2	Storage and collection of recyclables Construction and demolition waste management	Construction waste management Recycled aggregates Operational waste Adaptation to climate change Functional adaptability	Impact of refrigerants NOx emissions Surface water run-off Reduction in nighttime light pollution Reduction in noise pollution	Flexibility and adaptability Commercial viability	Waste	Waste management	Waste management	Solid Waste Management Waste management –post occupancy Organic waste treatment Construction Management Air and soil pollution control	Materials and Waste Minimum waste-handling facilities Adaptability and deconstruction Enhanced waste handling facilities IDCM Construction and demolition Waste recycling
Layer 3					Construction Waste Post Occupancy Solid Waste Recycling Supply Chain Waste Minimization	Preparation of waste management plan On-site sorting of waste, collection in appropriate locations and volumes Reducing the volume of waste to be diverted by promoting and ensuring the reuse of separated waste Recovery/recycling of biodegradable waste by composting, energy recovery Separate collection and reuse of demolition waste	Storage and collection of recyclables Construction waste management

Table 10. Comparison of “Waste”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM		DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Materials and resources	Waste	Pollution	Economic quality	Materials	Water and waste management	Materials and resources	Solid waste management Construction management	Materials and waste IDCM
Layer 2	Storage and collection of recyclables Construction and demolition waste management	Construction waste management Recycled aggregates Operational waste Adaptation to climate change Functional adaptability	Impact of refrigerants NOx emissions Surface water run-off Reduction in nighttime light pollution Reduction in noise pollution	Flexibility and adaptability Commercial viability	Waste	Waste management	Waste management	Solid Waste Management Waste management –post occupancy Organic waste treatment Construction Management Air and soil pollution control	Materials and Waste Minimum waste-handling facilities Adaptability and deconstruction Enhanced waste handling facilities IDCM Construction and demolition Waste recycling
Layer 3					Construction Waste Post Occupancy Solid Waste Recycling Supply Chain Waste Minimization	Preparation of waste management plan On-site sorting of waste, collection in appropriate locations and volumes Reducing the volume of waste to be diverted by promoting and ensuring the reuse of separated waste Recovery/recycling of biodegradable waste by composting, energy recovery Separate collection and reuse of demolition waste	Storage and collection of recyclables Construction waste management

4.7. Materials

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 11. While local materials and regional sourcing are prominent in YeS-TR, GBI, and BEAM Plus, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are prominently mentioned in the LEED, BREEAM, and GBI systems. EPDs can be used as a marketing advantage by manufacturers. In the U.S. and the U.K. where LEED and BREEAM, respectively, originated, issuing an EPD is not very difficult for material manufacturers because mature life cycle assessment and related standards, data calculation systems, and ample expertise are available in these countries. In developing countries, the number of manufacturers issuing EPDs is lower. According to Jaleel et al. [85], this is caused by the weakness of sustainable strategies and the insufficient attention paid to environmental assessments in developing countries.

The limited number of products holding EPDs has led to the extensive use of local/regional materials and resources in green certification systems developed in developing countries. The inclusion of EPD-certified products in green certification systems could lead to increased interest in EPDs. It could help raise awareness of sustainability goals in the construction industry. Green building certifications in the E.U. and the U.S. align with key policy objectives such as a circular economy, carbon accounting, and EPD compliance. In countries like Türkiye, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, economic policies and infrastructure development goals that encourage local production are more prevalent. Furthermore, issues such as modular design and durability are prioritized in DGNB and YeS-TR. DGNB’s emphasis on quality stems from Germany’s lifecycle cost approach.

In the systems examined, the weights of materials issues were found to be very similar to those of water issues. This can be explained by the fact that water and materials issues are resource-based. Each system maintains similar resource management measures, valuing water and materials at similar levels of importance.

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.

