A Comparison of Building Rating Systems: Leed, Green Star, Breeam. a Proposal to Integrate Biomimicry Into Green Star Rating
A comparison of building rating systems: Leed, Green Star, BREEAM. A proposal to integrate Biomimicry into Green Star Rating
1.Introduction
In the last two decades the western society has gained a greater commitment towards sustainable infrastructure due to the acknowledgment that the sector should not continue to operate “business as usual” in a fashion of neoclassical economics that promotes profit making and the intensive use of natural reserves without internalizing ecological damage.
Furthermore recent improvements in the world’s sustainability agenda have set objectives to promote the diminution of Green House Gas (GHG) releases as an urgent concern. To be able to accomplish this, higher building industry principles have been put into practice in regards to building design and operation to quantify different grades of performance. In this regard, it is important to develop an adequate sustainable building framework in Australia in order to be leveled to international standards.
Additionally, this endeavor attempts to research new strategies for sustainable infrastructure, which are consequential from the Biomimicry principles applicable to building design and building operations. This new discipline must be taken into consideration as it clearly presents innovative solutions for generating a more sustainable architecture in Australia. Biomimicry introduces a new capable resolution to this problematic.
The importance of Biomimicry in the building sector lies on the fact that it is an inspirational fund of valuable new innovation and, consequently, offers a wide range of possibilities to construct a pathway towards a regenerative building industry that co-exist with nature.
2. Objectives
* To identify the constraints that Australian sustainable accreditation visages in developing a sustainable infrastructure by making a comparison to international assessment rating techniques, specially from the United States and the United Kingdom
1.Introduction
In the last two decades the western society has gained a greater commitment towards sustainable infrastructure due to the acknowledgment that the sector should not continue to operate “business as usual” in a fashion of neoclassical economics that promotes profit making and the intensive use of natural reserves without internalizing ecological damage.
Furthermore recent improvements in the world’s sustainability agenda have set objectives to promote the diminution of Green House Gas (GHG) releases as an urgent concern. To be able to accomplish this, higher building industry principles have been put into practice in regards to building design and operation to quantify different grades of performance. In this regard, it is important to develop an adequate sustainable building framework in Australia in order to be leveled to international standards.
Additionally, this endeavor attempts to research new strategies for sustainable infrastructure, which are consequential from the Biomimicry principles applicable to building design and building operations. This new discipline must be taken into consideration as it clearly presents innovative solutions for generating a more sustainable architecture in Australia. Biomimicry introduces a new capable resolution to this problematic.
The importance of Biomimicry in the building sector lies on the fact that it is an inspirational fund of valuable new innovation and, consequently, offers a wide range of possibilities to construct a pathway towards a regenerative building industry that co-exist with nature.
2. Objectives
* To identify the constraints that Australian sustainable accreditation visages in developing a sustainable infrastructure by making a comparison to international assessment rating techniques, specially from the United States and the United Kingdom