Table 11. Comparison of “Material”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Material and resources	Materials	Technical quality	Materials	Building material and life cycle assessment	Material and resources	Sustainable building materials	Materials and waste
Layer 2	Building life-cycle impact reduction Environmental product declarations Sourcing of raw materials Material ingredients	Life cycle impacts Hard landscaping and boundary protection Responsible sourcing of construction products Insulation Designing for durability and resilience Material efficiency	Ease of cleaning building components Ease of recovery and recycling Emissions control	Whole building life cycle assessment Product life cycle Product risk assessment Sustainable materials attributes Reuse of existing structures and materials Resource conservation	Building material life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental product declaration (EPD) Product declaration (PPD) Radiation release Responsible sourcing Local sourcing Use of reused, reclaimed or recyclable materials Use of durable materials	Reused recycled materials Sustainable resources Green products	Utilization of alternative materials in building Reduction in global warming potential through life cycle assessment Alternative materials for external site development	Building re-use Modular and standardized design Prefabrication Design for durability and resilience Sustainable forest products Recycled materials Ozone depleting substances Regional materials Use of green products Life cycle assessment
Layer 3					Selecting the material with a low environmental impact value in the environmental product declaration (EPD) Material volatile organic compound (VOC) emission level Material content Submission of radiation certificate Responsible sourcing Local sourcing Use of salvaged materials Use of detachable, attachable finished prefabricated products Use of products with recycled content Planning the process of removing the material from the building after the building has completed its life cycle	Materials reuse and selection Recycled content materials Regional materials Sustainable timber Refrigerants and clean agents

Table 11. Comparison of “Material”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Material and resources	Materials	Technical quality	Materials	Building material and life cycle assessment	Material and resources	Sustainable building materials	Materials and waste
Layer 2	Building life-cycle impact reduction Environmental product declarations Sourcing of raw materials Material ingredients	Life cycle impacts Hard landscaping and boundary protection Responsible sourcing of construction products Insulation Designing for durability and resilience Material efficiency	Ease of cleaning building components Ease of recovery and recycling Emissions control	Whole building life cycle assessment Product life cycle Product risk assessment Sustainable materials attributes Reuse of existing structures and materials Resource conservation	Building material life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental product declaration (EPD) Product declaration (PPD) Radiation release Responsible sourcing Local sourcing Use of reused, reclaimed or recyclable materials Use of durable materials	Reused recycled materials Sustainable resources Green products	Utilization of alternative materials in building Reduction in global warming potential through life cycle assessment Alternative materials for external site development	Building re-use Modular and standardized design Prefabrication Design for durability and resilience Sustainable forest products Recycled materials Ozone depleting substances Regional materials Use of green products Life cycle assessment
Layer 3					Selecting the material with a low environmental impact value in the environmental product declaration (EPD) Material volatile organic compound (VOC) emission level Material content Submission of radiation certificate Responsible sourcing Local sourcing Use of salvaged materials Use of detachable, attachable finished prefabricated products Use of products with recycled content Planning the process of removing the material from the building after the building has completed its life cycle	Materials reuse and selection Recycled content materials Regional materials Sustainable timber Refrigerants and clean agents

4.8. Innovation

This section includes a comparison of the data in Table 12. Developed markets are more willing to test and reward innovative technologies. In developing countries, the cost-effectiveness/reusability of implementation is often the primary driver of innovation. The awarding of innovation credits requires verification mechanisms, which require expertise, testing, and a monitoring infrastructure. This infrastructure is stronger in advanced countries.

In LEED, a school can earn credit toward certification in the “Innovation in Design” category by integrating the sustainable features of a school facility into the school’s educational mission. The “Innovation in Design” category in LEED requires the school to design a curriculum based on the building’s high-performance features and commit to implementing the curriculum within ten months of achieving LEED certification. Beyond simply describing the school’s sustainable features, the curriculum must explore the relationship between human ecology, natural ecology, and the building; meet local or state curriculum standards; be approved by school administrators; and provide ten or more hours of classroom instruction per full-time student per year [12]. USGBC also recommends that project teams coordinate closely with school administrators and faculty whenever possible to foster ongoing relationships between the high-performance features of the school and the students. Such ongoing interaction between the school and sustainability professionals enhances the development of an educational program that integrates the school building with the ongoing curriculum in the school [12]. It does not provide an assessment of green school education outside of the innovation category.

When the eight green building certification systems were examined, it was seen that the first aim was for schools to cause less damage to the environment and consume less resources. However, issues such as student and teacher health and efficiency, using schools as tools to teach sustainability, and organizing curricula to include sustainability are not mentioned in any of these green building certification systems with the exception of LEED. The main reason for this deficiency is that green building certification systems have not been developed specifically for green schools.

Also, Meuboudi et al. [86] proposed criteria for a green school certification system to be developed in Iran. In addition to the commonly used criteria in other building certification systems, Meuboudi et al. [86] proposed two new categories that are specifically related to educational facilities, namely “education” and “participation”.

Table 12. Comparison of “Innovation”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Innovation	Innovation	-	-	Innovation (Building)	Innovation	Innovation	Innovations and additions
Layer 2	Innovation LEED accredited professional	Innovation			Engineering and design solutions that improve quality of life Improved monitoring and evaluation system	Innovation in design and environmental design initiatives Green building index accredited facilitator	Innovation	Innovations and additions
Layer 3					Innovation- providing applications that are not included in the existing certification requirements but have innovative value in green building certification Improvement- providing improvements that increase the quality of life of building users with innovative applications to be developed Monitoring—the project includes innovative solutions for monitoring, measuring and evaluating water, heat and energy sustainability

Table 12. Comparison of “Innovation”.

Layer	LEED	BREEAM	DGNB	Green Globes	YeS-TR Building	GBI	GRIHA	BEAM Plus
Layer 1	Innovation	Innovation	-	-	Innovation (Building)	Innovation	Innovation	Innovations and additions
Layer 2	Innovation LEED accredited professional	Innovation			Engineering and design solutions that improve quality of life Improved monitoring and evaluation system	Innovation in design and environmental design initiatives Green building index accredited facilitator	Innovation	Innovations and additions
Layer 3					Innovation- providing applications that are not included in the existing certification requirements but have innovative value in green building certification Improvement- providing improvements that increase the quality of life of building users with innovative applications to be developed Monitoring—the project includes innovative solutions for monitoring, measuring and evaluating water, heat and energy sustainability

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The objective of this study was to identify and discuss the similarities and differences between the eight green building certification systems considered in the study. The adequacy of these eight certification systems was questioned in the context of green schools. The eight certification systems are not green school certification systems but, rather, building certification systems that have been amended to assess green schools. It is noteworthy that the amendments do not include some sustainability criteria of particular importance for schools, such as student sustainability awareness, student and teacher health and effectiveness, the design of spaces that foster interaction with nature, and the use of sustainable systems in a way that students can see. Below are the outcomes and implications of the study:

• An important outcome of the study is the realization that stand-alone green certification systems should be developed specifically for schools. Another outcome involves the importance of developing green certification systems that are suitable for local conditions. It is important to establish national green certification systems specifically designed for schools by considering local social, economic, and cultural conditions. Prioritizing the local conditions allows for the design and construction of regionally sustainable buildings because green buildings are location-specific. In developing countries, green building certification systems are designed to be appropriate for a country’s geographic and climatic conditions, as well as its level of technological and socioeconomic development. Systems developed in advanced countries tend to be internationally applicable rather than specialized in their specific geography. According to Mao et al. [87], regional differences and applicability are important considerations. Different conditions in different regions may require adjusting the weights of the assessment criteria. However, this can lead to inconsistencies in assessment results [87]. Despite these challenges, popular systems such as LEED and BREEAM continue to be preferred due to their rigor and proven credentials, as new certification systems have not gained traction in different regions [88].
• Conducting generic assessments rather than considering local conditions has led to criticism that green building certification systems should not merely be environmental tools but also market-driven. To avoid this criticism, some of these systems have mandatory criteria. According to Doan et al. [89], mandatory criteria in rating systems strive to achieve minimum sustainability beyond simply accumulating points. 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 Türkiye. Schools, on the other hand, are buildings constructed mostly with public funds in Türkiye as part of a government strategy about national education. Government agencies naturally prefer their own national certification system.
• An important outcome of the study reveals the similarities and differences between the certification systems in advanced and developing countries. Four of the certification systems considered in this study were developed in advanced countries (the US, the UK, Germany, and Canada) and the remaining four originated in developing countries (Türkiye, Malaysia, India and Hong Kong). A comparison between certification systems originating in developing and advanced countries showed that there are no significant differences at Layer 1, but differences emerge at Layers 2 and 3. It was observed that the importance of Layer 1 in these certification systems vary depending on the weights of the categories included in Layer 1.
• Another outcome of the comparison between green school assessments in advanced vs. developing countries is the realization that the concept of “green school” is not as conspicuous in developing countries as it is in advanced countries. In developing countries, green schools are seen as buildings that only conserve energy, minimize the use of water and materials, and maximize indoor environmental quality. However, green schools function as one of the most important types of buildings for socio-cultural sustainability. Indeed, in advanced countries, assessments are made by considering not only environmental sustainability but also socio-economic sustainability.
• Regardless of where they are located, schools need to provide spaces that allow students to connect with nature. Therefore, green certification systems should include criteria that enable this. It is seen that there are no criteria on this subject in the green building certification systems examined in this study. Unlike other types of buildings, the existence of these criteria in the design and construction of green schools is important for students who need to learn about sustainability by applying it. It would therefore be useful for green school certification systems to include such criteria.
• Reasons such as the need for expertise in green construction processes, the use of innovative methods, and the inclusion of certification systems in the project process increase the complexity of green building project management. Therefore, adopting an integrated project management approach that covers not only the design but also the construction and the operation of schools is critical for the successful management and completion of green school projects. Including integrated project management in all green certification systems designed for schools can improve the process of designing, constructing and operating schools.
• With the strong population growth in Türkiye, the demand for schools is increasing. While there were 59,509 K to 12 schools in Türkiye in the 2014–2015 academic year, this number increased to 74,040 in the 2024–2025 academic year, indicating a rate of growth of 24.4% in the last 10 years [90]. Considering this situation, the criterion “land selection and proximity to transportation connections” is considered in YeS-TR and is used to select lands with the highest level of suitability supported by different modes of transportation including transportation by bicycle. However, issues such as preserving and increasing biodiversity in sustainable lands and reusing brownfields should also be addressed. Furthermore, reducing the heat island effect on sustainable lands must be considered. The heat island effect is assessed in the innovation category of Yes-TR. Accordingly, solutions that reduce the heat island effect are expected in engineering and design solutions that improve the quality of life.
• In Türkiye, 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 Türkiye’s climate zones and spatial planning strategies, ensuring adaptation to local conditions while maintaining national standardization.
• LEED and BREEAM are currently the most widely used certification systems in Türkiye. These systems have been in use in Türkiye for many years, still hold market value, and continue to be preferred. During this time, a large pool of professional consultants, assessors, and auditors 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.
• 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.

As can be seen in the preceding bullet points, the outcomes of the study provide guiding suggestions to the developers of green certification systems designed for schools to replace the slightly amended generic green certification systems developed for buildings in general. The outcomes reveal that not only do the developers of certification systems for schools in developing countries have to learn from the developers in advanced countries, but also vice versa. The mutual learning process could improve all certification systems regardless of their country of origin. It should nevertheless be noted that one outcome is strikingly dominant in this study and that is that school buildings deserve certification systems that apply to only school buildings.

The study has two minor limitations, one of which involves the consideration of only eight green building certification systems to assess school projects. Considering additional green certification systems could be explored in the future. The second limitation is that no input was sought from teachers, administrators and students. This limitation can be remedied in future work to make sure green management systems are developed for schools by considering the expectations of all stakeholders.